Judgment · High Court

The State of Telangana, rep. through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

XXX, (Name and Particulars mentioned in Separate list and submitted in a sealed Cover as per provisions of POCSO Act). .Respondents/Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned proceedings in Order dated 21.10.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.527 of 2024 in SC SPL No. 679 of 2022,on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B, Nagar. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the Order dated 21 .10.2024 in Cd.M.P.No.527 o'f 2024 in SC. SPL No. 679 of 2O22, on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Devender, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 7 I{ON' I}I,E SM'T. .IUST'ICE .IUVVADI SRIDEVI CIIIMINAL PETITION No.172 of 2025 ORDIIII: Challenging tlre order dated 21 .10.2024 passed Crl.M.P.No.527 of 2024 in S.C. Spl. No.679 of 2022 by the learncd Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at I-.B. Nagar, this criminal petition is trled. tly the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioncr under Section 311 Cr.p.C. to reopen the evidcnce and recall PW I /victim for further cross-examination was disrnissed.

2. [-leard Sri [).De.vender, learned counsel fbr the petilioner/accused and the learned Additional public prosecutor tbr the State-Respondent. Perused the material on record

Clase of thc petitioner is that S.C. Spl. No.679 of 2022 was filed against hirr for the offences under Sections 376-A.8 and 506 of'lPC and Secrion 5 r/rv. 6 of protection of Childrcn fi.om 2 Sexual Offences AcL, 2012. During the cc'urse ol evidence, w l.ren the matter is posted orr 23.01 .2024, since the lean.red counsel for petitioner in the trial Court failed to cross-exatninc PW-I, her evidence was closed. It is his further case that the evidence of PW-1 is very much essential for proper adjudication olthe matter and his previous counsel in the trial coLut failed to cross-cxamit.te PW- I . The rnistake of courlseI cannot be burdened on l.rim. I-{ence, he prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the imPugned order.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C., Court may at any stage of proceedings can re-summon any person, if his evidence appears to be essential lor just decision in the case. Hence, prayed to allow the petition'

In view of the said submission, to give one more opportunity to the petitioner' this Court is inctined to allow the Criminal Petition by setting aside the impugned order' 'l'he trial Court is directed to issue summons to PW-l/victirn by fixing a - date and the learned counsel appearing for the petit io ncr/accuscd in the trial Court is directed to cross examine PW-l on the datc specified by the trial Court, failing which, her evidence stands closed.