Partly allowed

Shaik Fathima Alias Bujji v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/8001/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 509, 506 IPC read with Section 34 and Sections 3-4 Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a Section 528 BNSS petition. The court dispensed with the petitioners' presence before the trial court except on dates when the trial court specifically directs their appearance.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners before trial court dispensed with except when trial court specifically directs appearance; petition to quash proceedings dismissed.

Shaik Fathima Alias Bujji Vs The State of Andhra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

APHC010475732026

¶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: 8001/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

SHAIK FATHIMA ALIAS BUJJI, W/O LATE SULTHAN BASHA AGED ABOUT 53YEARS OCC HOUSEWIFE R/O 3RD LANE GOPALNAGAR NEAR SANTHI PUBLICSCHOOL ONGOLE.

¶11

SHAIK AMEENA FIRDOS, W/O SULTHAN BASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCCHOUSEWIFE, R/O 1ST LANE GOPALNAGAR NEAR GOPI THEATRE ISLAMPETA ONGOLE.

¶12

SHAIK SULTHAN BASHA, S/O MAS THAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC PVTEMPLYEE R/O 1ST LANE GOPALNAGAR NEAR SANTHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ONGOLE.

¶13

SHAIK MANSOOR, S/O BABU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC BUSINESS R/O3RD LANE GOPALNAGAR NEAR SANTHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ONGOLE.

¶14

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

SHAIK PARVEEN, W/O IMRAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC TEACHER, R/O 2ND LANE GOPALNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶18

¶19

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶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 pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C No. 1636 of 2020, on the file of The Court of The II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, registered for the offences under Sections 498(A), 509,506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sec 3854 D.P.Act and pass

¶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 to dispense with certified copy of CC No. 1636 of 2020, on the file of The Court of The II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District. before this Honble Court and pass

¶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 all further proceedings in C.C No. 1636 of 2020, on the file of The Court of The II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, registered for the offences under Sections 498(A), 509,506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sec 3&4 D.P.Act. and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶26

1.RIZWAN ALI SHAIK

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶28

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8001 of 2026

¶31

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, A4, A5 & A6), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1636 of 2020 on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 509, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and 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, A4, A5 & A6) 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.

¶36

¶37

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

¶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

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶42

¶43

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, A4, A5 & A6) before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District, in C.C.No.1636 of 2020 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.

¶44