Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/1269/2026 of BATHULA SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASA RAO Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 18 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1269/2026 Between: 1. BATHULA SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMANA,AGED ABOUT
APHC010080612026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1269/2026
Between:
1. BATHULA SRINIVAS @ SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMANA,AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KUSHI GARDEN EXTENT DAMMIGUDA
NAGARAM KEESARA KV RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA STATE
2. BATHULA VENKATALAXMI, W/O RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O KUSHI GARDEN EXTENT
DAMMIGUDA
NAGARAM
KEESARA
KV
RANGAREDDY,
TELANGANA STATE
3. JAMMA-GANGA-, W/O-JAMMA-SRINIVASA-RAO AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O MANDASA VILLAGE AND MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AP
4. JAMMA- SRINI VASA-RAO, -S/O-LAXMANA AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS R/O MANDASA VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT AP
5. SANNI-BOYINA-LAXMI-, W/O-SRINU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCCIHOUSE WIFE, R/O KOTTURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AP
6. SANNI-BOYINA-SRINU, S/O-RAMANA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O KOTTUM VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AP
7. ULLAKULA-SATYAVATHI, -S/O-RAMANA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC
HOUSE
WIFE,
R/O
ALLIPURAM
VISAKAHAPATNAM
TOWN/DIST
8. ULLAKULA-RAMANA, -S/O-VENKATA-RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O KOTTUM VILLAGE AND MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AP .
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR THROUGH SHO PONDURU PS AP HIGH COURT
PREMISES AMARAVATHI,
2. BATHULAKALPANA, W/O-SRINIVASARAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O KRISHNA-PARK PALAKONDA ROAD
SRIKAKULAM TOW DISTRICT AP
...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 pleased to quash the charge sheet in CC.NO. 609
/2025 on the file of the Hon’ble court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Prl Junior Civil Judge court at Srikakulam District 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 STAY of all further proceedings in CC.NO. 609
/2025 on the file of the Hon’ble court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum- Prl Junior Civil Judge court at Srikakulam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. TANDASA RADHA RANI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1269 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 A8), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.609 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam District for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of the 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 petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners (A1 to A8) 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, 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 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 (A1 to A8) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class- 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam District, in C.C.No.609 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 petitioners 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 petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 19.09.2026 RMR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1269 of 2026 19.09.2026
W RMR