APHC010459272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7660/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK MUSTAFA, S/O SAYYAD BASHA AGE 69 YEARS D.NO.23-597-302, SONIA GANDHI COLONYGUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 2. SHAIK HASEENA BEGUM, W/O SHAIK MUSTAFA YEARSR/O D.NO.23- TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 3. SHAIK VAHEEDA, W/O SHAIK KHAZAAGE 35 YEARS COLONY GOOTY TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515401 4. SHAIK SAYYAD ASLAM, S/O SHAIK MUSTAFA D.NO.23-597-302, SONIA GANDHI COLONY ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 5. SHAIK AFROZ BANU, S/O JAKEER HUSSAIN D.NO.23-597-302, SONIA GANDHI COLONY ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 6. SHAIK JAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O MEHABOOB SABAGE 34 YEARS D.NO.23-597-302, SONIA GANDHI COLONY ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP 2. SHAIK AFREEN, D/O SHAIK JEELAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7660/2026 SHAIK MUSTAFA, S/O SAYYAD BASHA AGE 69 YEARS 302, SONIA GANDHI COLONYGUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 SHAIK HASEENA BEGUM, W/O SHAIK MUSTAFA -597-302, SONIA GANDHI COLONY GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 SHAIK VAHEEDA, W/O SHAIK KHAZAAGE 35 YEARS GOOTY TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515401 SHAIK SAYYAD ASLAM, S/O SHAIK MUSTAFA AGE 31 YEARS 302, SONIA GANDHI COLONY GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 AFROZ BANU, S/O JAKEER HUSSAIN AGE 28 YEARS 302, SONIA GANDHI COLONY GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 SHAIK JAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O MEHABOOB SABAGE 34 YEARS 302, SONIA GANDHI COLONY GUNTAKAL TOWN, DISTRICT 515801 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AMARAVATI 522237 SHAIK AFREEN, D/O SHAIK JEELAN AGE 24 YEARS R/O 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM SHAIK MUSTAFA, S/O SAYYAD BASHA AGE 69 YEARS R/O 302, SONIA GANDHI COLONYGUNTAKAL TOWN, AGE 57 GUNTAKAL SHAIK VAHEEDA, W/O SHAIK KHAZAAGE 35 YEARS R/O BC AGE 31 YEARS R/O GUNTAKAL TOWN, AGE 28 YEARS R/O GUNTAKAL TOWN, SHAIK JAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O MEHABOOB SABAGE 34 YEARS R/O GUNTAKAL TOWN, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, R/O 18-775, 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7660 of 2026 TILAKNAGAR, GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 515801 ...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 High Court to quash the proceedings in CC.No.228 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Guntakal as against the Petitioners/Accused 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 herein 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 CC.No.228 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Guntakal 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 the Proceedings including appearance of Petitioners/Accused 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in C.C.No.228 of 2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate: Guntakal pending disposal of the Quash Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7660 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 (A2 to A7), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.228 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntakal, 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 (A2 to A7) 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.7660 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 (A2 to A7) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7660 of 2026 Guntakal, in C.C.No.228 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: 03.09.2026 MDP