Disposed

Nallabilli Muneswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/7972/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition seeking quashal of proceedings and dispensation of petitioners' presence before trial court was heard. Bench declined to quash proceedings due to disputed facts but granted leave for the petitioners to appear only when directed by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings not quashed. Presence of petitioners before trial court dispensed with except when specifically ordered by the trial court; failure to appear when directed will revoke this order.

Nallabilli Muneswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3504]

APHC010474312026

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: 7972/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

NALLABILLI MUNESWARI, W/O. NALLABILLI PRASADA RAO, AGED 34 YEARS,CASTE BY NAYI BRAHMINS, R/O FLAT NO. 305, D.NO. 12-43/2, 10 BLOCK,MS RAMAYYA APARTMENTS, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶11

VIJANAGIRI ESWARA RAO, S/O UMAPATHI, AGED 39 YEARS, CASTE BYNAYI BRAHMINS, R/O D.NO.44-1-5/1, NEAR MARKET AREA,THATICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHITHROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISHA WOMEN PS,VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.

¶15

VIJANAGIRI MOUNIKA, W/O. VIJANAGIRI ATCHYUT, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARSCASTE BY NAYI BRAHMINS, R/O D.NO.44-1-5/1, NEAR MARKET AREA,THATICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶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 quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A4, and A5 in C.C.76 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶18

¶19

Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.222/2023 U/S 498A of IPC & Sec 3 of DP Act, 1961 OF Disha Women PS, Visakhapatnam, and pass

¶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 with the filing of the certified copies of the FIR, Charge sheet and 161 statements, in CC No. 76 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and pass any order or orders which the Hon’ble court may deem expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Chief Judicial

¶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 further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners A4 and A5 in C.C.76 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam pending the Criminal Petition before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶25

1.GARUGU N V DURGA SAI EKAMBARAM

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶27

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7972 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 (A4 & A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.76 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial 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.

¶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 petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners (A4 & 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.

¶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 (A4 & A5) before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in C.C.No.76 of 2024 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