In a criminal petition seeking to quash DV proceedings and stay personal appearance, the High Court refused to quash due to disputed facts but dispensed with respondents' appearance pending trial directions.
Petition not quashed; personal appearance of petitioners dispensed with subject to trial court's direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APHC010453402026
[3504]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, T HE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7554/2026
Between:
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS prayin g that in the circumstances stated in th e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P etition, the High Court to Quash all fu r ther proceedings in D.V.C No. 100 of 2 025 on the
2
MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 of 2026
file of V Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kakinada in so far as the Petitioner No.l to 3 (Respondent No.2 to 4) are concerned
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 all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioners in D.V.C No. 100 of 2025 on the file of V Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Kakinada, pending disposal of the above Quash Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
3
MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 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/respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein, seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.100 of 2025 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada.
the petitioners herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can
4
MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 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.
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.
observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi -criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
22025 Live Law (SC) 240
5
MRK,J Crl.P.No.7554 of 2026
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
Dated: 01.09.2026 MDP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings in a domestic violence complaint can be quashed across an accused due to specific accrued accusations.
Whether personal appearance of parties is mandatory in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Whether the High Court can dispense with personal appearance of accused without completely quashing the criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and OthersReferred¶39
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and Others
Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.Referred¶41
Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Lagudu Pothann A
Modi Alias Lagudu Chandin Achyutha Sudha
Kolli Nayudu
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Lagudu Ainaivilli Manga Lakshmi
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
