CRLP/7700/2026 of Ediga Prathap alias E Prathap Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 2 September 2026

1. EDIGA PRATHAP AL E.VENKATESULU, R KALYANADURGAM M NO. 1/ ACCUSED NO

2. EDIGA VENKATESU YEARS, S/OLATE EE VARLI VILLAGE, KA DIST.PETITIONER NO

3. EDIGA RAJESWARI, R/OH.NO 1-8, B.C C MANDAL, ANANTHAP NO. 3

4. EDIGA RANGA SWA YEARS,S/O LATE E. 58, FLAT NO

SANATHNAGAR 1 E DISTRICT, TELANGA

5. EDIGA ANJINAIAH A LATE E.HAMANTHU, DHONE, NANDYAL D

1. THE STATE OF A HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 7700/2026 LIAS E PRATHAP GOUD, AGED 28 YE R/O H.NO 1-8, B.C COLONY, VARLI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DIST. PE O. 1 ULU ALIAS E VENKATESWARLU, A EDIGA RAMAPPA, R/O H.NO 1-8, B.C ALYANADURGAM MANDAL, ANANTH O. 2 / ACCUSED NO. 2 AGED 31 YEARS, D/O EDIGA VENKA COLONY, VARLI VILLAGE, KALYANA PURAM DIST. . PETITIONER NO. 3 / A AMY GOUD ALIAS RANGA BABU, VENKATARAMANA, RESIDENT OF H 70, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, MO EPOST, BALA NAGAR, K.V RANGA ANA STATE PIN NO 500018. ALIAS ANJANEYULU, AGED 43 YEA RESIDENT OF H.NO 7-483-3-1, AUTO DISTRICT, PIN NO 518222. ...PETITIONER/ACC AND NDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED

CHEAM EARS, S/O VILLAGE, TITIONER AGED 60 COLONY, HAPURAM ATESULU, ADURGAM ACCUSED AGED 33 H.NO 12-9- OOSAPET, A REDDY ARS, S/O O NAGAR, CUSED(S) D BY ITS

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7700 of 2026

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

2. EDIGA MANEESHA, W/O EDIGA PRATHAP, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARSR/AT SANGALA VILLAGE, KRISHNAGIRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. . . .RESPONDENT NO. 2 / DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT. ...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 Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1439/2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone (arising out of Crime No. 94/2025 of Krishnagiri Police Station), against all the Petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 to 5), ensuring the ends of justice are met, 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 the physical appearance of the Petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 5, in C.C.No.1439/2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. P VASU SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7700 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 (A1 to A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1439 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 85, 79, 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 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

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7700 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 (A1 to A5) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone, in C.C.No.1439 of 2025 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7700 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: 03.09.2026 MDP