Dismissed

Guttula Murali Sai Teja v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026CRLP/8044/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC due to disputed facts requiring trial, but dispensed with the petitioner's physical presence before the trial Court subject to the trial Court's discretion to summon him later.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was dismissed with no substantive quashing of proceedings; however, the petitioner's presence before the trial Court was dispensed with except when specifically directed.

Guttula Murali Sai Teja Vs The State of Andhra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

APHC010477942026

¶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: 8044/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

GUTTULA MURALI SAI TEJA, S/O G. SRINIVASA RAO,AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,R/O MIG 64, D.NO 39-33-40/2,VUDA LAYOUT, MADHAVADHARA,VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530007.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HOUSE OFFICER,KURNOOI-III TOWN POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT,THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI.

¶15

MEKALA SRAVANTHI ALIAS GUTTALA SRAVANTHI, COMPLAINANTW/O GUTTULA MURALI SAI TEJA,D/O M. SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O H.NO. 49-50A/74, MADDUR NAGAR,KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶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 in C.C. No. 435 of 2026 on the file of the Honble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, as against the Petitioner herein / A. 1,

¶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 dispense with filing of the certified copy of C.C. No. 435 of 2026 on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool,

¶21

IA NO: 2 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 stay all further proceedings against the Petitioner herein / A. 1 in connection with C.C. No. 435 of 2026 on the file of the Honble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, including his appearance

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶24

1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶26

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8044 of 2026

¶29

ORDER:-

¶30

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.435 of 2026 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Section 85 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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:

¶38

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.

¶39

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶40

¶41

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 petitioner, presence of petitioner herein (A1) before the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, in C.C.No.435 of 2026 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.

¶42