The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana, Rep., by rts Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

2. Dhonepally Srinu, S/o Venkanna, Aged about 50 years, Occ.Auto Driver, R/o Thanda Dharmaram, firlaripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District-50631 5. (R2 impleaded as per Court Order dated d1.2711112025, vide LA.No.2/2025, in Tr.Crlp No 2412025) ...Respondents For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Order withdrawal of C.C.No. 573 of 20'15 from the Court of Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thorrur and transfer to the Court of Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad to try and dispose of the same. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 447 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.573 of 2015 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial First Class fvlagistrate, Thorrur, pending disposal of the main Transfer Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Transfer Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent N0.2. The Court made the following: ORDER .:,/ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. I; IJANA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.24 r f 2o.25 ORDER: This Transfer Criminal Petition is hled by rl c petitioner to transfer C.C.No.573 of 2015 on the hle of the 1: rrned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur to the file , f the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad

2. Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned corr rsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun i umar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on I ehalf of the respondent - State. Though notice served utr,r n respondent {o.2, none appeared on his behalf.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subnr ited that the petitioner was being denied a fair trial before,th, Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thorrur. He lurt that though seven witnesses had been ril Investigating Officer was examined prematurt:. difficult for the defence to bring out or rer submitted amined, the r, making it Lissions and contradictions, and despite bringing this to thc notice of the 2 SKS,J Tr.Crl.P.No.24 of 2025 trial Court, the proceedings continued. He contended that the trial Court had gone to the extent of instructing the Public Prosecutor to prepare P.W.4 and was actively assisting the prosecution during cross examination, without properly recording omissions and contradictions. He further contended that the conduct of the trial Court created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Principal District Judge had wrongly dismissed the transfer petition by relying merely on the length of cross-examination, without considering the petitioner's grievance that crucial contradictions were not being recorded. Therefore, he prayed the Court to transfer the case from Thorrur to Mahabubabad District. 4; On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that no transfer was required in this case, as there was no illegality in thc trial, and the mere fact that the Investigating Ofhcer was examined before the other witnesses did not constitute a ground for transferring the criminal case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

5. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a pemsal of the material available on record, it appears that the main contention of the petitioner is that the 1 I I ,1 A 3 sKs,J r.Crl.P.Ito.24 of 2O25 Investigating Oflicer was examined as p.W.3 Lr lore examining the other witnesses, and that such deviation ir: :lf is sufhcient to transfer of the case. On going through the sz I I contention, it is true that generally the trial Court examines l c Investigating Officer, who is cited as the last witness in the che rge sheet, after the other witnesses are examined. In the prese I case, the trial Court examined the Investigating Ofhcer as p.!/ 3, and though the petitioner contends that this causes prejul ce in bringing out omissions and contradictions, such a circurl ;tance by itself does not constitute a ground for transfer of th,r case. If there are omissions or contradictions in the evidenct: of subsequent witnesses, it is always open to the petitioner t: tile a petition seeking summoning or recall of the Investigatin l purpose of eliciting the truth, and if such a peti , Ofhcer for the rn is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own mr.; rt s.

6. The other contention raised by the petitir,r er is that the trial Court actively participated in the cro; _examination. However, no material has been placed to su t stantiate this allegation, and as observed by the trial Court, thr: petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses at ler 1 th. Therefore, this allegation also cannot be a ground for transle .. Considering 4 SKS,J Tr.crl.P.No.24 of 2025 the facts and circumstances of the case, the Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed, with an observation that if any omissions or contradictions are elicited from the witnesses examined after the examination of the Investigating Officer, it is open to the petitioner to hle an appropriate recall petition for summoning the Investigating Ofhcer for further cross- examination on those aspects.

7. In view thereof, this Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 4 5 The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thorrur The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabu The Station House Officer, Maripeda Police One CC to Sri Sricharan Telaprolu. Advocate [OPUC] iwo CCs to Public Prosecutoi, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Station, Warangal Rural

6. Two CD CoPies ABK /PSL Yy HIGH COURT DATED: 2711112025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.24 of 2025 I ...... - ,it 't $ES fA ! ( C) ,J 2 rJAt,l 202[ t (l t.itr,,';t;i.',i t.-:;-.;14' z a) ...,, DISMISSING THE TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION q ,pd"N \q. ')