AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein (A2 to A4), seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.109 of 2026 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu, for the offences under Sections 85, 318(2) 115(2), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is Driver in APSRTC, petitioner No.2 is a housewife, aged about 47 years and petitioner No.3 is a student, and it is difficult for the petitioners to attend the Court at Kadapa. Learned counsel, 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 the petitioners’ practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that the petitioners shall not dispute their identity at a later stage of proceedings.
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.
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.
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:
“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.”
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 and as petitioner No.1 is Driver in APSRTC, petitioner No.2 is a housewife, aged about 47 years and petitioner No.3 is a student, presence of the petitioners herein (A2 to A4) before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu, in CC No.109 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 stand automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594