APHC010453492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7571/2026 Between: 1. GINNELA LELAVATHI, W/O.LATEPULLAIAH, YEARS, R/O. KESARA AHMADGUDA, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ELURU WOMENPOLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. KUNDURTHI LAKSHMI PRASANNA, KOTESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA ANDHRA PRADESH. Petition under Section circumstances stated in the Memor High Court pleased to call for the records in an C.C.No.248/2026on the file of the Court of the Prin Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate the Petitioner is concerned IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, 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: 7571/2026 GINNELA LELAVATHI, W/O.LATEPULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 KESARA MAIN ROAD, D.NO.20/5, VTC RGK COLONY, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, TELANGANA, PIN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE ELURU WOMENPOLICE STATION, ELURUDISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI KUNDURTHI LAKSHMI PRASANNA, W/O.GINNELA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.TADIKALAPUDI KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ...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 pleased to call for the records in and rel file of the Court of the Principal, Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru and quash the same in so far the Petitioner is concerned and pass 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, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED ABOUT 65 D.NO.20/5, VTC RGK COLONY, TELANGANA, PIN-500074. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE ELURUDISTRICT, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA W/O.GINNELA R/O.TADIKALAPUDI DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the d relating to Civil Judge- in so far as and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7571 of 2026 High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the C.C.No.248/2026on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, and 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in C.C.No.248/2026on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition before this Hon’ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. BHARGAV THIMMARAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7571 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 (A2), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.248 of 2026 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, wherein she was charged with the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 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 (A2) before the trial Court by submitting petitioner’s practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioner shall not dispute her 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. 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7571 of 2026 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 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 petitioner herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, presence of petitioner herein (A2) before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7571 of 2026 Class Magistrate, Eluru, in C.C.No.284 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that her presence is necessary. 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