APHC010453612026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7560/2026 Between: 1. BATHULA CHINNAIAH, S/O. LATE RAYAPPA, H.NO.69/659, JOHARAPURAM, NEAR ST. ANNS CHURCH KURNOOL CAMP B KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 518002 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA 2. KARAKALA RAVI, S/O. LATE K. VENKATAIAH HOUSE NO69/309A, JOHRAPURAM Petition under Section 4 circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds High Court to quash the proceedings in Hon’ble Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of Firs alleged offences punishable under sections 329(3), Petitioner/Accused 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, High Court may be pleased to stay all further procee 2026 on the file of Hon’ble Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kurnool 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: 7560/2026 BATHULA CHINNAIAH, S/O. LATE RAYAPPA, H.NO.69/659, JOHARAPURAM, NEAR ST. ANNS CHURCH KURNOOL CAMP B KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 518002 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH KARAKALA RAVI, S/O. LATE K. VENKATAIAH HOUSE NO69/309A, ...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 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.709 of 2026 on the file ble Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kurnool for the ishable under sections 329(3), 351(2) against the 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, High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.709 of ble Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM BATHULA CHINNAIAH, S/O. LATE RAYAPPA, H.NO.69/659, JOHARAPURAM, NEAR ST. ANNS CHURCH KURNOOL CAMP B ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC KARAKALA RAVI, S/O. LATE K. VENKATAIAH HOUSE NO69/309A, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the C.C.No.709 of 2026 on the file of Kurnool for the 351(2) against the 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 dings in C.C.No.709 of ble Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 of 2026 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HARANADHA RAJU KATTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 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 petitioner herein (Accused), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.709 of 2026 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, wherein he was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner (Accused) before the trial Court by submitting petitioner’s practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioner shall not dispute his 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same. 5. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioner herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can be 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 of 2026 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, presence of petitioner herein (Accused) before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, in C.C.No.709 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that his presence is necessary. 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 of 2026 In the event of failure of the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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