APHC010454712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7593/2026 Between: 1. JALAPATI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O MIG COLONY, NANDIKOTKUR ROAD, JOHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 2. KETHAVATH DURGA PRASAD, S/O K. SRINIVASA RAO,H.NO 12 VALLABHAPURAM 522308, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 107, COUNTY, AMMENPUR, SANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANAGANA 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRA AMARAVATHI. 2. GUDAVALLI MOSES KUMAR, S/O VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS YSR GARDEN, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. Petition under Section circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds High Court pleased to quash the C.C Judge: Pithapuram, against the herein, for the alleged offences, under pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7593/2026 JALAPATI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O MIG-1, PHASE -3, NEW AP HOUSING BOARD NANDIKOTKUR ROAD, JOHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. KETHAVATH DURGA PRASAD, S/O K. SRINIVASA RAO,H.NO 12 VALLABHAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLIPARA MANDAL, GUNTUR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 107, COUNTY, AMMENPUR, SANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANAGANA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT GUDAVALLI MOSES KUMAR, S/O VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT YSR GARDEN, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the d in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the pleased to quash the C.C.No.75/2026 On The File Of Junior Civil Pithapuram, against the Accused 4 and 5, i.e., petitioners 1 or the alleged offences, under sections 329(4) & 351(2) BNS, and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM JALAPATI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT 3, NEW AP HOUSING BOARD NANDIKOTKUR ROAD, JOHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KETHAVATH DURGA PRASAD, S/O K. SRINIVASA RAO,H.NO 12-55, KOLLIPARA MANDAL, GUNTUR- RUPASRI COUNTY, AMMENPUR, SANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANAGANA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC DESH AT GUDAVALLI MOSES KUMAR, S/O VENKATARATNAM, AGED ABOUT YSR GARDEN, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): and 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the 26 On The File Of Junior Civil d 5, i.e., petitioners 1 and 2 sections 329(4) & 351(2) BNS, and 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7593 of 2026 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 to dispense with filing of certified copies of the Charge sheet in C.C No.75/2026 On The File Of Junior Civil Judge: Pithapuram against the Accused 4 and 5 / petitioner 1 and 2 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 329(4) & 351(2) BNS and/or pass 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 to grant stay of ail further proceedings in C.C No.75/2026 On The File Of Junior Civil Judge: Pithapuram, including dispense with personal appearance against the Accused 4 and 5 / petitioner 1 and 2 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GANTA EDIGA RAKESH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7593 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A4 & A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.75 of 2026 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 329(4) & 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.Sandeep, 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 petitioners (A4 & A5) before 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 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 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7593 of 2026 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., 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. 7. 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 petitioners herein (A4 & A5) before the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in C.C.No.75 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7593 of 2026 of the petitioners to appear, when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stands automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 9. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dated: 01.09.2026 MDP