Kodavatikanti Chiranjeevi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
CRLP/7856/2026 · 2026-09-07
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9857 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9857 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010468462026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7856/2026 Between:
1. KODAVATIKANTI CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. K. BALASWAMY, YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, STREET, KADAPA TOWN,
2. KODAVATIKANTI JAGAN, OCC COOLI, RESIDENT OF HRUDAYAPET VILLAGE, KALASAPADU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. KODAVATIKANTI ROJELINA, , W/O. SAGILI CHRISTOPHER, 36 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, VILLAGE, SANKAVARAM POST, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. KODAVATIKANTI MANI VARAKUMARI ALIAS KODURU W/O. ANANDA RAO, RESIDENT OF H. NO. 2/32, MUDUMALA VILLAGE, MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AT HIGH COURT,
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BADVEL U/G P.S, BADVEL, KADAPA DISTRICT
3. BANDELA SOUBHAGYA, , D/O. BANDELA JOJEE RAO,AGED 30 YEARS, OCC NUN, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7856/2026 KODAVATIKANTI CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. K. BALASWAMY, YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF RAJAREDDY STREET, KADAPA TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. JAGAN, S/O. K. BALASWAMY, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HRUDAYAPET VILLAGE, KALASAPADU KADAPA DISTRICT. KODAVATIKANTI ROJELINA, , W/O. SAGILI CHRISTOPHER, 36 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF HRUDAYPET VILLAGE, SANKAVARAM POST, KALASAPADU MANDAL, YSR KODAVATIKANTI MANI VARAKUMARI ALIAS KODURU VARAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC ANGANVADI WORKER, RESIDENT OF H. NO. 2/32, MUDUMALA VILLAGE, B. MATTAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP.BY ITS PUBLIC AT HIGH COURT, AMARAVATI, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BADVEL U/G P.S, BADVEL, BANDELA SOUBHAGYA, , D/O. BANDELA JOJEE RAO,AGED 30 YEARS, OCC NUN, RESIDENT OF DIGUVAPALEM STREET, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED 33 RESIDENT OF RAJAREDDY AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HRUDAYAPET VILLAGE, KALASAPADU KODAVATIKANTI ROJELINA, , W/O. SAGILI CHRISTOPHER, AGED RESIDENT OF HRUDAYPET KALASAPADU MANDAL, YSR VARAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC ANGANVADI WORKER, B. MATTAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP.BY ITS PUBLIC THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BADVEL U/G P.S, BADVEL, BANDELA SOUBHAGYA, , D/O. BANDELA JOJEE RAO,AGED 30 RESIDENT OF DIGUVAPALEM STREET, 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 of 2026 BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT ...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 proceedings in P.R.C 6/2026 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, Y.S.R. Kadapa pursuant to F.I.R. No.28/2026 registered at Badvel U/G P.S, Y.S.R. Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS against the petitioners 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 the filing of the Certified Copies of P.R.C 6/2026 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, Y.S.R. Kadapa pursuant to F.I.R.No.28/2026 registered at Badvel U/G P.S, Y.S.R Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Sections 69,115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS 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 in P.R.C 6/2026 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, Y.S.R. Kadapa District pursuant to F.I.R. No.28/2026 registered at Badvel U/G P.S, Y.S.R Kadapa District including personal appearance of the petitioners, and pass IA NO: 3 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 condone the delay of (19) in representing the CRLP.No.7856 of 2026 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. YARRAMPALLI AUGUSTEEN
3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 of 2026
2. Yarrampalli Augusteen Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 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 A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) & 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. 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 A5) 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 herein, 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
5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 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. 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 A5) before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, in P.R.C.No.6 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary.
In
12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
6 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 of 2026
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: 08.09.2026 MDP