CRLP/7856/2026 of Kodavatikanti Chiranjeevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 7 September 2026

1. KODAVATIKANTI CH YEARS, OCC PRIVA STREET, KADAPA TO

2. KODAVATIKANTI JAG OCC COOLI, RESIDE MANDAL, KADAPA D

3. KODAVATIKANTI RO 36 YEARS, OCC PRIV VILLAGE, SANKAVA KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. KODAVATIKANTI MA W/O. ANANDA RAO, RESIDENT OF H. N MANDAL, YSR KADA

1. THE STATE OF A PROSECUTOR, AT H

2. THE STATION HOU KADAPA DISTRICT

3. BANDELA SOUBHAG YEARS, OCC NUN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 7856/2026 HIRANJEEVI, S/O. K. BALASWAMY, ATE EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF RA OWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. GAN, S/O. K. BALASWAMY, AGED 3 ENT OF HRUDAYAPET VILLAGE, KALA ISTRICT. OJELINA, , W/O. SAGILI CHRISTOPHE VATE EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF HR ARAM POST, KALASAPADU MAND ANI VARAKUMARI ALIAS KODURU V AGED 49 YEARS, OCC ANGANVADI W NO. 2/32, MUDUMALA VILLAGE, B. APA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACC AND ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP.BY ITS HIGH COURT, AMARAVATI, USE OFFICER, BADVEL U/G P.S, GYA, , D/O. BANDELA JOJEE RAO, N, RESIDENT OF DIGUVAPALEM

CHEAM AGED 33 AJAREDDY 2 YEARS, ASAPADU ER, AGED UDAYPET DAL, YSR VARAMMA, WORKER, MATTAM CUSED(S) S PUBLIC BADVEL, ,AGED 30 STREET,

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 of 2026

BADVEL TOWN, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in P.R.C 6/2026 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, Y.S.R. Kadapa pursuant to F.I.R. No.28/2026 registered at Badvel U/G P.S, Y.S.R. Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS against the petitioners and pass

High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copies of P.R.C 6/2026 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, Y.S.R. Kadapa pursuant to F.I.R.No.28/2026 registered at Badvel U/G P.S, Y.S.R Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Sections 69,115(2), 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS and pass

High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in P.R.C 6/2026 on the file of the Honourable Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, Y.S.R. Kadapa District pursuant to F.I.R. No.28/2026 registered at Badvel U/G P.S, Y.S.R Kadapa District including personal appearance of the petitioners, and pass

High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (19) in representing the CRLP.No.7856 of 2026 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. YARRAMPALLI AUGUSTEEN

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 of 2026

2. Yarrampalli Augusteen Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 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 (A2 to A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.6 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) & 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

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

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 (A2 to A5) 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.

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.7856 of 2026

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 (A2 to A5) before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel, in P.R.C.No.6 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In 12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7856 of 2026

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: 08.09.2026 MDP