CRLP/5903/2026 of Katakam Hymavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 September 2026

1. KATAKAM HYMAVATHI, W/O. SRINIVASARAOAGED ABOUT

YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE,R/O. NALLACHERUVU, GUNTUR TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522002.

2. KATAKAM SRINIVASARAO, S/O. BODEIAH,AGED 64 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE.R/O. NALLACHERUVU, GUNTUR TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522002.

3. KATAKAM VARALAKSHMI, D/O. SRINIVASARAO,AGED

YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE,R/O. RAJESWARI COLONY, GUNTUR TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522002.

4. KATAKAM HEMALATHA, S/O. SRINIVASARAO,AGED 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE,R/O. RTC COLONY, GUNTUR TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522002.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI,THROUGH CHIRALA I TOWN P.S, BAPTIA

DISTRICT

2. JANGILLI SRAVANI, D/O. NAGAMALLESWARA RAO,W/O. BALA MANIKANTA PAWAN KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,R/O. RAMAKRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,CHIRALA TOWN MANDAL,BAPTIA DISTRICT - 523292

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Courtpleased to quash the proceedings in C.C No.301 of 2026, on the file Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, against the Petitioners /Accused No.2 to 5 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C No.301 of 2026, on the file Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, pending disposal of criminal petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. THODETI SANDEEP ISWAR

2. Thodeti Sandeep Iswar Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5903 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.301 of 2026 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, for the offences punishable under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-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 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 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 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

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.

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 the petitioners herein (A2 to A5) before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, in CC No.301 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 2 2025 Live Law (SC) 240

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.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 07.09.2026 vnb

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

CRIMINAL PETITION No: 5903 of 2026

Date: 07.09.2026 vnb