Partly allowed

Kabul Riyaz Ahmamad Khan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026CRLP/8146/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS against four petitioners accused of dowry-related offences under BNS and the Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that specific accusations involving disputed facts must be decided at trial. The Court dispensed with the petitioners' physical presence before the trial court except when specifically required, with the order automatically revoking if they fail to appear when directed.

What did the court decide?

Presence of petitioners (A2-A5) before trial court dispensed with except when specifically directed; petitioners at liberty to raise all grounds before trial court; criminal petition disposed of.

Kabul Riyaz Ahmamad Khan Vs The State of Andhra… — Dowry and Cruelty | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

APHC010482542026

¶3

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

¶4

[3504]

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8146/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

KABUL RIYAZ AHMAMAD KHAN, S/O SARDAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 4/35, MAIN ROAD MAHAL, KALIKIRI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶11

KABUL THASLEEMA BANU, W/O KABUL RIYAZ AHMAMAD KHAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O DOOR NO. 4/35, MAIN ROAD MAHAL, KALIKIRI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶12

KABUL JUNAID AHAMMAD KHAN, S/O KABUL RIYAZ AHMAMAD KHANAGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O DOOR NO. 4/35, MAIN ROAD MAHAL, KALIKIRI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶13

KABUL IQBAL AHAMMAD KHAN, S/O SARDAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC DOCTOR, R/O DOOR NO. 4/5, MAIN ROAD MAHAL, KALIKIRI MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶14

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

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

¶17

KALYAN KUTHUJA THUL KUBRA KHAN, W/O KABUL SHOAIB AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O DOOR NO.8/726-9, AFSAR KHAN COLONY, ALMAS PETA,KADAPA

¶18

¶19

CITY, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶21

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 C.C No.1723 of 2025 on the file of 1 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa against the Petitioners/A2 to A5 for offence under Section 85,351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and be pleased to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 please to stay all further proceedings against the Petitioners/A2 to A5 in C.C No.1723 of 2025 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa and be pleased to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶25

1.SYED KHADER MASTAN

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶27

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8146 of 2026

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A2 to A5), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1723 of 2025 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa for the offences punishable under Section 85, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶32

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

¶33

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 to A5) 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

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:

¶39

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.

¶40

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶41

¶42

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 to A5) before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, in C.C.No.1723 of 2025 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.

¶43