Li High Court · 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 set aside the impugned order dated 26-05-2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 5 of 2024 in S.C.No. 90 of 2017 on the tile of the Speciat Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Aclcum-lll Addl. Sessions Judge at Khammam and allow summoning of the material witness Banoth Ramu in the interest of justice. 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 grant interim stay in S.C.Nog0 of 2017 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-lll Addl. Sessions Judge at Khammam till the disposal of this Criminal Petition or else there is every possibility to the Trail CourULower Court to go for arguments as adjourned on 03-07 -2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. V.A.K. REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE N.TUKAFIAMJI CRIMINAL P ETITION No.8323 OF 2O2!i ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNSS') with a pray()r to set aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.p No.5 of 2024 in S.C.No. 90 ot 2017 on the file of the Special Sessions .t udge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cumlll Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam and to allow summoning the materi:rl witness Mr. Banoth Ramu.

2. I have heard the submissions of Mr. V.A.K. Reddy, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Jrthender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would subrnit that the petitioner has never seen the de facto complainant rror had any acquaintance with her and false case has been foisted with ulterior motive. Further pleads that the examination of the witnesr; is essential to prove the fact that the agreement of sale was ex(_,cuted on a particular date. The proposed witness being attestor to the document, his version would be relevant to prove the date of tran saction. He ,] 2 MTR,J c'rp_8323-2025 - further pleads that the Court bebw had passed the order declining the petition on the ground of belated filing, however giving an opportunity wouu strengthen the version of the petitioner, particularly the date of transaction. He submits that the agreement of sale was in January, 2015 whereas as per the de facto complainanUrespondent No.2 the incident occurred in the month of March, 2015. However the defacto complainant in her statement as pW_1 mentioned that 5 days after the transaction the incident had occurred. He further pleads that extending one opportunity to the petitioner will not create any prejudice to the parties. The petitioner found the relevant document re:enfly. Hence the petition for calling upon the witness has been filed. Therefore, prayed for intervention

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submits that the impugned order has been passed on proper appreciation of the facts and the proceedings. He points out that earlier there were similar efforts by the petitioner to examine the serf same witness and the sarne were dismissed and has been categorically noted in the impugned order. Further the aspect of transaction is not rerevant in the prosecution as the alleged incidents are on different dates. Further the document was there on record all along and it is not marked. Thus summoning the witness to make out the date of agreement of sare is wholly irrelevant. Furthermore, the petitioner has not questioned oh 3 NTR,] Crlp_8323_2025 T \ suggested the prime witness/PW-1 about the date of transaction or in regard to the agreement of sale. Therefore, examinatiorr of the witness will not make out any favourable fact. Hence prayed for rlismissal of the petition.

5. I have perused the materials on record and <:onsidered the submissions of the learned counsd.

6. The petitioner's claim is that examination of witness would reveal the date of incident mentioned by the de facfo :omplainant is false basing on the date of agreement of sale. A careful reading of the statement of the witness/pW-1 is disclosing that, after completion of five days of the sale transaction, the petitioner has comr: to her hotel. Whereas the petitioner is asserting to make out the date of agreement of sale which are ex facie two distinct events_ l-he record is I demonstrating that witness was cross examined at lenlyth and in the cross examination the PW-1 was specificafly referred to s;are of the prot for consideration of Rs.13,60,000/- and also execution cf sale deed. The date of sale deed is not clear. Further the petit oner has not questioned the witness as to five days reference is in regard to agreement of sale_ ln the impugned order the learned Sr:ssions Judge has noted that the document was also on the record but the same was not marked. Additionally, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.p l,lo.46 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No. 3 of 2024 to summon the selfsame witnerss and those / / 4 IiITR,J Cnp 8323_2025 petitions were dismissd and those orders attained finality. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed the present petition to make out the date of sale agreement which is clearly irrelevant in the set of above noted facts and circumstances. ln this position, without there being any tenable ground, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below had properly appreciated the materials and righfly rejected the petition. ln this view, the impugned order deserves affirmation.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases for the Offences Under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A) Act-cum-lll Addl. Sessions Judge at Khammam.

2. The State House Officer, Polioe Station Kothagudem 1 Town, Khammam District.

3. One CC to Sri. V.A.K. REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangan at Hyderabad [OUT].

5. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL -s- HIGH COURT DATED: 0810712025 ORDER CRLP.No.8323 ol 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED i- i.i: :r r. , \ ci): 7' . -') /.':: 2 g SEP ;Iffi ..' \.- i;, .-,, - l\ I (