The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Priscilla Bai, W/o P.S.Manoj Kumar 34 years, Occ. Govt employee Fl/o Qrtr No. 2, Block No. 12'15 Behind Lalaguda Police Station, South Lalaguda Railway quarters, SECUNDERABAD-50001 7

2. The State of Telangana, rep.by SHO, Malkajgiri Police Station and rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (20) days in representation of the Crl. RC .SR No.3010 ot 2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S. Siva Shanker Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri A. Ram Babu Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.\4'NUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.249 of 2O25 ORDER: Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.11.2024 passed in Crl.A.No. 151 ot 2O2O by the iearned Principzil District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, the present Revision Case is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent ),1o.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 - State.

3. Learned counsel lor the petitioner submits that the present revlsilon 1s filcd cha,llenging the order passerl by the learned Appellate Court in Cr1.A.No.151 of 2O2O on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri ttistrict. The said appeal arose out of the order dated 2O.O8.2O18 passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabacl at Malkajgiri in C.C.No.61 o1'2017. The learned trial court, aJter observing that despite repeated adjournments (not less than 30 times, as per computer extract) and inspite of sufficient opportunities, the prosecution failed to secure the presence of LWs.1 to 5, closed -, -,the prosecution etlitence. The tria] .court further observed that 2 even after granting llz years' time, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence, rtor was recourse taken under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of witnesses. In the absence of aly incriminating evidence on record, the trial court had rightly closed the prosecution evidence ald proceeded accordingly.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant preferred Crl.A.No.l57 of 2O2O. The learned Appellate Court, however, held that the trial court ought to have taken appropriate steps for securing the presence of witnesses by exercising powers under law, including Section 87 of Cr.P.C. and instead of doing so, improperly closed the prosecution evidence. The Appellate Court lurther found that even after re-opening evidence in the month of Februaqr, 20 18, and re-calling LWs.l to 3, no stringent steps were taken by the trial court for their presence. On that basis, the Appellate Court had set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal on merits by securing the witnesses. He further contends that such a remald is perverse, not in accordance with law, and amounts to abuse of process of law, since repeated opportunities had already been granted to the prosecution, which failed to pro4qg_"*i!.:lyitnesses. - 3

5. On tht: other land, learned counsel for un-official respondent submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on certain recor<1s is misplaced a-nd not relevant to the case on hand, as the same relates to S.C.No.308 of 2076.It is [urther submitted that in the absence of resort to coercive process under Section 87 of Cr.P.C., thLe trial court's ciosure of proseculion evidence was not justified. The Appellate Court, therefore, rightly remanded the matter, and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the trial proceeds on merits after securing witnesses.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submits that the trial court, clespite allowing al application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., failed to take effective steps for securing witnesses and only adjourned the matter. In such circumstances, the Appellate Court rightl-r directed the trial court to proceed afresh by securing r,lritnesses in accordance with law.

7. Having heard the submission ald perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellate Court has rightly set a,sicie the order of the trial court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal on merits. The trial court, while granting repeated adjournments, failed to exercise i1.s powers under Section 87 o{'Clr.P.C. and other enabling provisrons to secure the 4 presence of listed witnesses. Therefore, no illegality or perversity is made or-rt in the impugned order.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The learned tria,l court is directed to take all necessary steps, including recourse to Section 87 of Cr.P.C. to secure the presence of witnesses, conduct proceedings in accordance with law, and dispose of the matter as expeditious as possible. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this revision, sha-ll stand closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// SDI K. AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR .--.=-_.-.H CTION OFFICER

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Family Court, Medchal- tttlalkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. The X Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri S. Siva Shanker, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri A- Ram Babu, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies vil/ / ra. \ !.:..

1..' I t, ----:_--. -_:- i ,- ' '- "''.1-.- ':'"i 25 0[I 6 + c n,q,1'1ir1Lf j- ='.. -tl' HIGH COURT DATED: 22rc912025 ORDER CRLRC.No.249 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. / A ..t 4 ,/2. .zl 5