APHC010459022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7658/2026 Between: 1. YARABALA SARATH, S/O. TATHA RAO, R/O. D. NO. 14-14- GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATAM. 2. YARABALA SARADA, D/O. SEELAM RAMA RAJU, YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 15 GAJUWAKA 50 WARD, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATAM. 3. RADHIKA, W/O SIRIGIRI. RAVI PRATAPU, R/O. D. NO. 15 GAJUWAKA 50 WARD, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 17108 CARRINGTON PARK APT 706 TAMPA, FL 33647-2629. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.AT AMARAVATHI. 2. SMT YARABALA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O. YARABALA SARATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 17 RURAL, NTR DISTRICT. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds High Court to quash the C.C.No.3279 of 2026 on the file of 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: 7658/2026 YARABALA SARATH, S/O. TATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, -18/1, BABUJI COLONY, NEAR NAVALROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATAM. YARABALA SARADA, D/O. SEELAM RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 15-2-31, PEDAPALLIPALEM, GANGAVARAM, 50 WARD, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATAM. RADHIKA, W/O SIRIGIRI. RAVI PRATAPU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 15-2-31, PEDAPALLIPALEM, GANGAVARAM, GAJUWAKA 50 WARD, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 17108 CARRINGTON PARK APT 706 2629. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.AT AMARAVATHI. SMT YARABALA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O. YARABALA SARATH, AGED R/O. D. NO. 17-51, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petiti High Court to quash the Proceedings against the Petitioners/AI to A3 in 3279 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Hon’ble IV Additional Chief IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 18/1, BABUJI COLONY, NEAR NAVALROAD, AGED ABOUT 64 GANGAVARAM, 50 WARD, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATAM. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 31, PEDAPALLIPALEM, GANGAVARAM, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 17108 CARRINGTON PARK APT 706 ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.AT AMARAVATHI. SMT YARABALA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O. YARABALA SARATH, AGED VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the against the Petitioners/AI to A3 in Hon’ble IV Additional Chief 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7658 of 2026 Judicial Magistrate at Vijayawada which is registered for the alleged offences Under Section 85 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 498-A IPC), and Under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners and accused No.1 to 3 and quash the same 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 grant stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.3279 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Hon’ble IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vijayawada including the appearance of the petitioners pending disposal of the present Quash petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. RENU CHAKRAVARTHY KANADAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7658 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 A3), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3279 of 2026 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vijayawada, wherein they were 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 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 A3) 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. 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 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7658 of 2026 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 petitioners herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of petitioners herein (A1 to A3) before the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vijayawada, in C.C.No.3279 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7658 of 2026 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