CRLP/8704/2026 of Telagathoti Raj Kamal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 September 2026

1. TELAGATHOTI RAJ KAMAL, EMPLOYEE CODE ABF340091, ADITYA BIRLA LIFESTYLE BRANDS LIMITED - REEBOK, EMPLOYED IN BENGALURU, DATE OF JOINING 21/06/2024, S/O LATE KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT

YEARS,OCCUPATION PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,

2. TELAGATHOTI MADHAVI, W/O LATE KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE, ADDRESS DOOR NO. 11-234, VOOSAVARI STREET,EAST MALAPALLI, CHILAKALURIPET TOWN MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH - 522616.

3. TELAGATHOTI RAJ KUMAR, INFOSYS EMPLOYEE ID 1336335, EMPLOYED ATDANSKE IT AND SUPPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 7TH FLOOR, TOWER 5B, RMZ ECO WORLD, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560103, S/O LATE KOTESWARA RAO, OCCUPATION SOFTWARE PROFESSIONAL, RESIDENCE BENGALURU

4. TELAGATHOTI KEERTHI ALIAS KEERTHI RANI, W/O SALAGALA VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING SEPARATELY WITH HER HUSBAND AND TWO CHILDREN, FAR AWAY FROM THE PETITIONERS NATIVE PLACE OF CHILAKALURIPETA.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH, AMARAVATI, THROUGH THE SUB- INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, WOMEN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.

2. TELAGATHOTI MANI KEERTHANA ALIAS DASI MANI KEERTHANA, W/O TELAGATOTIRAJ KAMAL, D/O DASI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, AGED ABOUT

YEARS,ADDRESS DOOR NO. 5-161, CHEPALA UPPADA, BHEEMILI, VISAKHAPATNAM,ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 86 of 2026 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Visaldiapatnam, insofar as the Petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned. 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 dispense with the personal appearance of the Petitioners (specifically the aged 2nd Petitioner and Petitioners 1, 3, and 4) in C.C. No. 86 of 2026. 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the appearance and trial of the Petitioners in C.C. No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, pending final disposal of this Criminal Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. SIVANAYAK KORRA

2. Shiva Nayak Korra Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8704 of 2026

The Court made the following Order:

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A1 to A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C No.86 of 2026 on the file of the learned I Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam, in Crime No.7 of 2026 of Mahila UPS Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 75 (i) (ii) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of 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 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 petitioner, 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

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. In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.2, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

8. 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 the petitioners herein (A1 to A4) before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, 2 2025 Live Law (SC) 240

Visakhapatnam, in CC No.86 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.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

10. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

Date: 30.09.2026 mmk/vnb

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8704/2026

Date: 30.09.2026 mmk/vnb