Partly allowed

Syed Yasdani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026CRLP/8111/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners (A3 and A4) for alleged dowry cruelty under Section 498A IPC, holding that specific disputed factual accusations require a trial. However, the Court dispensed with the petitioners' presence before the trial court except on dates when the trial court specifically requires their appearance, with the order automatically revoking if they fail to appear when directed.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners (A3 and A4) before the trial court dispensed with except on dates when the trial court specifically requires their appearance; order automatically revoked if petitioners fail to appear when directed. Criminal petition to quash proceedings dismissed.

Syed Yasdani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010480812026

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT

¶4

[3504]

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8111/2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

SYED YASDANI, W/O SYED KAREEM BASHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O D.NO. 59A21/1-4, RR GARDENS,BACK SIDE OF CHILLIES, PATAMATA,VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT

¶8

SYED KAREEM BASHA, S/O LATE SYED RABBANIAGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BIKE MECHANIC,R/O D.NO. 59A-21/1-4, RR GARDENS,BACK SIDE OF CHILLIES, PATAMATA,VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

¶12

SHAIK HABIBUNNISHA, W/O SHAIK ABDUL KALAM AZAD,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O D.NO. 5-41, SHRAM NAGAR COLONY,NEAR WATER TANK, VENKATAPURAM PANCHAYAT,ELURU MANDAL AND DISTRICT.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtto quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 398 of 2023 in Crime No. 224 of 2022 of Disha Women Police Station, Eluru for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru

¶14

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶16

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 original certified copy of C.C.No. 398 of 2023 the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru before this Hon’ble Court

¶17

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶18

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 including their appearance as against the petitioner/accused 3 & 4 in C.C.No. 398 of 2023 in Crime No. 224 of 2022 of Disha Women Police Station, Eluru for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,s on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶20

1.pothamsetty jaya prakash

¶21

2.POTHAMSETTY JAYA PRAKASH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶23

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8111 of 2026

¶27

The Court made the following Order:

¶28

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A3 and A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.398 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

In this context, it is apt to note the dictum held in State of

¶36

Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and Others¹ , by

¶37

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

¶39

1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶40

¶41

High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.

¶42

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this

¶43

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 the petitioners herein (A3 and A4) before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge –cumJudicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, in CC No.398 of 2023 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