Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/7612/2026 of Pechetti Venkata Surya Prakash alias Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7612/2026 Between: 1. PECHETTI VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH ALIAS SURESH, S/O. VENKATA
APHC010456002026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7612/2026
Between:
1. PECHETTI VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH ALIAS SURESH, S/O.
VENKATA
SURYANARAYANA,
AGED
YEARS,OCC
AGRICULTURE, R/O. 4-136, ADURRU VILLAGE,MAMIDKUDURU
MANDAL,DR B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
2. PECHETTI VENKATA RAMANA, W/O. VENKATA SURYANARAYANA, AGED 59 YEARS OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 4-136, ADURRU
VILLAGE,MAMIDKUDURU
MANDAL
DR
B.R.
AMBEDKAR
KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
3. PECHETTI DHARMA RAO, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED 76 YEARS,OCC
RETIRED TEACHER,R/O. 4-41/1, LB NAGAR,RAZOLE VILLAGE AND
MANDAL,DR B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
4. PECHETTI
SURYAVATHI,
W/O.
DHARMA
RAO,
AGED
YEARS,OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. 4-41/1, LB NAGAR,RAZOLE
VILLAGE MANDAL,DR B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
5. PECHETTI SRINIVAS SRINU, S/O. DHARMA RAO, AGED 52
YEARS,OCC
WELDER
ELECTRICIAN,R/O.
4-137,
ADURRU
VILLAGE,MAMIDKUDURUMANDAL,DR
B.R.
AMBEDKAR
KONASEEMA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H.O. MAHILA
POLICE
STATION,EAST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM,REPRESENTED
BY
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI.
2. PECHETTI SAI LAKSHMI, W/O. PECHETTI VENKATA SURYA
PRAKASH
SURESH
WIFE,R/O.
D.NO.102-5-573,
MAA
NIVAS
BUILDING,PANCHAYATHI
STREET,
BOMMURU
VILLAGE,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
RURAL
MANDAL,EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT. - 533124
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
High Court pleased to quash the C.C.No.2098 of 2025 on the file of the IV
Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing certified copy of C.C.No.
2098 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IV
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026
High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioners/ A1, A2, A4 to A6 in C.C.No. 2098 of 2025 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7612 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, A2 and A4 to A6), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2098 of 2025 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravarm for the offences punishable under Section 85, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
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, A2 and A4 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, A2 and A4 to A6) before the IV Additional Juniro Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram, in C.C.No.2098 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, all pending applications shall stand closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 01.09.2026 RMR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7612 of 2026 01.09.2026
W RMR