CRLP/7560/2026 of Bathula Chinnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 August 2026

1. BATHULA CHINNAI JOHARAPURAM, NE KURNOOL DISTRICT

1. THE STATE OF PROSECUTOR HIGH

2. KARAKALA RAVI, S/ JOHRAPURAM

Petition under Section circumstances stated in the High Court to quash the p Hon’ble Court of I Additiona alleged offences punisha Petitioner/Accused IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section circumstances stated in the High Court may be please 2026 on the file of Hon’ble Class Kurnool HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 7560/2026 IAH, S/O. LATE RAYAPPA, H.N EAR ST. ANNS CHURCH KURNOOL T, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 518002 ...PETITIONER/A AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY H COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH /O. LATE K. VENKATAIAH HOUSE NO ...RESPONDENT/COMPLA 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P proceedings in C.C.No.709 of 2026 on al Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kurn ble under sections 329(3), 351(2) a 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P d to stay all further proceedings in C.C e Court of I Additional Judicial Magistr

CHEAM NO.69/659, CAMP B ACCUSED PUBLIC O69/309A, INANT(S): g that in the Petition, the n the file of nool for the against the g that in the Petition, the C.No.709 of rate of First

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. HARANADHA RAJU KATTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 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 petitioner herein (Accused), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.709 of 2026 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, wherein he was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner (Accused) before the trial Court by submitting petitioner’s practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioner shall not dispute his 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same.

5. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioner herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can be

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 of 2026

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 petitioner herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, presence of petitioner herein (Accused) before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, in C.C.No.709 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that his presence is necessary.

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7560 of 2026

In the event of failure of the petitioner 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 petitioner is 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: 01.09.2026 MDP