Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Acco'dingly, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that although the Trial Court was well within its lurisdiction to manage and regulate the proceedings, in view of the fact…
Judgment
The Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana Petition under .Section 582 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order passed in Crl. M.p. No. 351 of 2025 in SPL.SC. No. 972 ot 2019, dated 12-06-2025, on the fite of the Fast Track Speciat Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and pOCSO Act Cases, Rangareddy District, at Rajendranagar. LA. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P_C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SPL.SC. No. 972 of ZO19 on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and pOCSO Act Cases, Rangareddy District, at Rajendranagar. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Allu Midhun Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Coutt made the fcllcwing: ORDER { I i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7222 OF 20ils ORDER This rlriminal Petition is filed under Section {28 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 \for short 'BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment cf order dated '12,06.2025 passed in O.l.M.P.No 351 of 2025 in Spl. SC No.972 of 2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court for l rial and Disposal of Rape and POO SO Act Cases, R.R. Distrrct at Rajendranagar.
2. I havr: heard tvlr.tvlidhun Kumar Allu, Iearned counsel for the petitioner/acr:used No.1 and Mr.Jithender Vee-irmalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respond :nt Nos.'l and 2.
The relevant facts of the case, briefly stated tht s the petitioner/ accused No.1 along with accused No.2 filed a petitic n under Section 309 of the (lode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.t) C.), seeking an adjournment of the proceedings until 21.07 .2025, ar outlined in the accompanying affidavit. By order dated 12.06.2025, he learned Trial Court allowed the petition in part and scheduled th€ matter for final hearing on "19.06.2025. Aggrieved by this, the petitio rer has filed the present petition seeking to quash the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends th lt accused No.2 had previous; ly filed Criminal Revision Case No.499 >f 2024, prayiog for the recall of prosecution witness PW-6 for further cross- 2 NTR.] CRLP-7222 2025 \it: examination. The said revision was partly allowed, limiting the scope of cross-examination to new facts disclosed in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., He further pleads that accused No.2 intends to challenge the partial denial of recall before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia. However, owing to the intervening summef vacation of the Court, accused No.2 had moved an application under Section 309 Cr.P.C. seeking adlournment until 21 .07.2025, upon the reopening of court. It is argued that the trial court failed to consider these crucial circumstances while passing the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner prays that the order dated 12.06.2025 be set aside in the interest of justice.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court, upon due consideration of the materials placed before it, has rightly and judiciously passed the impugned order in accordance with law. I have perused the materials on record.
Operative part
Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that although the Trial Court was well within its lurisdiction to manage and regulate the proceedings, in view of the fact that the adjourned date is scheduled for tomorrow, and without delving into the merits of .the matter, it would be appropriate, purely in the interest of iustice, to -_ 3 NTR,] CNLP ])D 2025 allow the present petition at this stage. lt is, however rnade clear that all contentions and remedies available to the petitione r before the Trial Court are left open. 8 Acco'dingly, the petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha I stand closed. //TRUE COPYII 9p ,\' M.OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR {sscrtott oFFtcER To, qcl U€ses. 1 i!:fr.l Track Speciat J^udge for Triat and Disposai cf Rape and pOCSO t-iangareddy District, at Rajendranagar ^ 2 a)nr CC to S,r, Allu Midhun Kumar, Adv6cate tOp"UCl 3. -rwi. CCs io -he public prosecutor, High Couri for the l;tate of Telangana at 4. Twc CD Cop es Hyierabad [OUT] xNK/lr A It, HIGH COURT DATED 18t6t2.025 -:- ( \ t 04 c[; ?ffi S::,,, ] 'a _i.' ORDER CRLP No 7222 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETI-J ION IS ALLOWED A- 23 1 )t
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Acco'dingly, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Disposal of Rape and POO SO Act; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 164, 309.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.