CRLP/7646/2026 of Paturu Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 1 September 2026

1. PATURU SATYANAR AGE59 YEARS, R/O D SRINAGAR, VISAKAP NO. 4355 9081 9613.

2. PATURU NIRMALA 58YEARS, R/O D.N SRINAGAR, VISAKH AADHARNO. 5231491

3. PATURU MRUDULA W/O NAGAMALLESH NEARRAMALAYAM WESTGODAVARI D 40460369565

4. KODALI NAGAMALL YEARS, R/O D.N RAMAKRISHNAPURA 8019266169, AADHAR

1. THE STATE OF AND INSPECTOR OF VISAKHAPATNAM C HIGH COURT OF AND HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 7646/2026 RAYANA, A-1, S/O LATE SRI RAMA D.NO.27-3-44, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA PATNAM CITY, CELL NO. 9573483857 KUMARI, A-2, W/O SATYANARAYA NO.27-3-44, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA HAPATNAM CITY, CELL NO. 90 12 2726. ALIAS KODALI NAGAMALLESHWAR HWARAO, AGE 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO VEEDHI, RAMAKRISHNA PURAM, IST., CELL NO. 8790100044, AAD ESHWARAO, A-4, S/O BHASKARAO NO.22D-3-2, NEAR RAMALAYAM AM, ELURU, WEST GODAVAII DIST., R NO. 6692 8913 9825. ...PETITIONER/ACC AND HRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY T POLICE, GAJUWAKA POLICE CITY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROS DHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

CHEAM AMURTHY, SCHOOL, , AADHAR ANA, AGE SCHOOL, 00499382, RAO, A-3, O.22D-3-2, ELURU, HAR NO. , AGE 45 VEEDHI, CELL NO. CUSED(S) THE SUB- STATION, SECUTOR,

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7646 of 2026

2. MADDIRALA TANUJA, W/O. LATE PATURU SRI. KIRAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 27-3-44, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA SCHOOL, OFFICIAL COLONY, SRINAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, CELL NO.8978229864. ...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 call for records in CC No. 52 of 2026 on the file of Additional Chief judicial magistrate at Visakhpatnam in FIR No. 479/2025 dated 23.10.2025 registered at Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam City and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. CHETAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7646 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 A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.52 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard Ms. A.Priya, learned counsel representing Mr. Chetan Ponnuru, 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 A4) 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.

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7646 of 2026

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.

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 A4) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7646 of 2026

Visakhapatnam City, in C.C.No.52 of 2025 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, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

Dated: 02.09.2026 MDP