APHC010457912026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7638/2026 Between: 1. VAJRALA RAJA SEKHAR, S/O.SUBBARAO, YEARS, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGE NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. VAJRALA ADILAKSHMAMMA, W/O.SUBBARAO, YEARS, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGEKALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. VAJRALA SUBBARAO, S/O.SESHAIAH, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGE DISTRICT. 4. VAJRALA SISINDRI ALIAS SUSINDRA, S/O. SUBBARAO, ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGE, MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOMAROLE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A.P., AMARAVATI. 2. VAJRALA GURAMMA, W/O. YEARS, R/O ALLINAGARAM VILLAGE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7638/2026 VAJRALA RAJA SEKHAR, S/O.SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 32 R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGE KALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. VAJRALA ADILAKSHMAMMA, W/O.SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGEKALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. SUBBARAO, S/O.SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGE KALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE VAJRALA SISINDRI ALIAS SUSINDRA, S/O. SUBBARAO, ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGE, KALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOMAROLE TOWN POLICE STATION, S.P.S.R NELLORE REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF VAJRALA GURAMMA, W/O. RAJA SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O ALLINAGARAM VILLAGE, KOMAROLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED ABOUT 32 KALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O BESTAPALEM VILLAGEKALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE VAJRALA SISINDRI ALIAS SUSINDRA, S/O. SUBBARAO, AGED KALUVOYA TIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION, S.P.S.R NELLORE HIGH COURT OF AGED ABOUT 27 KOMAROLE MANDAL, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7638 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 pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 830 of 2025, On the file of the Court of the Hon’ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Giddalur, against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 85 r/w 3(5) of BNS, and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and pass 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.830 of 2025, On the file of Court of the Hon’ble Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Giddalur, including the appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4, till disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7638 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 (A1 to A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.830 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 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 (A1 to A4) 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. 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7638 of 2026 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., 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 petitioners herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of petitioners herein (A1 to A4) before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7638 of 2026 First Class, Giddalur, in C.C.No.830 of 2025 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. 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: 02.09.2026 MDP