The High Court · 2025

...Respondent / Accused 2 Ilg SJqt" of Tetangana, rep by its pubtic prosecutor, High Court for the State or r etangana at Hyderabad ...Respondents Petition under section 528 of BNSS prayihg 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 21t312025 in crl.M.p.No. 11 0f 2025 in crl.M.P.No. 1 of 202s in Tr.crl.M.p.N o. 9 ot 2024 in cc No. 8s1 of 2023 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under rjection 528 of BNSS praying thar in thr: circumstances stated in the Memorar dum of Grounds of criminal petitic,n, the Frigh court may be pleased to g,-2n1 :,iiay of all further proceedings in Crl.lVLIr.lrlc. 1 of 2O2S in Tr Crl M.P.No.9 cl t:(t,:4 in CC No. BS1 of 2023 on the fil:: of prncipal Sessions Judge, Ranga Red,l,r - rstrict at L.B Nagar, pending disposal of the main petition. This Petition I r: ning on for hearing, upon perusin,:1 th,: Ir/;:morandum of Grounds of crinrina t)etition and upon hearing the arguments; of Sri Bonala Saramma, Advo:ate f :r the Petitioner and the Additional pub ic prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalr rf tre Respondent No.2. The Court made the 'olle*inn Order:- I THE HONOURABLE SRTJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CR!MINAL PETITION No.4760 of 2025 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 528 oI Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS, 2023') assailing the order daled2l .03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.11 of 2025 in Crl.lM.P'No.01 of 2025 in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.O9 of 2024 in CC No.851 oI 2023, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr.B.Subash, learned counsel representing Ms.Bohala Saramma, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The petitioner is the victim and the Calendar Case is filed against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448,42i,504,506 and 201 of lndian Penal Code,'1860 on the file of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate -cum- Principle Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam.

4. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that pending Calendar Case proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed Tr.Crl.M.P.No'09 of 2024 seeking transfer of CC No'851 of 2023 from XV Metropolilgn Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District to any other Additional t\Ietropolitan 2 CRL.P.No.4760 of 202 5 . lVlagstrak: Ranga Reddy District on the ground lrat the Presiding Officer co,:s not know Telugu. That petiti'rn wa{; dismissed by the Prin<;ipal liessions Judge, Ranga Reddy llist'ict vide order dated

03.12.'.:,>.(',24 Whereafter the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.l'1o.01 of 2025 with a prayet [:r review the order in Tr.Crl.lVl.P.ltlo 09 cl 2024. Wherein, Crl.l\,1.F,.1{r .11 of 2025 filed with a prayer to sun mon any of four statemerrls of witnesses recorded by the trial Court in Telugu languagr: The impugned order came to be passecl ly dismissing that -'rus the present petition with a prayer to s;e,t aside that order. petition. l.-eerned counsel for the petitioner would subrit that the order S. passecl ll7 the trial Cou( is against the setl.led legz;l position. ln the dictum cf he Hon'ble Apex Court in Naim Ahmed v' Stafe (NCT of Dethi) C,eled 30.01.2023, it has been held that the d{rpositions have to be rercorri:d in the language of the witnesses and if e't all the witnesses gives erv ck:nce in which language, it has to be taker: in that language. Citin': the r;e observations pleaded that the Prersidirrg Officer cannot record tf () statements of witnesses with the help of prrosecutor and the courserl es observed in the order in Tr.Crl.lll.P l{o Ct9 of 2024- Thus, dismissal cf the petition by the Principal Sessitltts Judge, Ranga Red<ty Dir;.rict at L.B.Nagar is untenable, thr-rs praye,i for setting aside e crder :i "i.1.t; .- 'Et4' ;&a -c1!g}' !#!nmet 3 N'tR,J CRL P.No.4760 of2025

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Tr.Crl.M.P No.09 of 2024 was dismissed as such the maintainability of the lnterlocutory Application has not been considered and the Court has recorded that the petition and prayer would amount to review of its own order. Hence, the order is justified. 7 . I have perused the materials on record B. It is not in dispute that the Tr.Crl.t\4.P.No.09 of 2024 was dismissed and as per the pleadings, the review petition vrde Crl.l\4.P.No.01 of 2025 has been filed and it is pending. ln the present petition the petitioner has sought for the evidence recorded by the Court in Telugu. Firstly, the request is not pertaining to the relevant case on hand. Secondly, there is no explanation as to how the deposition will be helpful, especially in the light of settled practice that the statements of witnesses in vernacular language would be translated and recorded in the Court language and this process would be in the physical pressure of the accused and his counsel. The Court having considered the submissions observed that summoning the depositions recorded in Telugu language is an effort of rankling. Further it has been noted that the new material when if available can be considered but agitating on the self same ground raised in the transfer petition, which was considered and dismissed would be asking for recording the earlier order. For the aforenoted circumstances, this 4 ;. t. R r-.P No.4760 o/ 2025 Court findr; n,) impropr'ety or illegality in the impr_rgned c,rder muchless any teni:b e : round for interference. ln consr:,que,nce this order is liable to be: irnl accordingly dismissed. Nonetheles:; it ir; clarified that, this order r,vr: rr d not come in the way of adjudicarion of Freview petition i.e., Crl.lv4 P r o 01 of 2025 and the Court below ir; directed to determine ':h: 'eview petition on its own merits, as perr lar,v.

9. With tl i: observation, this criminal petition is disn:ir,;sed. '10. lrli:;celle neous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SI]/- K, AMMAJI .,, DEPUI'/ REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ i SEC-I'ION OFFICER To,

1. The X Additic,n r .lunior Civil Judge cum XXX Metropo itan Mag istrate Court, Cyberabac a: I. .: Nagar at Hasthinapuram.

2. The Station Flo'rse Officer, Saroornagar P.S., Rachakt:,nda Cortmissionerate 3. Two CCs t,: tht F'ublic Prosecutor, High Court for the {iitate of l elangana' Hyderabac [Ot.r--'I

4. One CC to Sri Jc nala Saramma, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Cc,pir:s; VC/gh Yt- HIGH COUR'I' DATED:07rc412025 ORDER CRLP.No.4760 of 2025 J+' \) C) (J 'Jl c) +. * ( 0 r Jl it25 ..r.\ 'lt , :) PAr' DISMISSING I'HE CRLP $ *€db k 6({