Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9496 (AP)

Patnala Siva Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLP/7720/2026 · 2026-09-02

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010462472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7720/2026 Between: 1. PATNALA SIVA PRASAD, S/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED 30 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.57 NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,CELL 7780428512. 2. PATNALA NOOKA RAJU DIED, PATNALA NOOKA RAJU DIED 3. PATNALA KANAKA MAHALAXMI, W/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.57 NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,CELL 7386625661. 4. PATNALA BHULAKSHMI, W/O. SATYA RAO,AGED 41 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.32 VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, 5. PATNALA SATYARAO, S/O.LATE MUTYALU,AGED 50 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O. D.NO.32 VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, 6. PATNALA VARA PRASAD, S/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED 32 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.57 NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT 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: 7720/2026 PATNALA SIVA PRASAD, S/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED 30 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.57-9-6/2, SUBASH NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,CELL PATNALA NOOKA RAJU DIED, PATNALA NOOKA RAJU DIED PATNALA KANAKA MAHALAXMI, W/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.57-9-6/2, SUBASH NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,CELL PATNALA BHULAKSHMI, W/O. SATYA RAO,AGED 41 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.32-1-45/2, NATHAYYAPALEM,BHPV, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, TYARAO, S/O.LATE MUTYALU,AGED 50 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O. D.NO.32-1-45/2, NATHAYYAPALEM,BHPV, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, PATNALA VARA PRASAD, S/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED 32 YEARS, RAJAKA BY CASTE,R/O.D.NO.57-9-6/2, SUBASH NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM PATNALA SIVA PRASAD, S/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED 30 YEARS, 6/2, SUBASH NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,CELL PATNALA NOOKA RAJU DIED, PATNALA NOOKA RAJU DIED PATNALA KANAKA MAHALAXMI, W/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED 47 6/2, SUBASH NAGAR,KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY,CELL PATNALA BHULAKSHMI, W/O. SATYA RAO,AGED 41 YEARS, 45/2, NATHAYYAPALEM,BHPV, TYARAO, S/O.LATE MUTYALU,AGED 50 YEARS, 45/2, NATHAYYAPALEM,BHPV, PATNALA VARA PRASAD, S/O.NOOKA RAJU,AGED 32 YEARS, 6/2, SUBASH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7720 of 2026 AMRAVATI. 2. PATNALA ANUSHA, W/O. P. SIVA PRASAD,AGE 31 YEARS. CASTE RAJAKA,R/O. D. NO. 27-7-130, SRINAGAR, NEAR RAMALAYAM,GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ...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 pleased to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.3811 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, filed against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 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 dispense with filing of certified copy of C.C.No.3811of 2023, 16-10-2023 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, 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 grant stay of all further proceedings against petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 in C.C.No.3811 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. UMA MAHESWARA RAO KODURU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7720 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 A6), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3811 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 submits that petitioner No.2 (A2) passed away on 14.12.2023 due to ill health and as such, he restricted his prayer to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 to 6 (A1 & A3 to A6) 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 petitioner Nos.1 & 3 to 6 (A1 & A3 to A6), before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same. 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7720 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 petitioner Nos.1 & 3 to 6 herein (A1 & A3 to A6) before the I Additional 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7720 of 2026 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.3811 of 2023 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 dismissed as abated insofar as petitioner No.2 (A2) is concerned, and the Criminal Petition is disposed of insofar as petitioner Nos.1 & 3 to 6 (A1 & A3 to A6) are concerned. 9. Needless to state that the petitioner Nos.1 & 3 to 6 (A1 & A3 to A6) 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