APHC010457392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7631/2026 Between: 1. SAGAR VIJAY RAJ, S/O MOSHANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NATIVE OF MACHAPURAM VILLAGE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.14 MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT, 2. S JAYAPRABHU, S/O MOSHANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. NATIVE OF MACHAPURAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.L YEMMIGANUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. KASIREDDY NARASAMMA, W/O LATE KASI REDDY SIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, NANDAVARAM MANDAL, VILLAGE AND MANDAL, COMPLAINANT 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 to quash the charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C. 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: 7631/2026 SAGAR VIJAY RAJ, S/O MOSHANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NATIVE OF MACHAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDAVARAM MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.14-9-9/1, MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT, ACCUSED NO.1 S JAYAPRABHU, S/O MOSHANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. NATIVE OF MACHAPURAM VILLAGE, NANDAVARAM MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.L-1816-A, GANDHI NAGAR, YEMMIGANUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ACCUSED NO.2 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDAVARAM POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. KASIREDDY NARASAMMA, W/O LATE KASI REDDY SIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, NATIVE OF MACHAPURAM VILLAGE NANDAVARAM MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NANDAVARAM GE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.DE FACTO ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 the charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM SAGAR VIJAY RAJ, S/O MOSHANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NANDAVARAM MANDAL, MARLU, S JAYAPRABHU, S/O MOSHANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. NANDAVARAM MANDAL, GANDHI NAGAR, ACCUSED NO.2 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC AMARAVATI, NANDAVARAM POLICE KASIREDDY NARASAMMA, W/O LATE KASI REDDY SIVA REDDY, NATIVE OF MACHAPURAM VILLAGE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NANDAVARAM KURNOOL DISTRICT.DE FACTO ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 the charge sheet and all further proceedings in C.C. 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7631 of 2026 No.801 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, arising out of Crime No.92 of 2024 of Nandavaram Police Station, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 351 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, and consequently discharge the Petitioners from the said proceedings, 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 stay all further proceedings, including the personal appearance of the Petitioners/A1 and A2, in C.C. No.801 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, arising out of Crime No.92 of 2024 of Nandavaram Police Station, Kurnool District, pending disposal of W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. A V S LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7631 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 & A2), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.801 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 351 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. S.Prem, learned counsel representing Ms. A.V.S.Laxmi, 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 & A2) 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.7631 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 & A2) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7631 of 2026 Yemmiganur, in C.C.No.801 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