Disposed

Jamisetty Varalakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/7927/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench ordered Criminal Petition under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC) not to quash proceedings due to disputed facts but dispensed with petitioners' personal presence in C.C. No. 2405/2023 except for specific dates.

What did the court decide?

Request to quash proceedings dismissed; dispensation of personal presence of petitioners granted before trial court except for dates specified by trial court.

Jamisetty Varalakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3504]

APHC010472262026

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

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7927/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

JAMISETTY VARALAKSHMI, W/O VISWANADHAM, HINDU AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 36-96-352/5, JAI BHARATNAGAR,KANCHARAPAIEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.-530008

¶11

JAMISETTY VISWANADHAM, S/O SOMULU, HINDU AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 36-96-352/5, JAI BHARATNAGAR,KANCHARAPAIEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A. P.-530008

¶12

JAMISETTY UMA MAHESWARA RAO, S/O VISWANADHAM, HINDUAGED 41 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 36-96-352/5, JAI BHARATNAGAR,KANCHARAPAIEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A. P.-530008

¶13

JAMISETTY SANTHOSI RUPA, W/O AMBEDKAR, HINDUAGED 36 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 69-1-29/9A, NEW GAIGOLLUPADU,OPP EBENEZAR PRAYER HALL, KAKINADA, A.P.-533005

¶14

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, A.P.-522239 THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR POLICE, DISHA WPS, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY

¶17

KAKARAPALLI SAI VENI, W/O JAMISETTY SRINIVASA RAO HINDU, AGED 26 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 3-376/1, ADARSHNAGAR,OLD DAIRY

¶18

¶19

FARM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.-530040

¶20

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶21

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 pleased to allow the present Criminal Petition and completely QUASH the proceedings in C.C. No. 2405/2023 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam arising out of Crime no. 48/2023 of Disha WPS, Visakhapatnam City, insofar as the Petitioners (A-2 to A-5) are concerned to secure the ends of justice, and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 dispense with filing of the original certified copy of C.C. No. 2405/2023 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, before this Hon'ble Court and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶25

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 grant an interim stay of all further proceedings including dispensing with the personal appearance of the Petitioners (A-2 to A-5) in C.C. No. 2405/2023 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam pending final adjudication of the main Criminal Petition, and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶27

1.SAMANTHA KRISHNA SRIRAMAKAVACHAM

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶29

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7927 of 2026

¶32

ORDER:-

¶33

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A2 to A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2405 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶34

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

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners (A to A5) 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

So far as dispensing with the presence of the petitioners, before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same.

¶39

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.

¶40

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:

¶41

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.

¶42

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶43

¶44

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 (A2 to A5) before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.2405 of 2023 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.

¶45