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. 41 of 2025 in S.C. No. 922 of 2019, on the file of Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict at L.B. Nagar, dated 2510912025. 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 2O19, on the file of Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENUMADHAV, Advocate for Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13990 OF 2025 DATE:30-12-2025 Between: Mangalallally Sriramr-rlu and two others And . Petitioners The Slater of Telangana through S.H.O., P.S. Abdullapurmet, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Rr:ddy District, Represerrted by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... Respondent ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.10, 13 and 16 seeking to quash the order, dated 25.09.2025, passed irr Crl M P.No.4l ot 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.1 to 4 for the l)urpose of cross-examination, was dismissed G\ \! 2 f ID..l Crt.p.No.ll990 of 2025 2. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed the present petition to recall pWs.1 to 4 for further cross-examination, but the trial Court has dismissed the same. He further submitted that if the said witnesses are not recalled for further cross_examination, the rights of the accused would get prejudiced. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated 25.Og.2O2S, and allow the present application filed bythe petitioners seeking to recall pWs.1 to 4 for further cross-examination.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has passed a reasoned order and that there are no merits in the petition fired by the petitioners under section 31.r cr'P'c' He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the criminar petition.

5. Perused the record b The material placed on record discloses that S.C.No .g22 of 2019 pending on the file of learned Vlll Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict at L.B Nagar, IS 7 .,) DTD.J Crl.P.No.l3990 oi2025 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 449' 146' 147 and '148 read with 't49 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 no1: elicited in the evidence of PWs.l to 4 and that PWs.1 to 4 were arlso not confronted with the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that the said aspects are important to elicit the truth. Therefote, they intended to recall PWs.1 to 4. The counter filed by the lrrosecution in the present petition discloses that it has objectecl the recall petition stating that PWs.'1 to 4 were already cross-e>:amined at length. The depositions of PWs.1 to 4 are filed along urith the material papers and a perusal of the cross- examinertion 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 doner in a routine manner, unless specific reason is stated as to on which the counsel would like to further cross-examine the -lE "--!' \ -- .1 witness. ln the present case, the witnesses were not confronted with their statements under Section 164 Cr.p.C. cri.p.r.ro. r 3eeo off2'j

7. ln Vineeth v. State of Keralal, the statement under Section 164 Cr.p.C was not available to the accused when PWs.4 and 6 were cross_examined and therefore, subsequenfly, the accused has filed petition under Section 311 Cr.p.C. to recall PWs.4 and 6. The trial Court has dismissed the petition, but the High Court of Kerala has allowed the petition on the ground that the statement under Section i64 Cr.p.C. was not made available to the accused at the time of cross-examination of pWs.4 and 6 and that a chance can be given to cross_examine the said witnesses by confronting the statement under section '164 Cr.P.C. rn the present case arso, specific reason is made out by the petitioners that the statements under Section 164 Cr p.C are not confronted to pWs..l to4. ln the light of the said decision, since the statements under Section 164 Cr.p.C. were not confronted to the witnesses, it is opined that the impugned order. dated 25.09.2025, is liable to be set aside. B Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the order, dated 25.O9.2OZS, passed in Crl.M.p.No.4i of 2O2S in '2022:KER:7t422 -----7 ) ETD.J Crl.P.No.l1990 o12025 S.C.No.922 of 2019 by the learned Vlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar' is set aside. Consequ,:ntly, Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to further cross-examine PWs.1 to 4. Mi:;cellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER \t to'.,. ,n" Vlll r\dditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Commiss;ionerate, Ranga Reddy District' z. in!'S;tion House officer, Abdullapurmet police Station, Rachakonda s o"" CClo SRl. K VEIIUMADH-AV, Advocate toP-UCI ;. i;; 6d,, jo puefrcFnbsecuroR, High cotrt for the state of relangana 5. Two CD CoPies at Hyderrrbad [OUT]. HIGH COIJRT DATED:3rJ11212025 CRLP.No.13990 of 2025 'rlE 14-\ ? ? JAt{ 2[26 * ('F 't CRIMINAL PEITITION IS ALLOWED. q a,t^