CRLP/8663/2026 of Lanka Sarada Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September 2026

1. LANKA SARADA DE OCC HOUSE WIF Y.RAMAVARAM VILL ALLURI SEETHARAM

1. THE STATE OF A PROSECUTOR, H ATAMARAVATHI. PIN

2. GORLE ESWARI, W MARKET STREET, Y SEETHARAMARAJU Petition under Section circumstances stated in the High Court to quash the pr Judicial First Class Magistr against the Petitioners/Accu IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section circumstances stated in the High Court may be pleas C.C.NO:153 of 2025 on t 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: 8663/2026 EVI, W/O. RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 40 FER/ O. 1-32, VALMIKI STREE LAGE, Y.RAMAVARAM POST AND MARAJU DISTRICT, PIN 533483 ...PETITIONER/A AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT IGH COURT OF ANDHRA P N 522239 W/O VARA PRASAD AGED 37 YEA Y. RAMAVARAM POST AND MANDAL DISTRICT, PIN 533483 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P roceedings in C.C.No.153 of 2025 on th rate at Addateegala, Alluri Seetharama used Nos.1 and 3 in the interest of justic 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P sed to grant stay of all further proc the file of the Judicial First Class Ma

CHEAM 0 YEARS, ET, VTC MANDAL, ACCUSED TSPUBLIC PRADESH ARS, R/O. L, ALLURI INANT(S): g that in the Petition, the e file of the raju District e g that in the Petition, the ceedings in agistrate at

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8663 of 2026

Addateegala, Alluri Seetharamaraju District against the Petitioner Accused including the presence of the petitioner/Accused pending disposal of the above Criminal petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. V SANTHISREE Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8663 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 petitioner herein (Accused), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.153 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addateegala, wherein she was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner (Accused) before the trial Court by submitting petitioner’s practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioner shall not dispute her 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 petitioner 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 petitioner herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can be

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8663 of 2026

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 petitioner herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, presence of petitioner herein (Accused) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addateegala, in C.C.No.153 of 2025 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that her presence is necessary.

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8663 of 2026

In the event of failure of the petitioner to appear, when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stand automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

9. Needless to state that the petitioner is 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 Note: Issue C.C. by 01.10.2026

B/o. MDP