Partly allowed

Tiyyagura Prabhavathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026CRLP/8095/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners (Accused 2 and 3) in a dowry harassment case, holding that specific factual allegations require trial. The court cited Supreme Court precedent prohibiting mini-trials at the quashing stage. However, the court dispensed with the petitioners' personal appearance before the trial court except when specifically directed, with automatic revocation for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition to quash proceedings dismissed; personal presence of petitioners (A2 & A3) dispensed with before trial court except when specifically directed; order automatically revoked upon failure to appear when directed.

Tiyyagura Prabhavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3504]

APHC010479942026

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

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8095/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

TIYYAGURA PRABHAVATHI, ,W/O VEERA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,R/O,D.NO 3-29-52/ 1.2ND LINE, KRISHNA NAGAR,GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶11

TIYYAGURA VEERA REDDY, ,S/O. RAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,R/O. D.NO 3-29-52/1, 2ND LINE, KRISHNA NAGAR,GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHTHROUGH ITS SHO VUYYURU TOWNPOLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶15

SRP AMRUTHA LAKSHMI, W/O. T MAHESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.3-87, THOTLAVALLURU RAOD,YAKAMURU VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503.

¶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 call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.1724 of 2026 on the file of the Honble IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and quash the same in respect of the petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3

¶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 dispense with filing of Certified Copy of the judgement in C.C.No.l724 of 2026 on the file of the Hon’ble IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada,

¶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 to grant of stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 in C.C.No.l724 of 2026 on the file of the Hon’ble IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the quash petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶24

1.THRIPURAM KARTHIK CHANDRA MOULI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶26

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8095 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 petitioners herein (A2 & A3), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1724 of 2026 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners (A2 & A3) 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶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 petitioners herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of petitioners herein (A2 & A3) before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.1724 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.

¶42