CRLP/8434/2025 of Yarram Janardhana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 8 September 2026

1. YARRAM JANARDHA R/O. D.NO A/43 YA MANDAL, PRAKASAM

2. YARRAM NAGIREDD YEARS, R/O. D.N KARAMCHEDU MAND

3. YARRAM PITCHAMM D.NO A/43 YARRAMV PRAKASAM DISTRIC

1. THE STATE OF PROSECUTOR HIG AMARAVATHI.

2. AMMIREDDY LAKS REDDY, REP BY HER VENKATA REDDY, A BALASWAMY STR VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R.

Petition under Section circumstances stated in the High Court pleased to quas HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Y, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 8434/2025 ANA REDDY, S/O NAGIREDDY AGE 3 ARRAMVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KARA M DISTRICT DY, S/O VENKATESWARA REDDY, NO A/43 YARRAMVARIPALEM DAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT MA, W/O NAGIREEDDY, AGE 50 YEA VARIPALEM VILLAGE KARAMCHEDU CT. ...PETITIONER/ACC AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY GH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD HMI JYOTHI, W/O,YARRAM JANA R G.P.A. HOLDER AMMIREDDY SUJAT AGE 43 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 4 EET, RANIGARITOTA, KRISHNA . DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P sh the Proceedings in DVC No.56 of 20

CHEAM 36 YEARS, AMCHEDU AGE 69 VILLAGE, ARS, R/O. MANDAL, CUSED(S) PUBLIC ESH, AT ARDHANA THA, W/O, 41-28/4-70, LANKA, INANT(S): g that in the Petition, the 025 on the I

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada Krishna District against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of DVC No.56 of 2025 on the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada Krishna District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 in DVC No. 56 of 2025 on the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the criminal petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. MARELLA RADHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

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/respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein, seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Neelothpal Ganji, 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 herein 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

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

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. In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.2, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594 22025 Live Law (SC) 240

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

8. 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/respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in D.V.C.No.56 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.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

10. 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: 09.09.2026 MDP