CRLP/7457/2026 of Ellapu Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 August 2026

1. ELLAPU SATYANAR YEARS,OCC HOTEL ADIYYA STREET,KOT

2. PAIDIMALLA SRIKA YEARS,OCC HOTE MANDAPETA MAND RESIDING AT KRISH

3. NANDIPILLI TATA R YEARS,OCC HOTEL POLAKI MANDAL,SR AT R.R. PETA, VIJAY

4. KADIRI RAJU, S/O WORKER, R/O MANDAL,SRIKAKULA PETA, VIJAYAWADA.

1. THE STATE OF A PROSECUTOR,HIGH AMARAVATI.

2. PENUMUDI VENKAT FLOOR, CHITTUR VIJAYAWADA.-52000 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: 7457/2026 RAYANA, S/O ATCHA RAO, AGED A L OWNER, R/O D.NO.9-40-46, CHIN THAPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIS NTH, S/O NAGA RAJU, AGED A EL WORKER, R/O GOLLAPETA DAL,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PR NALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. RAO, S/O APPALA SWAMY, AGED A L WORKER, R/O GUPPADIPETA RIKAKULAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R YAWADA. HARI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,OC GUPPADIPETA VILLAGE, AM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING . ...PETITIONER/ACC AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS H COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE T RAO, S/O RAMA RAO,R/O FLAT RI COMPLEX, PULIPATIVARI

01. CHEAM ABOUT 62 NAPOTINA STRICT. BOUT 42 VILLAGE, RESENTLY ABOUT 42 VILLAGE, RESIDING C HOTEL POLAKI G AT R.R. CUSED(S) S PUBLIC ESH, AT T NO.9, II STREET,

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7457 of 2026

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

High Court quash the entire proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.272 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, arising out of Crime No.122 of 2014 of I-Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, and consequently discharge the Petitioners from the said criminal proceedings, IA NO: 1 OF 2026

High Court may be pleased dispense with the requirement of filing certified copies of the Charge Sheet and connected proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, arising out of Crime No.122 of 2014 of I- Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, IA NO: 2 OF 2026

High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.272 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, arising out of Crime No.122 of 2014 of I-Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. SAYYAD ANWAR BASHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7457 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.272 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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 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.

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.7457 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 A4) before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, in C.C.No.272 of 2025 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7457 of 2026

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