The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad, Telangana-

2. Baiireddv Ramakanth, S/o Janardhan, ASeg^11 years' Occ .Business' R/o ' "d'J;,[" ivi ;i 5 ; ;k*;;i r- M a n o J . F|.e'" n i a t s h i v a j i n a s a r' N i za m a b a d Telangana D istrict. Telag n a n a

3. Arioela Janardhan, s/o. Nadipilimbanna' age 3lyrs' Caste " ilJ'";; i;il:o;;'d;ffi;;; d/JPipri (v) Bh6emsal mandal' Nizamabad 4. Komanpally Mallesh, s/o Mallaiah., ?9e ?7y!?' Caste' Munnurkapu' Occ Jeep ' il;;; Hi"'Pipri ,irrrg"' 5. Palem Gangadhar, s/o late Gangaram,.age 40yrs' Caste S-C'. MadhigaR/o SC " $ffi;-6"h;lrdiviriig; ano lMIndal, NiZamabad District relansana' 6. Kaki Viiaya, Wo Srikanth. age 29yrs, Caste SC (Madiga)' Occ Housewife - iilr"nji"i""apet vittage Mofttrad Mandat present Balkonda Village and Mandal, Nizarirabad District. Telangana' MZndal'Nizamabad District' Telangana' -ahelmgal

7. Kuntam Radha @ Anuradha, Wo Gangadher'.age 45yrs' Caste S-C (Madiga) R/o SC cotony sn""rdli;iiii,eino n/|inoat, NiiamaSad District. Telangana B. Kuntam Gangadhar, s/o Late Gangaram' Ag-e.55yrs' Caste S C (Madiga)' - olC n v. cdrt. s"nooin'rrirL uiir,g" Rlo'SC C'otony Bheemgal village and Mandal Nizamabad District Telangana' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourt.may be pleased to quash tne orOer dtaled 12-10-2023 passed in Crl'M'P No'536 of 2023 in S.C.No.23 or zor6l on Ge file of Special bessions Judge For Trial Of S.C.s/S.T.s (P O.A ) Act-Cum-ll Additional Sessions Judge, Cases Under The N izamabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 ol 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 S.C NO.23 of 2016 on the file of Special Sessions Judge For Trial of Cases Under The S.C.s/S.T.s (P.O.A.) Act- Cum-ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. l.A. NO: 9 OF 2024 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 extend the interim orders dated 1611012024 passed in lA No.O1 of 2023 in CRLP NO 12512 of 2023 in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B Karthik Navayan , Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and of Sri Mr.N.Srushman reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.t 25L2 0? 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ d e facto complainant seeking to quash the order dated 12.IO.2O23 in Crl.M.P.No.536 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No .23 of 20t6 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge For Trial of Cases under the SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-Il Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short, "the trial Court") wherein the learned Judge of the trial Court had dismissed the application liled by the petitioner seeking to receive certain documents and recall PWl for marking the same.

2. Heard Mr.B.Karthik Navayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.N.Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.2 to B.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is..the de facto cornpl.ainant 1n Sp1.S.C.No.23 of 2016 which was filed against respondent Nos.2 to 8/ accused for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 448, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(v)(x) of the SCs/ STs (PoA) Act. The case for posted for 2 arguments before the trial Court. At that stage, the petitioner has filed certain documents i.e., Ex D2 ex-parte judgment 1n O.S.No.16 of 2OO4 against which, an LA.No.126 of 2016 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad is pending. The trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed the said application stating that it 'was filed after lapse of (18) months of completion of cross- examination of PWI and PW2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay cannot be a ground to dismiss the application as Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. permits the Court to re-open the case at arly time of proceedings. Therefore, he seeks to aliow this Criminal Petition-

5. Learned counsel for unofficial responclent Nos.2 to B submits that the trial Court had rightly and appropriately passed the impugned order and interference of this Court, at this stage, is not u'arranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition

6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that there is no perversity in the impugned order as re-opening the evidence of PWs.l and 2, after posting the matter for arguments, would ultimately cause _ J delay in dispensing justice. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Pe tition.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ISTANT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER To, 2 1 The Special Sessions Judge For Trial Of Cases (P.O.A ) Act-Cum-ll Additional Sessions Judge, iwo Cis to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri B Karthik Navayan, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri Mr.N.Srushman reddy Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies der The S.C.siS.T.s N iza mabad the State of Telangana at 4 t ADI(plp l I I I I i i HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210212025 .--11 \8.! /'\ ,,' s s* \ o I j 1 '/j

4. ,,, .l_-,\. ORDER CRLP.No.12512 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRLP Ye {tV \ 1>