Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/8866/2026 of Ganji Venkata Subbaiah 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: 8866/2026 Between: 1. GANJI VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O. LATE SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 49
APHC010527992026
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: 8866/2026
Between:
1. GANJI VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O. LATE SUBBARAYUDU, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,R/O.
MADHAVARAM-1
VILLAGE,SIDHOUT
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
2. GANJI SEETHAMMA, W/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH,AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS,R/O. MADHAVARAM-1 VILLAGE,SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
3. GANJI MURALI ALIAS VENKATA MURALI, S/O. VENKATA
SUBBAIAH,AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,R/O.
MADHAVARAM-1
VILLAGE,SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
4. GANJI BALAJI, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 19
YEARS,R/O. MADHAVARAM-1 VILLAGE,SIDHOUT MANDAL, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.
2. GANJI LAKSHMAN, S/O. LATE SUBBARAYUDU,AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS,R/O. SKR NAGAR, MADHAVARAM-1 VILLAGE,SIDHOUT
MANDAL, YSR 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 call for the records pertaining to S.C.No.29 of 2019
on the file of the learned VII Addl District Judge, YSR Kadapa District, arising out of Crime No. 112 of 2018 of Sidhout Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and quash the entire proceedings in the said S.C.No.29 of 2019 against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 4 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 pleased to DISPENSEWITH the filing of Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in S.C.No.29 of 2019 on the file of the learned VII
Addl District Judge, YSR Kadapa District, arising out of Crime No.112 of 2018 ofSidhout Police Station 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 STAY all further proceedings, including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.l to 4, in S.C.No.29 of2019 on the file ofthe learned VII Addl District Judge, YSR Kadapa District, arising out of Crime No.ll2 of 2018 of Sidhout Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. PRASANNALA KANCHARLA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8866 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 A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in SC No.29 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, YSR Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 307, 506, 509 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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 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, 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 A4) before the VII Additional District Judge, YSR Kadada District, in S.C.No.29 of 2019 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: 8866 of 2026 06.10.2026
W RMR