APHC010462542026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7724/2026 Between: 1. VALLEPU VENKATA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, 31YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, BANDAKUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. VALLEPU SESHAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, 55YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, BANDA, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. 3. GUNJI REVATHI, W/O. SRINU, CASTE, R/O.SAMANTHA PUDI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL. 4. CHALLA PRABHAVATHI, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, 33YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, NAIDUPETA TOWN, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 5. VALLEPU PARVATHI ALIAS THANNIRU PRAVTHI, W/O. THANNIRU MADHAVA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, VILLAGE, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. CHALLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. SANNASAIAH, 40YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, SATRAM MANDAL NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. THANNIRU MADHAVA, S/O. MALAKONDAIAH, YEARS, R/O. PALLAMALLI POST VILLAGE, MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 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: 7724/2026 VALLEPU VENKATA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 31YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, PALLAMALLI VILLAGE, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, R/O. CHANDRAMMA NAGAR, YELLAMMA BANDAKUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. VALLEPU SESHAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 55YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, PALLAMALLI VILLAGE, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, R/O. CHANDRAMMA NAGAR, YELLAMMA KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. GUNJI REVATHI, W/O. SRINU, AGED ABOUT 35YRS, VADDERA BY R/O.SAMANTHA PUDI VILLAGE, DARSI MANDAL. CHALLA PRABHAVATHI, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 33YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, R/O. MOHAN BABU THOTA, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. VALLEPU PARVATHI ALIAS THANNIRU PRAVTHI, W/O. THANNIRU MADHAVA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. PALLAMALLI POST CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. CHALLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. SANNASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40YRS, VADDERA BY CASTE, R/O. VEDURU PATTU, DORAVARI NELLORE DISTRICT. THANNIRU MADHAVA, S/O. MALAKONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 R/O. PALLAMALLI POST VILLAGE, CHIMAKURTHY SAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED ABOUT PALLAMALLI VILLAGE, R/O. CHANDRAMMA NAGAR, YELLAMMA AGED ABOUT PALLAMALLI VILLAGE, R/O. CHANDRAMMA NAGAR, YELLAMMA AGED ABOUT 35YRS, VADDERA BY AGED ABOUT MOHAN BABU THOTA, VALLEPU PARVATHI ALIAS THANNIRU PRAVTHI, W/O. THANNIRU R/O. PALLAMALLI POST CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT R/O. VEDURU PATTU, DORAVARI AGED ABOUT 44 CHIMAKURTHY ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7724 of 2026 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. VALLEPU ARUNA KUMARI ALIAS ARUNA, W/O V. VENKATA RAO, KUNCHALA ANKAMMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, HOUSEMAKER, R/O H.NO. 1-160, CHANDRAPADU, POST VILLAGE, CHEMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT -523263. ...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 call for records and Quash the D.V.C.No.22 of 2025, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Excise Court, Ongole, against the Petitioners/Respondents No.1 to 7 for the offence punishable Under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act 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 off all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/Respondents No.1 to 7 in D.V.C.No.22 of 2025, on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Excise Court, Ongole, pending disposal of the above quash petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7724 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/respondent Nos.1 to 7 therein, seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Excise Court, Ongole. 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 herein 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.7724 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. In Vishal Shah Vs. 7. In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.2, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 22025 Live Law (SC) 240 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7724 of 2026 8. 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/respondent Nos.1 to 7 before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Excise Court, Ongole, in D.V.C.No.22 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. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 10. 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