Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/8870/2026 of Boppi Mutheswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 5 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY, THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8870/2026 Between: 1. BOPPI MUTHESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC
APHC010529522026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8870/2026
Between:
1. BOPPI MUTHESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC
AGRICULTURE,R/O. H. NO. 5-52, ANNAPUREDDYPALLY VILLAGE
MANDAL,BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT, TELANGANA.
2. BOPPI PULLAIAH, , S/O. PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC
AGRICULTURE, R/O. H. NO. 5-52, ANNAPUREDDYPALLY VILLAGE
MANDAL,BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT, TELANGANA.
3. BOPPI NARASAMMA, W/O. B. PULLAIAH, OCC HOUSEWIFE, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. H. NO. 5-52, ANNAPUREDDYPALLY
VILLAGE
MANDAL
BHADRADRI
KOTHAGUDEM
DISTRICT,
TELANGANA.
4. BOPPI KRISHNA, S/O. BOPPI PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H. NO. 5-52, ANNAPUREDDYPALLY
VILLAGE
MANDAL,
BHADRADRI
KOTHAGUDEM
DISTRICT,
TELANGANA.
5. SIDHELA KRISHNA KUMARI ALIAS KRISHNA VENI, W/O. S
NAVEEN,AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC HOUSEWIFE R/O.H.NO.8- 106, SC COLONY ANNAPUREDDYPALLY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT, TELANGANA.
6. SIDDHELA NAVEEN, S/O. S. RAGHAVULU,AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS.OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O.H.NO.8-106,
SC
COLONY,
ANNAPUREDDYPALLY
VILLAGE
AND
MANDAL,BHADRADRI
KKOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT, TELENGANA.
7. BOPPI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. B. PAPAIAH,AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS,OCC
AGRICULTURE,
R/O.H.NO.5-34,SC
COLONY,
ANNAPUREDDYPALLY
VILLAGE
MANDAL
BHADRADRI
KOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT, TELENGANA.
8. BOPPI CHINNA LAKSHMI ALIAS LAKSHMI, W/O. NAGESWARA
RAO,AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O. H. NO. 5-34, SC COLONY, ANNAPUREDDYPALLY VILLAGE MANDALBHADRADRI
KOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT, TELANGANA.
9. BOPPI NAVYA, W/O. BOPPI KRISHNA,AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC
HOUSEWIFE,R/O.
H.
NO.
5-52,
SC
COLONY,
ANNAPUREDDYPALLY
VILLAGE
MANDALBHADRADRI
KOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT, TELANGANA.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH,AMARAVATHI, THROUGH MAHILA URBAN POLICE
STATION, KURNOOL
2. KASAPOGU RAJAKUMARI, W/O. BOPPI MUTHESWARA RAO AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC UNKNOWN,R/O. H. NO. 3-20, VARKUR
VILLAGE, KODUMURU MANDAL,KURNOOL 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 may be pleased to to call for the records to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 1258 of 2026 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool and pass such
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 stay of all further proceedings in CC. No. 1258 of 2026 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, Pending disposal of above criminal petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8870 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 A9), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1258 of 2026 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Section 85, 115(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and 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 A9) 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 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.
12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
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 A9) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, in C.C.No.1258 of 2026 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, all pending applications shall stand closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 06.10.2026 RMR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8870 of 2026 06.10.2026
W RMR