High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at HYderabad.

2. KolaBanumathi, Wo.Ramagandhl, qged about 38 years' Occ House wife' R/o. H.No.13-3-I I2, il;;i;"d'i Cbidnv' Bhadrach'alam' Bhadradri Kothagudem District- ... RESPONDENTIDEFACTO-COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in .the .circumstances stated in ine Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may to call for the records of Docket order dated 17-02-2025 passed in il;;r;"J Crl.MP.No.87ot2025inc.c.t..toz++of2022onthefileofthecourtofJudicial ftfrgi.tr"t" of First Class at Bhadrachalam and quash the same l.A. NO:1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtm-ay be pleased to grant stay oi att furtner proceedings C'C'No'244 of 2022 on the file of the court of Judicial fr,rgi"t*t" of f irst Cliss at Bhadrachalam' Bhadradri K"G;gr;; District, pendin! disposal of the above criminal petition )*r7 This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R MANGULAL ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Asst public prosecutor [vlr, E.Ganesh on behalf of the Respondent No.l. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.41O1 OF 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed assailing the docket order dated 17 .02.2025 passed in Cr1.M.P.No.B7 of 2025 in C.C.No.244 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Bhadrachalam Town Police Station on 2O.O3.2O22 stating that the petitioner is guilty of criminal acts and the Station House Officer, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2022 under Sections 354-A,294-8 and 506 IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet which r.r,as numbered as C.C.No.244 of 2022, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Collass, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. During the course of trial, the petitioner was constrained to file recall petition for recall of PWs 1 & 2 for further cross- examination and the Trial Court dismissed the same vide order dated 27 .Ot .2025. Aggrieved by the same, the r' ,/ z EW,J CrLP.No.4lOl OF 2025 petitioner filed Crl.P.No.2586 of 2025 before this Court arrd this Court uide order dated 24.02.2025, allou,ed the said Criminal Petition. The petitioner also filed a petition uid.e Cr1.M.P.No.B7 of 2025 in C.C.No.244 of 2022 on 17 .O2.2O25 for recall of evidence of pWS and to cross- examine PWS. The learned Assistant public prosecutor reported his objection for allowing the petition on the ground that the petition is irrelevant and with an intent to harass the witnesses even during trial and to prolong the case, the petition is fiied and hence prayed to dismiss the same. Considering the submissions made by both parties, the Trial Court passed the docket order on |T.O2.2O25 dismissing the petition which reads as under:- "DOCKET ORDER DATED 17.O 2.2025:- As per the HC circular, all the official witnesses should be examined through V.C. and. counsel has not raised objection at the time of cross-examining him and at the stage of arguments theg haue filed- this petition and hence this Court considering this petition is not matntainable as per HC instntction, official witnesses haue to be examined- through V.C. and recalling official uitnesses as he u..tas examined. through V.C. is not a bonafide reasoru to be recalled,, EW,J Crt-P.No,410l OF 2O2S at this stage, hence petition rrot maintainable and hence dismissed'"

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order' the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Petition' 4. Heard Sri R'Mangulal' learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri E'Ganesh' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No'1-state Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 5. during the course of trial in C'C'No'244 of 2022 ' on the fiie of Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Bhadrachaiam' Bhadradri Kothagudem District' the Investigating officer \Iras examined as PW5 through video conference on 06.07.2025 and the petitioner obtained a copy of the said deposition only on 20 'Ol '2025 As the petitioner' he could not ask some important questions in the cross-examination of PW5 ald as there are variations in the evidence with regard to place of offence, alleged Panchayat and as there are some alterations in the complaint enclosed to the FIR' hefiledCrl'M.P.No.BTof2o2SseekingtorecallPW5and permit him to cross-examine the said witness' But thd ." .a -\ :a!:' 4 EW.J Crl.P.No-41O1 OF 2O;s learned Triai court, without even adverting to the contents and without passing any judicial order, simply passed the docket orders on 1Z .O2.2025 as petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel also contended that the learned Assistar-rt public prosecutor obj.ected the petition by way of writing on the backside of the petition which procedure is not established under law.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no bar lor recall of witness under Section 31 l. ol_ Cr.p.C. even though the matter was postecl for arguments. ln fact, the examination of witnesses u,as ciosed only in the month of December, 2024 and_ the matter was posted for arguments in the month of January, 2O2S atd,further. lor the sake of recall of pWs 1 & 2, the matter was reopened and the rmpugned order was passed on 12.O2.2O25 and the matter u,as posted to 24.O3.2025. 7 . Learned counsel further submitted that if pWS is not recailed, the entire exercise of recalling of pWs 1 & 2 will go in vain and therefore prayed to aliow the petition by quashing the docket order dated I7.O2.2O25 passed in Crl.M.P.No.BZ of 2O2S in C.C.No.24 4 of 2022. ) i I I I I I I I 5 EW'J Crl.P,No. 1O1 Ot 2O25

8. On the other hand' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemen t1y opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed Crl'M'P'No'87 ol 2025 in C.C.No'244 of 2022' g. A perusal of d'ocket order dated l7'O2'2O25 clearly shows that the Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed' to raise any kind of objection at the time of cross-examination of PW5 when he was examined through Video Conference' Now' when the matterisatthestageofarguments,thepetitionertaking this as a bonafide reason' hled the present petition seeking recall of PWS, is not maintainable under law'

10. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 275 Cr'P'C' reads as follows:- ,, prouided that euid-ence of a tt titness under tltis sub- section maA also be recorded bg audio uideo electroric merLns in the presence of the Aduocate of the person accused of the offerucel' \ \ 6 EW,J CrLP. No.41O1 OF 2O2S 1o(r) By analyzing this provision, we can say that taking evidence of a witness through video conferencing permissibie. 1S

11. In view of the above provision of iarv and circular of the Hon'ble High Court, the contention of the petitioner that as PWS was examined through video conference, he could not cross-examine him properly, is not a bona,fi.d_e reason to recail pV/5. Hence, the learned trial Court had rightly arrived at a conclusion in ciismissing the petition for recalling of PWS. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court rvhich is in proper perspective. Hence, the petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. t2 In the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ar.ry, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REgISTRAR fr)'/' sEcTIoN-oFFtCER To,

1. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhadrachalam 2. The Station House Officer ,Police Station Bhadrachalam Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

3. One CC to SRI R MANGULAL Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies Actsh r,,' -'1<-+--*.* :- :-- ::":k...:dr__=:-__-_=:;;G;*--.,'-.*;;;aa;rE tj^ ( 0 2 SiP 206 r,.t,; \.': ^ \d,i .. ., ir1 .:,,, -j-:-:- :- : ---2- , .'/ '-.t/ HIGH COURT DATED:01 t0St2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.4101 of 2025 CRLP IS DISMISSED g 1/t 7/s ,/< t