CRLP/8658/2026 of Kommanaboina Muttaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September 2026

1. KOMMANABOINA M OCC JR. ASST. ADD VILLAGE, KARAMCH

2. KOMMANABOINA SR AGED 59 YEARS, VILLAGE, KARAMCH

3. YERRAKULA RAMA YEARS, OCC CULT KARAMCHEDU MAND

4. KOMMANABOINA AN OCC HOUSE W KARAMCHEDU MAND

5. KOMMANABOINA UM OCC HOUSE W KARAMCHEDU MAND

6. KOMMANABOINA V AGED 54 YEARS, VILLAGE, KARAMCH

7. YARRAKULA VENKA YEARS, OCC HOU KARAMCHEDU MAND

8. POLUBOYINA RAJES CULTIVATION, R/O. MANDAL BAPATLA D HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 8658/2026 UTTAIAH, S/O. NARAIAH, AGED 54 DANKI MUNICIPALITY, R/O. KUNKAL EDU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. RINIVASARAO ALIAS SRINU, S/O. NA OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKAL EDU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. AKOTAIAH, S/O. SUBBARAYUDU, A TIVATION, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU DAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. NURADHA, W/O MUTTAIAH, AGED 5 WIFE, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU DAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. MADEVI, W/O ARJUNARAO, AGED 5 WIFE, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU DAL BAPATIA DISTRICT. VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O SRINIV OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKAL EDU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ATARATNAM, W/O RAMAKOTAIAH, SE WIFE, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU DAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. SH, S/O SRINIVASARAO, AGED 21 YEA KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARA DISTRICT.

CHEAM 4 YEARS, LAMARRU ARAYANA, LAMARRU AGED 72 VILLAGE, 3 YEARS, VILLAGE, 0 YEARS, VILLAGE, VASARAO LAMARRU AGED 64 VILLAGE, ARS, OCC AMCHEDU

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 of 2026

9. POLUBOYINA SRINIVASARAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

2. KOMMANABOINA PITCHAIAH, S/O RAMULU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC GOVT. TEACHER, R/O. CHINNA BAZAAR, KUNKALAMARRU VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT-523168. ...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 quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.357 of 2025 on the file of Court of Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parchur 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 in C.C. No. 357 of 2025 on the file of Court of Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parchur, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. THARIGOPULA SURYA CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 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 A9), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.357 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 115(2) and 118(1) read with Section 190 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 No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner herein (A1) is working as an employee in the Municipality and petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 7 (A2, A3 and A7) are senior citizens and are suffering with various ailments.

4. 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.

5. 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.

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 of 2026

So far as dispensing with the presence of the petitioners herein, before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same.

6. 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.

7. 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

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8658 of 2026

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 petitioners herein (A1 to A9) before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur, in C.C.No.357 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 stand 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.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

Dated: 29.09.2026 MDP