Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/7682/2026 of Komarabathina Hari Prasad 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: 7682/2026 Between: 1. KOMARABATHINA HARI PRASAD, S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED 37
APHC010460932026
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: 7682/2026
Between:
1. KOMARABATHINA HARI PRASAD, S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED
37 YRS,OCC PRIVATE WORK, R/O GANDHI BOMMA BAZAR, NEAR
REDIA RAMALAYAM, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, KORETIPADU, GUNTUR.
2. KOMARABATHINA VINOD KUMAR ALIAS VINOD, S/O RAJENDRA
PRASAD, AGED 40 YRS, R/O DONEPUDIVARIPALEM, GURNADHA
NAGAR, NIZAMPATNAM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT.
3. YADLA DIVYA, , W/O KOMARABATHINA HARI PRASAD, AGED 35
YRS, R/ONEAR REDIA RAMALAYAM, CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, KORETIPADU, GUNTUR.
4. MOHAMMAD JAYALALITHA, W/O MOHAMMAD YAKUB KHAN
YACOB,AGED 36 YRS, R/O GANDHI BOMMA BAZAR, NEAR REDIA
RAMALAYAM,CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR.
5. MOHAMMAD YAKUB KHAN ALIAS YACOB, S/O RAHIMAN KHAN, AGED 37YRS, R/O GANDHI BOMMA BAZAR, NEAR REDIA
RAMALAYAM,CHANDRAMOULI NAGAR, GUNTUR.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BHATTIPROLU POLICE STATION, BAPATLA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. KANAPARTHI SUNEETHA, W/O NAGA NANCHARAIAH, AGED 38
YRS, R/O DASULAPALEM VILLAGE, NAGARAM MANDAL, BAPATLA
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 to Quash the Charge Sheet in CC.No. 447/2026, pending against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 on the file of the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Repalle, Bapatla District, and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of Charge Sheet in
CC.No.
447/2026,
pending
against
the
Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 on the file of the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Repalle, Bapatia District before this Hon’ble Court and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IA NO: 2 OF 2026
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further Proceedings arising in CC.No.
447/2026, pending against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 on the file of the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Repalle Bapatla District, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. RAVI TEJA DOMMETI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7682 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 A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.447 of 2026 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Repalle, Bapatla District for the offences punishable under Section 115(2), 79, 351(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 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, 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 A5) before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Repalle, Bapatla District, in C.C.No.447 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, 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: 7682 of 2026 07.09.2026
W RMR