::1:: APHC010466292026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7799 OF 2026 Between: 1. Nirmala Suresh, S/o Nirmala Pullarao,Aged about 41 years, R/o.D.No.2-20/2,Near ZPH School, Narayanapuram Village,Aswaraopeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. 2. Nirmala Pullarao, S/o Late Satyanarayana,Aged about 65 years, R/o.D.No.2-20/2,Near ZPH School, Narayanapuram Village,Aswaraopeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. 3. Nirmala Suramma, W/o Nirmala Pullarao,Aged about 58 years, R/o.D.No.2-20/2,Near ZPH School, Narayanapuram Village,Aswaraopeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. 4. Ankatha Sujatha, W/o Nagaraju,Aged about 40 years, Occ Teacher, R/o.D.No.1-120/A,Vemula Nageswara Rao Street, Aswaraopeta Village Mandal,Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. ::2:: 5. Nirmala Sunitha Alias Seshapalli Sunitha, W/o Nirmala Mallikarjuna Rao, Aged about 34 years,R/o.D.No.2-20/2, Near ZPH School, Narayanapuram Village,Aswaraopeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. 6. Nirmala Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Satyanarayana,Aged about 59 years, R/o.D.No.2-20/3,Near ZPH School, Narayanapuram Village,Aswaraopeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. 7. Nirmala Kanthamma, W/o Nirmala Mallikarjuna Rao,Aged about 55 years, R/o.D.No.2-20/3,Near ZPH School, Narayanapuram Village,Aswaraopeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana. 8. Nirmala Suribabu, S/o Satyanarayana,Aged about 50 years, Occ Govt. Employee,R/o.D.No. 15-09-666/402, Kaviraj Nagar,Near Newvision School, KhanpuramHaveli Urban, Khammam District, Telangana. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public ProsecutorHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Nirmala Veenila, , W/o.Suresh,aged 35years, Housewife, R/o.D.No.3-74,0pp. Water Tank, Surappagudem Village,Bhimadole Mandal, Eluru District - 534425. 3. Nirmala Hasvika, D/o.Suresh,aged 12 years. Student, R/o.D.No.3- 74,0pp. Water Tank, Surappagudem Village,Bhimadole Mandal, ::3:: Eluru District - 534425.3 respondent is being minor, rep by her motherNirmala Veenila ...Respondents Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtquash the entire proceedings in so far as petitioners/respondents 1 to 8 in DVC No. 1 of 2026 on the file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge- cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased Dispense with the filing of certified copy of petition in DVC No. 1 of 2026 on the file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole and receive the main Criminal Petition on file in the interests of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/respondents 1 to 8 in DVC No. 1 of 2026 on the file of the Court of Learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: RAJA DAMOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ::4:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7799 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimadole, West Godavari, for the offences punishable under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitionersbefore the trial Court by submitting petitioners’ practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioners shall not dispute their identity at a later stage of proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioners herein and truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided during the course of trial, hence, there are no grounds ::5:: to quash the proceedings at this stage. So far as dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court,he has not opposed the same. 5. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioners herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can be decided during the course of trial, and this Court, in a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not be in a position to conduct roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and quash the proceedings at this stage. 6. In this context, it is apt to note the dictum held in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and Others1, by the Apex Court in its vivid terms in the following way: 7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 ::6:: jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. 7. In Vishal Shah Vs. 7. In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.2, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of the petitioners herein before the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimadole, in DVC No.1 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stands automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court. 22025 Live Law (SC) 240 ::7:: 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 10. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 07.09.2026 krk ::8:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 75 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7799 of 2026 Date: 07.09.2026 krk