High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC No.834 /06 on the file of the principal District Judge, Yadadri Bhongir Distric! Bhongir pending disposal of the criminal Revision. IA NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the imlrugru:il order d,ated. 28-02-2024 passed b}. ])rin:ipa1 Junior Civil Judge-cum-JudiciaL l,'eLgistrate of First Class, Bhongir in Crl.Nl.l'' No' 11/2024 in C.C. 534/ 2006 ancl t:. pass such other further orders. IA NO: 4OF 202,1 Between: Thota Venkatesr,r'a -a I\ asad, Sf o. Late Thota Balwanth Rao, aEed lbout 54 years, Occ: Advocate, R/,r. FI No.6-C-194, Apurupa Township, IDA leedimetla, Ranga Reddy District. ..Petitioner/ Proposed Respondent No.3 And 1.. Narne Ranga rlac, s/o late N V Naidu, aged about 80 ,t ears, occupation. 2. Narne Gokul, Si ' lol Narne Ranga Rao (Retd), aged about 50 years, occupation Business, r/o 8(, r-irrrrock Enclave, Secunderabad, Telangarla 5r.)0 009. Business r/o {36 (iu lLrock Enclave, Secunderabad Telangana 50.) 009. ..Res pon,ients/ Petitioners. 3. The State of fr:lrri11ana, rep. by Inspector of Police, Bibina5:ar Police Statiory Yadadri Bhur.arraqir- District, through the Public Prosecutor, lligh Court for the State of Telan;ga r a, Jvderabad.

4. K.Surya Kurn,rr, l:7 o K.V.Murthy, R/ o.'l Gunrock Enclave, Sec.rnderabad - ..Rr:sponclents/ Complainant. Petition pr;,1irL1J that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pr:btro r, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 03/04/2024 pr;sed in IA.No.1 ol 2024 in CRI-RCNo{63 of 2024 and dismiss the Cririrral Jevision Case. Counsel for the I'e i,ir,ner: Sri B.Raveendra Babu. Counsel for the I'i.e';|crLdent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOI{ Counsel for the [,le;l',orLdent No.2: None appears. Counsel for the Ile';pcrLdent No.3: Sri M.A.K.Mukheed. The Court made tLe 'orlon'ing: ORDER , THE HON ,BLE sRIJ USTICE E.V.V ENU GOPAL RIMI AL SI N E No. F20 4 OR DER: 1 This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 rlw 401 Cr.P.C challenging the Order dated 28'02'2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No'11 of 2024 in C'C'No'834 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the ludicial Magistrate of First Class' Bhongir' wherein and whereby the petition filed under Section 243 (2) Cr'P'C' by the complainant was allowed' 2 Heard Sri B.Raveendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State-1't respondent and Sri MAK Mukheed' learned counsel appearing for the de factocomplainant and perused the record' 3 The factual matrix that led to the filing of the present revislon is that PW.1 - Thota Balwanth Rao lodged a report stating thatheistheabsoluteownerandpossessoroftheagricultural land in Sy.No.492 and Sy'No'296 admeasuring an extent of Ac'20- 35 guntas situated at Bibinagar village and mandal' He came to knowthatoneNarneRangaRao/A.lofNarneEStateSWas attending to alienate his lands to third put'o- After verifying the I l& 2 facts, he cllt'll,l to know that the accused created forged / fake GpA in th,3 n;trrre of P.w.1 and tried to register hi:; lards with the help of thal t:rged GPA. In that connection a case in Cr'No'65 of 2005 was, "er;is;tered for the offences punishable unrler Sections 463,468, t1l'L )nd 420 rlw Section 511 IPC and after completion of investig,atic,n, police filed charge sheet agairrst '\'1 to A'3' During thr3 clrr,rrse of trial, the de facto complainant w;ts examined as P.W.1 ancl certain documents were marked through him' The accused liled a suit for specific performance, vlde tf.S'No.B of

2005. A copt/ )f the judgment in the said suit was alsc:' filed in the present prc,cexxlings before the trial Court. However, pr'lndente lite, p.W.1 dir:d <lrr 06.5.2021 as such his son Thota Vr:nkateswara (L.W.2) Przrsarl was made as parfy both in the civil su t as well as in the crirninarl Proceedings. 4 While s:, the prosecution filed petition under Section 243 (2) Cr.P.C prayinr; the Court to receive i) certified copy of the deposition of t\larne Ranga Rao / A.1 herein in O S"No'8 of 2005 and 2) certifi,:d copy of letter addressed to Sub-Retgislrar, Bhongir requestinr; nOl to register the land to third parties. Thr,) contention of the pro:;elr:.ttion was that the above two documerlts are very much relevarrt to decide the P resent case and no prejudice would /p 3 be caused to the accused if the said documents are taken on record and marked through 1.W.2 Thota Venkateswara Prasad' 5 Opposing the said petition, A.1 filed counter which was adopted by A.2 whereas A.3 reported no counter' The contention of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that the petition was signed by the learned Assistant Public Pr.osecutor, whereas the cause title read that it was filed by the complainant who is no more now and passed away on 06.5.202L. It is further contended that the two proposed ceftified copies disclose that they were obtained on

05.8.2008 by P.W.l when he was very much alive who deposed before the couft on L5.12.2014, earlier there were four documents marked as Exs.P.2 to P.5 through P.W.1 and against such orders the accused A.1 and A.2 preferred Crl.R.C.No'2511 of 2014' It was fufther contended that the ceftified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.8 of 2005 was filed and marked through P'W'1 as Ex'P'5 against which judgment, the A.1 preferred A'S'No'776 of 2009' It was further contended that the evidence of a party recorded in civil suit cannot be treated as a document and cannot be utilized as a document in criminal trial. 4 6 Basing ,tn tlre above pleadings and upon hearing ttre learned counsel for bottr pafties, the learned trial Court alklwed the petition by orcler daled 28-02.2024' Hence the present crlminal revision case 7 The lr:arnerrl counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the certified r:opir:s of the documents were available witlt P'W'1 as long back ias irli 8.2008 he did not choose to file them when he was examineld rln 15.12.2014 and no reasons were giv,:n for not rlocum€nts earlier. He further submittr:d that in fillng the "cald view of Sectior 33 of the Indian Evidence Acl, staternent of a person in ar lucliclal proceeding cannot be used as evidernce in the same judicia prc,ceeding or in a different judicial proceeding in the absence of any one of the circumstances mentionr:d ir the said section. l1e fLrrther submitted that the deposition of P.irv.1 in suit O.S.No.8 of ,1105 ls that of the petitioner A'1 in C'C No'834 of 2006 and hi:; prte:sence is very much available before: the Couft' It is his further ,:cntention that in view of Section 65 cf th: Evidence Act, seconrJ;rry evidence is inadmissible unless it is s;hovvn that the original is lcs6.l( when the original is in the custody of a person against whom :he document is sought to be prove'd. He further submitted th;r1. the letter dated 13.6.2005 is the certifi':d copy o[ - F 5 the original and the original is available with the SRO, Bhongir and -, in such circumstances the court below ought not to have allowed the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners fufther submitted that the finding of the trial court that the letter dated I

13.6.2005isrelevantforthepurposeofthecaseiserroneous since A.S.No.776 of 2009 filed against the judgment in O'S'No'B of 2005ispendingandtheauthenticityofthesaidletterhastobe adjudicated in that appeal. In support of his contentions' the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Talasita Suresh vs' Naarla Srinivasa Chakravafthil. 8 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the order impugned in this revision is based on sound appreciation of law and facts and that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners even if the documents are taken on file inasmuch as they will have ample opportunity to cross examine thewitnessonthesaiddocuments.Hefurthersubmittedthat mere receiving the documents or marking them through the witnesses by itself would not amount to Oloof of the same' Hence he prayed to dismiss this revision' r-'' r 2012 SCC OnLine Ap 324 = (2013) 1 ALD 599 l i 6 9 Sailinr; v,tith the Assistant Public Prosecutot, Sri MAK Mukheed, lera-rred counsel for the third respontlent - implead \ petitioner suLrrritted that in view of scope of Section 2tl2 (3) Cr'P'C the Magis;trate: has to take all such evidence as may lre produced in support cl the prosecution and it cannot be inferr',:d that only the materials collected during investigatlon could be :ermitted to be produc,:rl in evidence. The trial Couft has takr,:n all these aspects into r:onsideration while passing the impurSned order, which dor:s nc,t suffer from any irregularity much lerss;rny illegality. Hence he prra,1'r:d to dismiss the criminal revision case. 10 Nor,v the point for consideration is whether the trial Court has committed it 1y error in allowing the petition fi ed by the prosecution uttCer Section 243 (2) Cr.P.C? 11 In Talasila Suresh case (1 supra) the questi':n arose for consideratiorr \ryas as to whether the deposition of the petitioner therein, as zr tryitness in another suit can be taken'fn tecord, as an exhibit in E.P. proceedings filed by the first respondent therein. t2 While ;rrt:swering the said question, the Court hekl as follows: ' .) Section 33 of the Act deals with this aspect. The executilq Couts has extracted the provision and has urdertaken discussiorr vrith reference to it. The evidence givr:n b'r a uritness in a jucical :roceeding, is treated as relevant, for the pttrpose of 7 given in "*p"n* Droving the truth of the facts stated in subsequent judicial oroceedings, subject to cenairilonaitions' Such facility is available' be round or (c) is is oeJi oi [01 "nnot [fi;:;:;i;;* incapable of giving t''o"nJt"oi tii'it kept out.of reach' by the *"#;"rrar"oi tll nit p**t" iannot be- obtained without an Even if one of these circumstances amount of delay o' exist, it must be ensured tnui tn" p'ot""dings are (a). behveen the in interest ang t-he questions same parties or their '"p'"i-""t'iiutt in issue are substantiallv tnelame in both the proceedings and (b) the adverse parry in tn" intt-p'oi"eding.had-the right and oDoortunity to cross-examl* tnJ *itn"ts'- Wnen. such are the conditions imposed ov tn"'r-l"gisLture.in the- YY of placing -wiln"ss' earlier set of reliance on evidence of a oroceedinqs, heavy buroe"n t"tiJ ''dt'n the 1st respondent to establish each of these facets' 4. In the instant case' what is sought to be rnarked is the is very much deoosition of the petltione"? oi rl"' oo and cross-examined' Therefore' alive, and available to U" the conditions in.o|.po'ut"i'in S*ilt 33 of the Act' themselves recorded in bar the marking of tne O"epos[ion of the 1:.eiP-T' to establish another suit. Added t" thJ"il;''i;i i"tq9"o'"i1 11iled anv of the conditlons ttip'i't"O in ihe provision' which are independent of each other' 5. The trial Court relied upon the j'dPTll of the Calcutta prasaO-Oaw-^AIR 1982 Cal' Cout in Dukhiram ,", 294. That was a case ln *nittt'tn" witness was confronted with a statement made by hi* i;';;;h"r-suii. Conrronting.a witness with a statement is suostantiaity"iinti"nt from marking the entire ;.il#;;; ;J marns it part of the record in another case' "r-'991r* "."ni"r'",tu'nioy "iurnin"O -an 'order utii"' shall be no 6' Hence, the civil revision petition ls allowed and the 'ii'"t" as to costs' imouqned order is '"t The miscellaneous petiU;;;l"o'lt tnii civil revision petition shall stand disPosed of' 13 Coming to the case on hand' there is no dispute with regard to the death of P'W'1 and L'W'2 being the son of P'W'1' When the prosecution feels it appropriate to mark certain documents which would be helpful in disposal of the case in a fair manner' there is no embargo as such to mark those documents through LW2' I 8 Further, lle,ctior 242 (3) Cr.P.C. requires the couft to "ake all such evidence i,r,rh r:h the prosecution desires to produr:e ircluding the I documenils rrrh ch are not mentioned in sub-section (!i) of Section L73 Cr.P.C., brt such evidence must relate to the ntatt:rs of fact in inquiry. . n th,lt view of the matter, I find no irregularity much less any illegality, n the impugned order. Therefore, the proposition laid down ir 'talasila Suresh case (1 supra) is not helpful to the case on hanl. More so, no prejudice would be caused to the accused lf tl^el said documents are taken on record ;rnd marked through -.\A/ ;l Thota Venkateswara Prasad. Hen:e lhis revision case is liable t: be dismissed. 14 In th,: r,3sult, the criminal revision case is dism ssed. As a sequel, miscr:llaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand Jismissed. !:id/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEI)UTY REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// S.:TCTION OFFICER To, Bhongir.

1. The Princip,rl hrnior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magrstrate oJ First class at

2. One CC tr, S,rr li.Raveendra Babu, Advocate [OPUC]I 3. One CC to S,rr ll.A.K.Mukheed, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to th,: )ub1ic Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, tlt'derabad.IOPUC] 5. Two CD Oopi,:; ICK/psl HIGHCOURT D ATED:25 / 02/ 2o'.tl ORDER CRLRC.No.463 oi2"24 I Il ((o ::=::::-:--\ rf ,Srl ,r\. 'o)\ t) 2 E JUi\l ?il'( i./ Dismissing the (lrirnirLal Revision case.