CRLP/8653/2026 of Patan Shazadi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September 2026

1. PATAN SHAZADI, W 60 YEARS, OCC H 2082 KOTTALA PET

2. PATAN SADIK VALI, 44 YEARS. OCC R PAMIDI, 515775 ANA

3. PATAN SHAHEENA ABOUT 34 YEARS KOTTALAPETA PAM

4. PATAN DADA BAS LATE PATAN MUST BUSSINESS, R/O D 515775 ANANTAPUR

5. PATAN MASTANI, W BASHA, MUSLIM, AG D.NO. 1-633, N ANANTAPUR DISTR

6. PATAN KHALANDA ABOUT 38 YEARS, 15775 ANANTAPUR

7. GIDDEBHAI PATAN PER CHARGE SHE MUSLIM, AGED ABO 10-174.KALAVA GA 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: 8653/2026 W/O PATAN MUSHTAJA MUSLIM AGE OUSEHOLD, OCC HOUSEHOLD,R/O TA, PAMIDI 515775 ANANTAPUR , S/O PATAN MUSTAFA MUSLIM, AGE R/O D.NO. 1-2086, KOTTALAPETA, P ANTAPUR DISTRICT A, W/O PATAN SADIK VALI MUSLI S, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O D.NO MIDI 515775 ANANTAPUR DISTRICT SHA KHALANDAR ALIAS DADA BA TAFA MUSLIM, AGE ABOUT 45 YEA D.NO. 1-633,NEAR MUTTON MARKE R DISTRICT W/O PATHAN DADA KHALANDAR AL GED ABOUT 36 YEARS. OCC HOUSEH NEAR MUTTON MARKET PAMI RICT AR, S/O PATAN MUSHTAFA MUSLI D.NO. 10-174, KALAVAGADDA VEEDH R DISTRICT N NEELUFAR, GIDDEBHAI PATAN N EET PATAN NEELU W/O PATAN KHA OUT 34 YEARS OCC HOUSE HOLD, DDA VEEDHI PAMIDI 515775, AS ANA

CHEAM ED ABOUT D NO. 1- ED ABOUT PAMIDI.PO M, AGED O. 1-2086. ASHA, S/O ARS OCC ET PAMIDI IAS DADA HOLD R/O DI,515775 M, AGED HIPAMIDIS EELUFAR ALANDAR R/O D.NO ANTAPUR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8653 of 2026

DISTRICT

8. G HINANAZ ALIAS HEEN, W/O P. MAHABOOB BASHA MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-2084, KOTTALA PETA STREET PAMIDIANANTAPUR DISTRICT OCC HOUSEHOLD 515775

9. PATAN SHASHA VALI, S/O PATAN MUSATAFA MUSLIM,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.2-14-A, DHAGRGA PAMIDI 515775 ANANTAPUR DISTRICT STREET

10. PATAN JAREENA, PATAN JAREENA AS PER CHARGE SHEET PATAN ZAREENA W/O PATAN SHASHA VALI MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC HOUSE HOLD, R/O D.NO, 2-14-A, DHAGRGA SNEET PAMIDI 515775 ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A.P. HIGH COURT THROUGH 1 TOWN P.S ADONI KURNOOL DISTRICT

2. K UMME SALMA, W/O PATAN MASTAN VALI. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O D. NO. 12/781, MASJIDPURA, STREET ADONI KURNOOL 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 may be please to Quash the Calendar Case viz C.C.No.190 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Adoni to the extent of the petitioners A2 to A11 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings including the personal appearance in Calendar Case viz C.C. No 190 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Adoni to the extent of petitioners - accused 2 to 11

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8653 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. M MEHDI HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8653 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 (A2 to A11), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.190 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

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, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners (A2 to A11) 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 herein, 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

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8653 of 2026

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.

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 (A2 to A11) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, in C.C.No.190 of 2020 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In the 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8653 of 2026

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.

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

Dated: 29.09.2026 MDP