The High Court · 2025

2. Mandala Srinu, S/o Saidulu, Aged about 42 years, Caste. Yadav, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o lndugula villag-e of Pattadar Madugulapally Mandal. ...RESPONDENT/COMPUII{ANTS Petition under Sectaon 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 quash the order dated 01.09.2025 in CrIMP No 223 of 2025 in SC POCSO No 259 of 2o2o on the file of the Ld. Special Fast Track Sessions Court for E)eeditious Disposal of cases of Rape and POCSO Act at Nalgonda and consequently direct the Leamed. Special Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of cases of Rape and POCSO Act at Nalgonda to allow the petition Crl MP No 223 ot 2025 in SC POCSO No 259 of 2020 and pass t-A. l{o: oF 202s Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminil. petition, the High court may be. pleased to stay of all further proceedings including anest of th+etitioners ii Crime/F.l.R. No.24Z ot 2020, il. lilOgt2c/rion the fr'te Mustabad pbtio it"ii*, Distric.t, reghtered U/s. 329(3), 324@,) rtw itSi of 'eNGi Bt9nnl_ -Sircilla 3(2)(va)sc/.sr PoA, Acr, pending disposar or irre auovL'criminai iet'rtion ani pass such other order or orders as this Hon ble court may deem Rt aira propei in the circumstances of the case. This Petition coming on for hear.ing, up6n perusang the Memorandu.n of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri V R MACHAVARAM ,Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. s. Maclhavi the Assistant Public Prosecutor (rG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMI PETITION No.l2152 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused seeking to quash the order, dated 01.09.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.223 ol 2025 in SC.POCSO.No.259 of 2020 by the leamed Special Fast Track Sessions Court for E:<peditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and POCSO Ad, at Nalgonda, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners seeking to recall PWs.1 to 4 for further cross-examination, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri V.R. Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. Madhavi, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l -State.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has enoneously dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking to recall PWs.l to 4 for further cross- examination. He further submifted that PWs.1 to 4 were already cross-examined, but the then defense counsel failed to put some -relevant questions to PW.1 to 4. He further submitted that there vtas a compromise entered into between lhe de facto complainant and the accused. The said truth was not elicited during the earlier 2 ETD,J Crl:,P.No. 12 152 of 2025 @urse of cross-examination and henee, to elicit the same, the petitioners intend to put further questions, fgr whieh, recatting of PWs.l to 4 for further cross-examination is very much required. He further submitted that the petitioners be permitted-to avail all the defenses and hen@, an opportunity to further cross-examine PWs.I to 4 may be given. He, therefore, prayed to set aside tfre order, dated 01.09.2o2s; and recall pws.i to 4 f6r further cross- examination. Lear.ned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment of the Honourabte suprerne court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and othersr.

4. Learned Assistant pubric prosecutor submitted that the contention of the petitioners is with regard to the setflement arrived at betoveen the parties outside the court and the court is not concerned with the said setflement and the witnesses cannot be recalled for the said purpose. she further submifted that the trial court has passed a reasoned order. she, therefore, prayed to uphold the order, dated 01.O1.ZOZS.

5. Perused the record. tzoz: rusc zto 3 ETDJ Gl-P.No.l2l52 of 2@5

01.09.2025, qa aggrieved bY

6. The Petitioners the order, dated passed in Cd.M.P.No.223 of 2025 in .No.259 ot 2O2O by the learned Special Fast Track SC Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and at Nalgonda. The said Crl.M.P' was filed to recall PWs.l to 4 for further cross-examination' The contents of the petition shovrls that the parties got compromised the mafter outside the Court and thus, to elicit the said facts from PWs'1 to 4, the petitioners intend to further cross-examine PWs'1 to 4' lt is bome out by record that PWs.1 to 4 were already cross-examined at length. The counter filed by the prosecution shows that the settlement arrived at outside the Court by luring the victims or threatening them is not maintainable and therefore, cannot be recalled. lt is not out of place to mention that the present case is under POCSO Act and the witnesses PWs'1 to 4 are none other than the victim herself and her family members' Recalling the said witnesses would traumatize them further' ln deciding the petitions under Section 311 Cr'P'C'' it has to be obserrred as to rvhether there are any justifiable reasons for recalling the witnesses. ln case, if they were not cross-examined earlier or in case any fact has to be elicited or when it is essential ;' r-) 4 EIDJ Crl.P.No.r2t52 of202i for a just decision of the case, only then recalling of the witnesses ean be allowed; but it cannot be allowed for filling the gaps or for of the parties. lni this case, ttre only reason stated by the petitioners is that the parties have entered into a compromise and that they want to eticit the said fact by recalting the witnesses. But, the witnesses eannot be recalled for ttre saiO reason. lf there is any ambiguity in gre initial testimony of the witnesses, then the witnesses can be recalled. But, in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that there is ambiguity in the cross-examination of the witnesses. A perusal of the depositions of the witnesses does not show any such ambiguity. There is no substance in the reasons stated by the petitioners. Thus, there is no point in recalling the witnesses. 7. The leamed petitioners, counset has relied upon Satbir singh:s case (supra). rn the said case, an application under Section 31 1 Cr.p.C, was made to recall the appellant hirnself. The allegation was that the appellant made a complaint against the accused that they being ex_employees of his Company have stolen the company data and used such data to manufacture which was being manufactured by the appellant,s company. During triar, before the report was obtained from the ,. 5 ETD'J Crl.P.No. 12 152 of 2n)25 Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, 'GFSL')' the evidence of the appellant was recorded. However, when the GFSL e:<pert, who had prepared the report, was examined by the Court, he described the data which was found on the hard disk of the accused, but there is no reference as to whether they were comparable in regard to what was atlegedly stolen from the appellantompany. Thus, under those circumstances, the appellant was constrained to apply for his recall as a witness, which was done within five days of recording the evidence of the CFSL expert. But, the same was rejec-ted by the trial Court and the High Court and hence, the matter has reached to the Honourable Apex Court. ln such circumstiances, it was held that recall of witness is justified since at the relevant point of time, in his initial deposition, there was no occasion for the appellant to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of the data before the Court, uJhich arose after the CFSL expert was examined' Therefore, it was held that an opportunity is to be given for re- examination of the witness and hence, the petition was allowed to recall the witness.

8. ln the present case, the facts differ from that of the cited decision. -'The witnesses were already cross-examined' There is I \ - 6 ETD,' Ol.P.No.l2l52 of202s no new fact to be elicited. The only contention of the petitioners, counsel is that there is a compromise entered into between the parties and hence, to elicit the same, the petitioners intend to further cross-examine pWs.1 to 4: Ttus, there is no justifiable reason to recall the witnesses in this case. Hence, it is opined that there is no regar inftrmity in the order, dated 01.09.202s. passed by the trial Court and therefore, the same is upheld. I Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY'/ fgiSf^?THEE?flXf; cTtot{oFFtcER To, ''ffi 'EffiBd:r$ii$,#ii:#,$nJiig?Fr-I,"""sf ptrs..rinr.J: 2. The Station House Officer, Madgulapally police Station, Nalgonda Disbict. 3. One CC to SRt. V R MACHAVARAM Actvocate [OptJC] 4. Two CCs to SRt. PUBLI lc PR.SECUT.R Advocate [our] a*lrrr* cD copies $ HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 CRLP.No.12152 ot 2AZS /. : i l: 5 .1 I 19 0E C o( ''- ..} "r', l) 4s CRIMINAL PETITION IS TXSMISSED g