Partly allowed

Akula Ramakrishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC31 Aug 2026CRLP/7563/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS as disputed facts precluded a mini-trial. However, the Court relived the accused of the requirement to appear personally before the trial court due to ground realities, allowing trial to proceed in their absence.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC No.285 of 2025 were not quashed. Presence of petitioners in C.C. No. 285 of 2025 was dispensed with, subject to revocation if trial court specifically directs their presence.

Akula Ramakrishna Vs The State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010453762026

¶2

[3504]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, T HE 1^st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7563/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

AKULA RAMAKRISH N A, S/O. VARADA RAJU, AGED 38 YE A RS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 5-230/1, MAIN ROAD, DOD D ANAPUDI VILLAGE, KALLA MA N DAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

KOLLI SRI RAMULU, S/O. MARESWARA RAO MARIYYA,AGED 62 YEARS, OCC AGRI C ULTURE, R/O. H.NO.5-74, KOMATI STREET, DODDANAPUDI VILLAGE, KALLA MANDAL, WEST G ODAVARI DISTRICT

¶11

VELIVALA SURYA N ARAYANA ALIAS SURIBABU, S /O UMA MAHESWARA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULT U RE, R/O. H.NO.5-20/3, KOMA T I STREET, DODDANAPUDI VILLAGE, KALLA MANDAL, WEST GO D AVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF A N DHRA PRADESH, THROUGH S.H. O . KALLA POLICE STATION, R EP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVA T I.

¶15

PADAMATI RAMBABU, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED 5 0 YEARS, OCC ASST. EXECU T IVE ENGINEER, OPERATION KALL A VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WES T GODAVARI DISTRICT. - 534237

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

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 the C C No.285 of 2025 on the file of Co u rt of the I

¶18

¶19

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7563 of 2026

¶20

Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram against the Petitioners/A2 to A4

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 dispense with filing of certified copy of Charge sheet in CC No. 285 of 2025 on the file of Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶24

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 stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners/A2 to A4 in the CC No. 285 of 2025 on the file of Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶26

1.RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶28

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

¶30

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7563 of 2026

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A2 to A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.285 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, wherein they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 427 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 155(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

¶34

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 (A2 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7563 of 2026

¶38

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.

¶39

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:

¶40

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.

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not

¶42

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 (A2 to A4) before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

¶43

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶44

¶45

MRK,J Crl.P.No.7563 of 2026

¶46

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, in C.C.No.285 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.

¶47