The 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 quash the order passed in Crl.M.P. No.40'of 2025in S.C. No.922 of 2019, on the file of Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, dated 25-09-2025, thereby allow the said Crl.M.P. 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 stay of all further proceedings in S.C. No. 922 of 2019, on the file of Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B. Nagar, _ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the 3 guments of Sri K vENUMADHAV ,Advocate for the petitioners and the Adcritionar pubric Prosecutor for the state of rerangana on beharf of the sort: respondent. The Court made the foilowing: ORDER , I tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETIT] ON No.l3996 OF 2025 DATE: 30-12-2025 Between: Mangalapally Praveen and two others And ... Petitioners The State of Telangana through S.H.O.' P.S. Abdullapurmet, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at HYderabad ... Respondent ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.7 to 9 seeking to quash the order, dated 25'09.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4O of 2025 in S.C.No.922 of 2019 by the learned Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to recall PWs l to 4 for the purpose of cross-examination, was dismissed' 2

2. Heard sri K. Venrrm..,.^,. petitioners and Sri Jithen pubric prosecutor t''u*o'"'nu"l]o?j -'nurnadhav, learned r ouosel for the Rao veeramaila, l: rrned Additionar for the r espondent_State. 3 petitioners have filed th further cross_examinatic Learned counseI for the petitioners sut,r present petition to recalr rn, but the trial Court har; same. He further submitted that if the said wihr recalled for further crossi-examination, the rights r> would get prejudiced e' therefore' prayed to l impugned order, dated 25.09.2025, and allow application filed by the petitioners seeking to recall f, / further cross_examination. ritted that the )Ws.1 to 4 for Jismissed the sses are not the accused et aside the lhe present Vs.'l to 4 for

4. Learned Additi trial Court has passe merits in the petition Cr.P.C. He, therefore, onal Public prosecutor submilt,,d that the d a reasoned order and that t1 )re are no filed by the petitioners under {) rction 311 prayed to dismiss the Criminal r: ltition. 5 Perused the record

6. The material place 2019 pelding on the file sessons Judse -r"; on record discloses that s c I o.922 of ":::j; r:,:jt::' :: ';: ;::,,,: 3 ETD.J Crl.P.No.l3996 of2025 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 449, 146' 147 and 148 read with 149 l.P.C. PW.1 was cross-examined on 21 .01 .2025, PWs.2 and 3 were cross-examined on 22.01.2025 and PW.4 was cross-examined on 23.01 .2025. lt is stated in the recall petition that subsequent to the examination of PWs.1 to 4, the petitioners changed their counsel and engaged a new counsel and that during the course of trial for the first time it is noticed that due to oversight some important aspects and material questions were not elicited in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and that PWs.1 to 4 were also not confronted with the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that the said aspects are important to elicit the truth. Therefore, they intended to recall PWs.1 to 4. The counter filed by the prosecution in the present petition discloses that it has objected the recall petition stating that PWs.1 to 4 were already cross-examined at length. The depositions of PWs.1 to 4 are filed along with the material papers and a perusal of the cross- examination of PWs.1 to 4 reveals that they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but they were not confronted with the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Recall of a witness cannot be done in a routine manner, unless specific reason is stated as to on which the counsel would like to further cross-examine the 4 case, rhe wirness crrpNo,:ee6o D2i € not confronted ffi:].1:,,:;,r.."rt )nts under section ,uo

7. In Vineeth "rrt" ;:::J::i" the accused nr. ,,, pws.4 and 6. The High court of Kera* the statement under to the accused at the and that a chance witnesses by 164 cr.p.c. ,n ,n" rr"l by the pefitioners "onr,""n _::":::;"0,^,,,n" ( a,emen, under the' accused when "no "'ott uxamined petition under sectionrrefor: ': court has o'"tt'uot'1 has allowed trre petition subsequently' c to recall "P but the 'l'tition' ti I ground that n 164 cr'P'c';'on I time of cross-examinati( 'de available of I ws'4 and 6 examir e the said 'nt't r section i made out 1)4 cr'P'c sarc decision' be given 'o "'o"t-'" n the statement sent case also' specific ,.u "0". a* statements vs'1 to4' lnthetight;;tt" section 164 cr' ,o ol,tn" are not confronted since the srarements confronted to the witnessunder dated 25. 09. 2oru,,.,,ro,u",to ::*t;;; ;;r,, ;:T' B Accordingly, the Crirninal petition

25.09.2025, t2 022:KER:7 t422 Passed in Crl.M.p.No.40 is allowed and $rr order, 2C 25 in r: 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.13996 of 2025 S.C.No.922 of 2019 by the learned Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Diskict at L.B. Nagar, is set aside. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.4Q of 2O2S is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to further cross-examine pWs.1 to 4. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C SECTION OFFICER /TTRUE COPY//

1. Hon'ble Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,L.B.NAGAR ,Ranga Reddy District.

2. Hon'ble XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,Hayatnagar, Rachakonda District. I To,

3. The Station House Officer ,Abdullapurmet Police station ,Rachakonda Distrct. 4. One CC to SRl. KVENUMADHAVAdvocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies =J@ HIGH COURT DATED:3011212025 ( tHE S ) rB 202 : ipATCT ORDER CRLP.No.13996 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION KC zef ,fze