Dismissed

K Rajesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/7992/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition praying for quashing of a charge sheet alleging offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act was dismissed. Court dispensed with the petitioner's presence in the lower court unless specifically ordered by the trial judge.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner's presence excused from lower court trial unless specifically directed.

K Rajesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

APHC010475412026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3504]

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7992/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

K RAJESH, S/O A KUMARVEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC SOFTWAREENGINEER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TORS GRAND 2, HYLLIE, SKANE, MALMO21534, SWEDEN COUNTRY,

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OFANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

¶15

K GNANA DEEPIKA, W/O K. RAJESHHINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, EMPLOYEE.RESIDING AT 10-85, DORNAL CHENGANNASTREET, PALAMANER TOWN,CHITTOOR DISTRICT. PINCODE 517408

¶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 to quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No. 399 of 2024 in FIR in Crime No. 64/2024 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner for offences punishable Under Sections 498-A of IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

¶18

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 399 of 2024 in FIR in Crime No. 64/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner including appearance of the Petitioner/AI pending disposal of the quash petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶22

1.P V RAGHU RAM

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶24

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7992 of 2026

¶27

ORDER:-

¶28

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein (A1), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.399 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶29

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

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner (A1) before the trial Court by submitting petitioner’s practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioner shall not dispute his identity at a later stage of proceedings.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioner 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.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioner 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.

¶35

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:

¶36

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.

¶37

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶38

¶39

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of petitioner herein (A1) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner, in C.C.No.399 of 2024 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that his presence is necessary. In the event of failure of the petitioner to appear, when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stands automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court.

¶40