APHC010452282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7523/2026 Between: 1. AMRITALINGAM, S/O DHARMALINGAM, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10/50, KRISHNAKOIL STREET, TAMILNADU STATE. 2. ANDAL DHARMALINGAM ALIAS ANDALLU, W/O DHARMALINGAM, AGE 74 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10/50, ADUTURAI, TANJAVURU, 3. DHARMALINGAM, S/O RAMALINGAM, AGE 83 YEARS, D.NO.10/50, KRISHNAKOIL STREET, ADUTURAI, TAMILNADU STATE. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AMARAVATHI THROUGH MYLAVARAM 2. RADHIKA AMRUTHALINGAM, W/O AMRUTHALINGAM, DHARANA KRISHNA, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/OH.NO.13 TARAKARAMA NAGAR, MYLAVARAM, Petition under Section circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds High Court to call records and quash the proceedings against connection with CC.No.622 of 20 Magistrate, Mylavaram, Krishna District, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7523/2026 AMRITALINGAM, S/O DHARMALINGAM, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10/50, KRISHNAKOIL STREET, ADUTURAI, TANJAVURU, ANDAL DHARMALINGAM ALIAS ANDALLU, W/O DHARMALINGAM, AGE 74 YEARS, R/O D.NO.10/50, KRISHNAKOIL STREET, ADUTURAI, TANJAVURU, TAMILNADU STATE. DHARMALINGAM, S/O RAMALINGAM, AGE 83 YEARS, D.NO.10/50, KRISHNAKOIL STREET, ADUTURAI, TANJAVURU, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT AMARAVATHI THROUGH MYLAVARAM POLICE STATION. RADHIKA AMRUTHALINGAM, W/O AMRUTHALINGAM, DHARANA KRISHNA, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/OH.NO.13 TARAKARAMA NAGAR, MYLAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the d in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the to call records and quash the proceedings against petitioners in No.622 of 2023, on the file of Judicial First Class Mylavaram, Krishna District, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AMRITALINGAM, S/O DHARMALINGAM, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO. ADUTURAI, TANJAVURU, ANDAL DHARMALINGAM ALIAS ANDALLU, W/O DHARMALINGAM, KRISHNAKOIL STREET, DHARMALINGAM, S/O RAMALINGAM, AGE 83 YEARS, R/O TANJAVURU, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PRADESH AT RADHIKA AMRUTHALINGAM, W/O AMRUTHALINGAM, D/O DHARANA KRISHNA, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/OH.NO.13-220, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the of Criminal Petition, the petitioners in First Class 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7523 of 2026 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in CC.No.622 of 2023, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Mylavaram, Krishna District, pending disposal of the Quash Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K V L Narasimha Rao 2. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7523 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.622 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mylavaram, Krishna District, 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, 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. 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7523 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 (A1 to A3) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7523 of 2026 Mylavaram, Krishna District, in C.C.No.622 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 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: 07.09.2026 MDP