CRLP/8428/2026 of Bodduru Rajasekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 September 2026

1. BODDURU RAJASEK ASSISTANT MANAG VILLAGE, THERLAM

1. THE STATE OF A PROSECUTOR HIGH

2. THE STATION HOU VIZIANAGARAM DIST

3. THE DISTRICT COO CHIEF EXECUTIVE O

Petition under Section circumstances stated in the High Court quash the pro 2025 in the Hon’ble Court o Vizianagaram IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section circumstances stated in the High Court may be pleased HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 8428/2026 KHAR, S/O SIVUDU .B AGE 43 YEA GER, DCCB VIZIANAGARAM R/O N MANDAL,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT - ...PETITIONER/A AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS H COURT OF A.P AMARAVATI. USE OFFICER, BALIJIPETA POLICE TRICT. PERATIVE CENTRIAL BANK LTD, PE OFFICER,VIZIANAGARAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P oceedings against the petitioner in C.C of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P d stay all further proceedings, in the C.C

CHEAM RS, OCC- NEMALAM 535126 ACCUSED S PUBLIC STATION EP BY ITS INANT(S): g that in the Petition, the C.No.454 of s, at Bobbili, g that in the Petition, the C.No.454 of

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8428 of 2026

2025 in the Hon'ble Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Bobbili, Vizianagaram, pending the quash petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

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

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8428 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.454 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili, wherein he was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2.

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 his 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.

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8428 of 2026

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 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 Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8428 of 2026

Class, Bobbili, in C.C.No.454 of 2025 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that his presence is necessary. In the event of failure of the petitioner 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 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: 22.09.2026 MDP