CRLP/7824/2026 of Imdadur Rahaman Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 7 September 2026

1. IMDADUR RAHAMAN NO. 17-6, LANE, SAN

1. THE STATE OF A PROSECUTOR, THR OF ANDHRA PRADES

2. SYED SABREEN, W C/MUSLIM, R/O. D. LALAPET, GUNTUR T

Petition under Section the circumstances stated in the High Court to quash the in C.C. No. 566 of 2025, o Judge, Guntur, arising out o jurisdiction under Section 2023, and consequently Petitioner/Accused No.1, conscience, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section circumstances stated in the 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: 7824/2026 N, S/O. HIBJU RAHEEM, AGE 39 YEAR NATH NAGAR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER/A AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS ROUGH DISHA U.P.S., GUNTUR, HIG SH AT AMARAVATHI W/O IMDADUR RAHAMAN, AGED . NO. 18-18-104, MUPTHI STREET TOWN. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA n 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS pra n the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimin e proceedings against the Petitioner/Acc on the file of the learned IV Additional of Disha U.P.S., Guntur, in exercise of 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksh set aside all further proceedings a in the interest of justice, equity 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P

CHEAM RS, R/O. D. A ACCUSED S PUBLIC H COURT 30 YRS, T BAZAR, INANT(S): ying that in nal Petition, cused No.1 Junior Civil its inherent ha Sanhita, against the and good g that in the Petition, the

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7824 of 2026

High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copies of the records in C.C.No.566/2025 on the file of the Court of the IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge:: Guntur, pending disposal of the accompanying Criminal Petition IA NO: 2 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 Proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.566 of 2025 on the file of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge Guntur against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 till pending disposal of the above CRLP Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. BABU RAO PANDIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7824 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 petitioner herein (A1), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.566 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, wherein he was charged with the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Sandeep, 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 petitioner (A1) before the trial Court by submitting petitioner’s practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioner shall not dispute his 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 petitioner 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.

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7824 of 2026

5. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioner 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 petitioner herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, presence of petitioner herein (A1) before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7824 of 2026

C.C.No.566 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 petitioner 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 petitioner is 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