logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1475 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 5632 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Parties : Dulam Rajasekhar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 10-08-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 - Section 528 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: 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 Court pleased to QUASH the proceedings against the Petitioner in CC No. 985 of 2026 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 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 STAY of all further proceedings in CC No. 985 of 2026 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, including the appearance of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the petition for quashing and pass)

1. 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 CC No.985 of 2026 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Section 354D IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 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 Others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594), 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.

8. 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 the petitioner herein (Accused) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.985 of 2026 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that her presence is necessary. 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.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

10. Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal