High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2883 OF 2025 Between: Kg9iyala lgmq.(1s[q, Sfo Bhaskar Rao, aged about 37 years, Occ potice Officer, R/o. H.No.3-6-453,. St No.5, Him-ayathnagar, itydeiabad, N/o. Kothapally Village, Makhloor Mandal, Nizamaba6 Distri6t. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 AND 1 2 State of Telangana, Represented by Public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. Kavuri.Pradeep- S,/o.. K Prabhakar Rao, Aged about 37 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, Vo H No.6-5, N/o. Kothapatly (V), M:khtoor (M),'NizamabaO" District. (Respondent No.2 is riot necessary party) Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 06\02\2025 in Crl.M.p.No. 1455 of 2024 in S.C.No. g0 of 2019, passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-Vll Addl. Sessions Judge - cum- XXI Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 06-02-2025 in Crl.M.P.No. 1455 of 2024 in S.C.No. 90 of 2019, passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge for the Trial of communal offence cases-cum-Vll Addl. Sessions Judge - cum- XXI Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeardd for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2883 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.l seeking to set aside the impugned order dated, 06.02.2025 in crl.M.P.No.1455 of 2024 in S.c.No.9o ot 2079 on the rrre of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum VII Aclditional Sessions Judge cum XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short, ,,the trial Court,,).

2. Heard Mr.Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. perused the record.

3. The petitioner/ accused No.1 along with accused No.2 were facing accusation in Crime No.365 of 20 15 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 2Ol, 2O2 and 120_B of I.p.C. Later, charge sheet was laid before the learned Sessions Court in s.c.No-9o of 2019 and the case was at the stage of triar. The trial Court had recorded the evidence of most of the prosecution witnesses and posted the matter for examination of LWs.9 and

13. Despite granting ample time, the prosecution failed to ensure the presence of these witnesses and hence, the trial Court closed Z \ '-:.ir;r,; '....:'.] the evidence of LWs.9 and 13. The prosecution filed an \ application vide Cri.M.P.No.840 of 2024 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking re-call of said witnesses. Vide order dated

28.O8.2024 in Crl.M.P No.B40 of 2024 in S.C.No.90 of 2O19, the trial Court had allou,ed the said application stating that learned counsel for the accused had not opposed the said application. But, the prosecution Court failed to serve summons ald produce the 'w,itnesses within the stipulated time, which untimatelv resulted in closure of their evidence; that the prosecution once again filed another application vide Crl.M.P.No.1455 of 2024 in S.C.No.9O of 2Ol9 under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. seeking re-cal1 of LWs.9 and 13. The petitioner, while opposing the same, filed his counter affidavit. The trial Court, without assigning valid reasons, allowed the said application vide order dated 06.O2.2025 subject to payment of costs ol Rs. 1,000/- to the Legal Services Authority or1 or before 17 -02-2025, and on such payment, directed the Office to issue summons for appearance of LWs.9 and 13 on the next date of hearing, failing which the petition was directed to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Petition. ,-r.@z :'--'qll*tn 3 ':, ' - , .,, ./ i I I 1

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that repeated filing of similar applications for recall of witnesses despite closure of their evidence amounts to abuse of process of law. Relying on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lall, K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy2, Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.3, Mannan Shaikh Vs. State of West Bengal4, Anoop Singh Vs, State of Punjabs, he seeks to a1lor.r, the Criminal Petition

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if LWs.9 and 13 are re called for the purpose of examination and that the trial Court, upon careful consideration of the material available on record appropriately passed the impugned order. Therefore, he states that interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted and seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that LW9/Mandal Revenue Officer, Vikarabad, R.R. District and LW13/Doctor are the crucial ' Atn tggz sc 60+ , (201 1) I 1 SCC 275 3 (2Ol l) 8 SCC 136 I (2014) 13 SCC s9 s {2022) SCC Onllne SC 1234 \ I 4 !---.\, *1F-ffi \ -r:.t*i witnesses to the case. Therefore, upon considerrng the gravity of offences imposed against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that recalling LWs.9 and 13 for examination would not cause anv prejudice to the petitioner as the petitioner has every right to cross examine them during the course of trial. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed 7 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous Petrtions, pending if any, shall stand closed /1TRUE COPY// SD/- AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR lr+ SECTION OFFICER To, 2 '1 The Addt Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases_cum_ vil Addt. Sessions Judse - cum- XXt Addl aIi;i-iuigl"','"r_iii""Lora. The lX Addl. Chief Mekopo.litan Magistrate at The Xlt Additional Chief Metropotitan Magisrrate juljmpirri, Hvd"rat"iliii"rrora The Station House Offlcer, Narayanaguda p.S., Hyderabad. One CC to SRt KAT|KA RAVTNDER REDDy Advocate [OpUC] Two CCs PUBLTC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] Two CD Copies J

5. b MKN/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER CRLP.No.2883 ot 202i F lHE S ( o r.q r(.. c o f 11 llUE M + 'r' 1.^. T a. \_ \ a- !-) * CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED q //lt.,/,- tZ ,/1