CRLP/8155/2026 of Akusingi Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September 2026

1. Akusingi Santhosh Kumar, S/o Nageswara RaoAged about 36 years, Occ Private Employee,Katragada-B Village, Bhamini Mandal,Parvathipuram Manyam District.

2. Akusingi Varalaxmi, W/o. Nageswara Rao,Aged about 70 years, Occ housewife,Katragada-B Village, Bhamini Mandal,Parvathipuram Manyam District. ...Petitioners AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Amaravathi.

2. Aakusingi Priyanka, W/o. Santhosh Kumar,Aged about 24 years, r/o. Bhamini Village Mandal Parvathipuram Manyam District. ...Respondents

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtto quash the C.C.No. 172 of 2026 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothuru 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 ail further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioners/Al to A2 in C.C.No. 172 of 2026 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothuru pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: REDDY VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8155 of 2026 The Court made the following Order:

.Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.172 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothuru, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent- State.

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 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 petitioner, 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

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 the petitioners herein (Accused) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothuru, in CC No.172 of 2026 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.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 16.09.2026 PSA

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8155 of 2026

Date: 16.09.2026 PSA