Peram Nanda Kishore Reddy @ Peeram Nanda Kishore Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Peram Nagendra Kumar Reddy, S/o.P.Nageswara Reddy, aged about 29 years, Hindu, Occ.B.Tech Student, R/o.KolimigundIa Village and Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P State.

¶13

Palle Venkata Raghunatha Reddy @ Raghu, S/o.P.Bayyapu Reddy, aged about 32 years, OcciAgriculturist, R/o.KolimigundIa Village and Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P State.

¶14

Sareddy Ganga Govardhan Reddy, S/o.S.Basi Reddy, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Occ:Electrician, R/o.KolimigundIa Village and Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P State.

¶15

Gooli Chandra Mohan Reddy @ C K Palli Chandra Mohan Reddy,

¶16

S/o.Umakantha Reddy, aged about 32 years, Occ:Private Employee

¶17

R/o.KolimigundIa Village and Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P State.

¶18

...Petltloners/A1 to A5

¶19

AND

¶20

The State of AP, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravati.

¶21

Talari Maheshwari, S/o.Talari Srinivasulu, aged about 48 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.KolimigundIa Village and Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P State-518123.

¶22

...Respondents/Complainant

¶23

Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.681 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal and quash the same.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings^inC.C.No.681 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal, including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the quash petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Srinivasa Reddy Velagala

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi,

¶28

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms.Ayesha Azma S

¶30

The Court made the following:

/ w

1

APHC010046082025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

[3396]

¶36

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶39

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 954/2025

¶40

Between:

¶41

1.PERAM NANDA KISHORE REDDY @ PEERAM NANDA KISHORE REDDY, S/O.P.BAYYAPUREDDY,AGED ABOUT 32YEARS,OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/0 KOLIMIGUNDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P STATE.

¶42

2.PERAM NAGENDRAKUMAR REDDY,, S/O.P.NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29YEARS,HINDU,OCC B.TCH STUDENT, R/0 KOLIMIGUNDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P STATE.

¶43

3.PALLEVENKATA RAGHUNATHA REDDY, RAGHU S/O.P.BAYYAPU REDDY,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/0 KOLIMIGUNDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,NANDYAL DISTRICT,A.P STATE.

¶44

4.SAREDDY GANGA GOVARDHAN REDDY, S/O.S.BASI REDDY AGED ABOUT 32YEARS,HINDU,OCC ELECTRICIAN, R/0 KOLIMIGUNDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,NANDYAL DISTRICT,A.P STATE.

¶45

5.GOOLI CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY @ C K PALLI CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY,, S/O UMAKANTHAREDDY,AGED ABOUT 32YEARS,OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/0 KOLIMIGUNDLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P STATE.

¶46

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶47

AND

¶48

2

¶49

1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATI.

¶50

2.TALARI MAHESHWARI, S/O.TALARI SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0 KOLIMIGUNDLA VILLAGE^AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P STATE-518123.

¶51

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶52

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum^ofGroundsof Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No. 681 of 2022^onthefileof II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal and quash the same.

¶53

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶54

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 all further proceedings^inC.C.No. 681 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal, including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the quash petition, and pass

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶56

1.BS REDDY

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1.AYESHA AZMAS

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

't'

3

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶63

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 954/2025

¶64

ORDER:

¶65

The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under^{Section528ofBNSS} has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.681 of 2025^onthefileof II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶66

Heard Sri Srinivasa Reddy Velagala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Ayesha Azma learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{onbehalfofthe} State is in attendance.

¶67

The contentions raised in the present petition relating to delay is a matter of defense. As can be seen from the record, a case has been lodged against the husband and sons of the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326 r/w 34 of IPC pending in S.C.No.373 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal. They were arrested. After getting bail, the present case has been lodged against the petitioners. The record would further show that there^{ismedicalevidenceto} show that victims have taken treatment in the Government Hospital. These two cases arise out of the very same transaction. In that view, this is not a fit case for quashment at this stage.

¶68

m

¶69

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners^{wouldsubmitthat} the petition may be disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of petitioners and the presence of the petitioners before the Trial

¶70

Court may be dispensed with.

¶71

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶72

Considering the submissions made and on perusal of^the material placed on record, the Criminal Petition is disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. However, the presence of the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 before the Trial Court is dispensed with unless their presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. The Petitioners are at liberty to raise all these contentions before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Judge may appreciate them and take appropriate decision in the matter independently without being influenced by the observations made supra.

¶73