Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/7737/2026 of Vallepu Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7737/2026 Between: 1. VALLEPU VENKATA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
APHC010463242026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7737/2026
Between:
1. VALLEPU VENKATA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS,
PALLAMALLI
VILLAGE,CHIMAKURTHY
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHANDRAMMA
NAGAR,YELLAMMA BANDA, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD.
2. VALLEPU SESHAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU,AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS,
PALLAMALLI
VILLAGE,
CHIMAKURTHY
MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHANDRAMMA
NAGAR,YELLAMMA BANDA, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD.
3. GUNJA
REVATHI,
W/O.
SRINU,AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O.SAMANTHAPUDI
VILLAGE,DARSI
MANDAL.
PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
4. CHALLA PRABHAVATHI, W/O. VENKATESWARLU,AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS,
R/O.MOHAN
BABU
THOTA,NAIDUPETA
TOWN,
THIRUPATHI DISTRICT.
5. CHALLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. SANNASAIAH,AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS,
R/O.VEDURU
PATTU
VILLAGE,DORAVARI
SATRAM
MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
6. GUNJI RENUKA ALIAS YALLAMMA, W/O. RAVINDRA,AGED ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O.
QUTBULLAPUR,RANGA
REDDY
DISTRICT,
TELANGANA STATE.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH
COURT
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT
AMARAVATI.THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,CHIMAKURTHY
POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. VALLEPU ARUNA KUMARI, W/O VENKATA RAO,AGED ABOUT 22
YEARS, R/O. PALLAMALLI VILLAGE,CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
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 pleased to call for records and Quash the Charge Sheet in
C.C.No. 180 of 2024, on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Excise Court, Ongole, against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 6 for the offences punishable Under Sections 85, 115(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, and 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 to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 6 in C.C.No. 180 of 2024, on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Excise Court, Ongole, pending disposal of the above quash petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7737 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A1 to A6), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.180 of 2024 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Ongole for the offences punishable under Section 85, 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
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 (A1 to A6) 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 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.
12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
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 (A1 to A6) before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Ongole, in C.C.No.180 of 2024 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.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 07.09.2026 RMR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7737 of 2026 07.09.2026
W RMR