CRLP/350/2026 of Kalugotla Inayathulla Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 August 2026

1. KALUGOTLA INAYA MAHABOOB BASHA COOLIE, ARESIDEN VILLAGE, VELUGODE

2. KALUGOTIA FATHIM MAHABOOB BASHA COOLIE, ARESIDEN VILLAGE, VELUGODE

3. SHAIK MAIMUNNISA MAHABOOB BASHA STUDENT, ARESIDE VILLAGE, VELUGODE

4. IDUBAIGARI ABDU OCCUPATIONIMAM, 21/452/254/11,PANYA

5. IDUBAIGARI RAHAM MAHABOOB MIAH, O 122, KURUVA STREE NANDYAL DISTRICT

1. THE STATE OF A PROSECUTOR, HIGH HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT RI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNC NAL PETITION NO: 350/2026 ATHULLA, SON OF MAHABOOB A, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC NT OF 3-192, JANDA STREET, V EMANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT A-1. MABI, WIFE OF LATE MAHABOOB A, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. OCC NT OF 3-192, JANDA STREET, V EMANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT A-2. A, DAUGHTER OF MAHABOOB A, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. OCC ENT OF 3-192, JANDA STREET, V EMANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT A-3. L SALAM, SON OF MAHABOO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, A RESI AM RAMAIAH STREET, NANDYAL TOW MTULLA BI NOORJAHA, WIFE O OCCUPATION HOME MAKER, ARESIDE ET, VELPANUR VILLAGE, VELUGODE A-5. ...PETITIONER/ACC AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS H COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NE

CHEAM HUSSAIN CUPATION ELPANUR HUSSAIN CUPATION ELPANUR HUSSAIN CUPATION VEIPANUR OB MIAH, DENT OF WN A-4. OF LATE ENT OF 5- EMANDAL, CUSED(S) S PUBLIC ELAPADU,

MRK,J Crl.P.No.350 of 2026

AMARAVATHI

2. S SHAHINA, DAUGHTER OF S. CHAND BASHA, OCCUPATION HOME MAKER, A RESIDENT OF MIDTHUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.286 of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, against the petitioners A1 to A5 herein 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 dispense with filing of the original certified copy of C.C.No 286 of 2025, dated 21/07/2025 on the file of Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur before this Hon’ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 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,he High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.286 of 2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of the Magistrate' of First Class, Nandikotkur against the petitioners A1 to A5 pending disposal of the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. BASHEER AHMED Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.350 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.286 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Section 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

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.

MRK,J Crl.P.No.350 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 A5) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.350 of 2026

Nandikotkur, in C.C.No.286 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: 31.08.2026 MDP