CRLP/8322/2026 of Damam Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 18 September 2026

1. DAMAM ASHOK KU ABOUT 31 YRS, OCC GUDUR TOWN, KURN

2. DAMAM VINODH KU ABOUT 31 YRS, OCC GUDUR TOWN, KURN

3. DAMAM SARADHA ABOUT 50 YRS, OC TELUGU VEDHI, GUD

4. DAMAM MADHAVA AGED ABOUT 31 Y VEDHI, GUDUR TOW

5. DAMAM ANANDH, S/ 43 YRS, OCC AGIC VEDHI, GUDUR TOW

6. DAMAM VITTAL AL DAMAM VIJAY KUMA H.NO. 5-80, TELUGU

1. THE STATE OF PROSECUTOR, REP HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 8322/2026 UMAR, S/O LATE DAMAM SREENAT CRESIDING AT H.NO. 5/169/A, TELUG NOOL DISTRICT. UMAR, S/O LATE DAMAM SREENAT CRESIDING AT H.NO. 5/169/A, TELUG NOOL DISTRICT. BAI, W/O LATE DAMAM SREENAT CC HOUSEWIFERESIDING AT H.NO DUR TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. KUMAR, S/O LATE DAMAM HARI H YRS, OCCRESIDING AT H.NO. 5-11, WN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. /O LATE DAMAM KAILASHNATH AGE CULTURERESIDING AT H.NO. 5-11, WN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. IAS DAMAM TEEACHER VITTAL, S AR AGED ABOUT 35 YRS, OCC RES VEDHI, GUDURTOWN, KURNOOL DIS ...PETITIONER/ACC AND ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH P BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER

CHEAM TH AGED GU VEDHI, TH AGED GU VEDHI, TH AGED O. 5/169/A, HARINATH TELUGU ED ABOUT TELUGU S/O LATE SIDING AT STRICT. CUSED(S) H PUBIC R GUDUR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8322 of 2026

PS, KURNNOL DISTRICT

2. DAMAM JYOTHI, W/O DAMAM RAJUAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT H.NO.6/28, TELUGU STREET, GUDUR TOWN AND MANDAL, 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 quash the C.C.No.3485 of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court at Kurnool, and to pass 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 stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.3485 of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble judicial magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court at Kurnool, including appearance of the petitioners, pending the criminal petition and to pass any other and further orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. M S BANU PRASAD RAO

2. M.S.BANU PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8322 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 A6), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3485 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 323, 354, 506 & 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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 (A1 to A6) 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.

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8322 of 2026

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 A6) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8322 of 2026

Special Mobile Court, Kurnool, in C.C.No.3485 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 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, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

Dated: 19.09.2026 MDP