Disposed

Yarram Janardhana Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2026CRLP/8434/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings in a Domestic Violence case, holding that disputed questions of fact require trial. However, it dispensed with petitioners' presence in court pending restriction by the trial judge, citing practical constraints.

What did the court decide?

Proceeding DVC No.56 of 2025 not quashed; petitioners' personal presence dispensed except when trial court directs otherwise.

Yarram Janardhana Reddy Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010418482025

¶2

[3504]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDA Y , THE 9^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8434/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

YARRAM JANARDH A NA REDDY, S/O NAGIREDDY AGE 3 6 YEARS, R/O. D.NO A/43 Y A RRAMVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KAR A MCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASA M DISTRICT

¶10

YARRAM NAGIRED D Y, S/O VENKATESWARA REDDY, AGE 69 YEARS, R/O. D. N O A/43 YARRAMVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KARAMCHEDU MAN D AL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶11

YARRAM PITCHAM M A, W/O NAGIREEDDY, AGE 50 YE A RS, R/O. D.NO A/43 YARRAM V ARIPALEM VILLAGE KARAMCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRI C T.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HI G H COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI.

¶15

AMMIREDDY LAKSHMI JYOTHI, W/O,YARRAM JAN A RDHANA REDDY, REP BY HE R G.P.A. HOLDER AMMIREDDY SUJA T HA, W/O, VENKATA REDDY, A GE 43 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 4 1-28/4-70, BALASWAMY STREET, RANIGARITOTA, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R . DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS prayin g that in the circumstances stated in th e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal P etition, the High Court pleased to qua s h the Proceedings in DVC No.56 of 2 0 25 on the I

¶18

¶19

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

¶20

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada Krishna District against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 the filing of the certified copy of DVC No.56 of 2025 on the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada Krishna District and pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶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 to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 3 in DVC No. 56 of 2025 on the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the criminal petition and to pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶26

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶28

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

¶30

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein, seeking to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.56 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Neelothpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶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 herein 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. 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

¶37

the petitioners herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can

¶38

¶39

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

¶40

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.

¶41

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:

¶42

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.

¶43

In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.² , Hon’ble Apex Court has

¶44

observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi -criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶45

12022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

¶46

22025 Live Law (SC) 240

¶47

¶48

MRK,J Crl.P.No.8434 of 2025

¶49

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/respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in D.V.C.No.56 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.

¶50