Disposed

Shaik Mahaboob Jan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/7939/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition to quash criminal proceedings but dispensed with the accused's presence at trial except when specifically directed, relying on the principle against conducting a mini-trial under the quashing jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Quashing petition dismissed; presence of petitioners in trial court dispensed with except when trial court specifically directs.

Shaik Mahaboob Jan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

APHC010472802026

¶3

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

¶4

[3504]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7939/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

SHAIK MAHABOOB JAN, W/O BABU SAHEB, AGE 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O YERUKULAREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, KALIGIRIMANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶11

SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, S/O DASTHAGIRI SAHEB, AGE42 YEARS. AGRICULTURE COOLI, R/O YERULAKAREDDYPALEMVILLAGE, KALIGIRIMANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP .BY ITS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU GUNTUR DISTRICT,AMARAVATHI.522 237

¶15

SHAIK SHAMEEM, W/O MASTAN,AGE 40 YEARS,R/O SC- COLONY, GOTTIGUNDALA VILLAGE, KALIGIRI MANDAL,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524224

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

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 It is prayed that in the above facts and circumstances quash the proceedings in CC.N0.159 OF 2026 on the file Of AddI Judicial Of First Class, Magistrate Kavali.SPS Nellore District in Crime No.68 of 2025 On The

¶18

¶19

File Kaligiri Police Station U/s 126 (2) 115 79 (2) 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. against the petitioners 1 to 2 / A-1 to A2

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 may be pleased to dispense from filling certified copy of CC.N0.159 OF 2026 on the file Of AddI Judicial Of First Class, Magistrate Kavali.SPS Nellore District in Crime No.68 of 2025 On The File Kaligiri Police Station U/s 126 (2) 115 79 (2) 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition

¶22

IA NO: 2 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 stay all of further proceedings including the presence of the petitioners in CC.N0.159 OF 2026 on the file Of AddI Judicial Of First Class, Magistrate Kavali.SPS Nellore District in Crime No.68 of 2025 On The File Kaligiri Police Station U/s 126 (2) 115 (2) 79 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. against the petitioners/ accused A.1 to A.2 in the interest of justice

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶25

1.DR G V RAVI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶27

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7939 of 2026

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A1 & A2), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.159 of 2026 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District for the offences punishable under Section 126(2), 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

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

¶33

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 (A1 & A2) 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

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:

¶39

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.

¶40

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶41

¶42

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 (A1 & A2) before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, in C.C.No.159 of 2026 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.

¶43