APHC010469012026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7882/2026 Between: 1. M VENKATA LOVA RAJAJI, S/O. M.RAMA KRISHNA RAO. YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, FEROZGUDA, BOWENPALLY, HYDERABAD 2. KASARAPU SURYA KUMARI, W/O. KASAPULOVARAJU, YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, ROAD,SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 3. KASARAPU LOVARAJU ALIAS RAJU BABU, S/O.NAGABHUSHANAM, 27, PLOT NO.06, PIPELINE ROAD, YELESWARAM MANDAL, 4. MANDAPAKA VENKATA CHANDANA, W/O. M. SURYA RAO AGED 38 YEARS, OCCHOUSE WIFE,R/O. 5 PIPELINE ROAD, SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, TUNI TOWN PS., KAKINADA DISTRICT HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. MALIREDDY SAI SANTHOSI, W/O. VENKATA LEVA RAJAJI,D/O GOOLLAGOVINDA RAO, 3-6-44, BEHIND VENKATESWARA SWAMY KALYANA MANDAPAM 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: 7882/2026 VENKATA LOVA RAJAJI, S/O. M.RAMA KRISHNA RAO. YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.7-1-95/2, PLOT NO.28, BOWENPALLY, HYDERABAD-500011. TELANGANA KASARAPU SURYA KUMARI, W/O. KASAPULOVARAJU, YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 5-27, PLOT NO.06, PIPELINE ROAD,SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP KASARAPU LOVARAJU ALIAS RAJU BABU, S/O.NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, 27, PLOT NO.06, PIPELINE ROAD, SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP MANDAPAKA VENKATA CHANDANA, W/O. M. SURYA RAO AGED 38 YEARS, OCCHOUSE WIFE,R/O. 5-27, PLOT NO.06, SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, TUNI TOWN PS., KAKINADA DISTRICT REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. MALIREDDY SAI SANTHOSI, W/O. VENKATA LEVA RAJAJI,D/O GOOLLAGOVINDA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, BEHIND VENKATESWARA SWAMY KALYANA MANDAPAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM AGED 40 95/2, PLOT NO.28, 500011. TELANGANA AGED 42 NO.06, PIPELINE ROAD,SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, EAST KASARAPU LOVARAJU ALIAS RAJU BABU, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. 5- SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, MANDAPAKA VENKATA CHANDANA, W/O. M. SURYA RAO LATE 27, PLOT NO.06, SRIVIDYA BACKSIDE, YELESWARAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, TUNI TOWN REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MALIREDDY SAI SANTHOSI, W/O. VENKATA LEVA RAJAJI,D/O AGED 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. BEHIND VENKATESWARA SWAMY KALYANA MANDAPAM 2 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7882 of 2026 OLD BAZAR STREET, TUNI, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, in C.C.No.378/2025 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, in C.C.No.378/2025 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. THOTA SUNEETHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7882 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 A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.378 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 & 509 read with Section 34 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 A4) 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. 4 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7882 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 A4) before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 5 MRK,J Crl.P.No.7882 of 2026 First Class, Tuni, in C.C.No.378 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. 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