The High Court · 2025

M/s Sai Krishnodaya lndustries Private Limited, Rep by its Director, Mr- Saini Satvanaravana Rab S/o S. Raieshwar rao, D.No. 'l-8-333 and 334, A, Wane' Ndr Hudd Office, U.S. Consul'ate Lane, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500016 Mr. Saini Satyanarayana Rao, S/o S. Rajeshwar rao D.No. 1-8-506/A/8/4, Sai sasar Heish[s, Prakash Nasar, Besumpl#f,itsthT33lu.ro No.{ & 2 M/s Sarwottam lspat Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Mr. Sarat Kumar Sahoo. S/o Late Sridhar Sahoo, Age.50 years. Occ: Head Marketing ' rlo 206- Swapnalok Complex, S. D. Road, Secunderabad- 83,131*rr"ouplA NANT State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at HYderabad ...RESP.NDENT 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 quash the order dated 03.10.2025 passed in CC. No. 8309 of 2022 on the file of 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, enabling the petitioners/accused to cross examine the complainant l.A NO: 2OF 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 all further proceedings in CC. No. 8309 of 2022 on the file of 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate for the Petitioners and SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri Sharad Sanghi for the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: OROER / THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DT VI EADA CRIM!NAL PETITION N0.14142 ol 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners_ac >used Nos.1 & 2 aggrieved by the docket order dated 03.10.2025 1t rssed in CC No.8309 ot 2022 by the r-Additionar chief Metroporitar Magistrate, Nampally, wherein the further cross-examination of pW.1 was closed.

2. Heard Mr. Chetrluru Srinivas, learned corr sel for the petitioners, Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for th,: respondent No.2 and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramaila, learned Addir onar pubric Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submi petitioners wanted to confront few documents in the f I examination of PW.1 , but as an adjournment was 03.10.2025, the learned Magistrate has closed examination of PW.l and posted the matter for ,l examination and therefore, he prayed to set aside the order and permit the petitioners to further cross_examine led that the ther cross- sought on he cross- l3 Cr.P.C. aid docket he witness i.e. PW.'1. I l I !. I 2 EID,J \ C.l.P. uo.antg ol 202s

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the case pertains to 2019 many chances were given to the petitioners for cross-examination of the witness till 31.03.2023, but despite conditional order, they failed to complete the cross_ examination of pW.i and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record discloses that originally the CC pertains to the year 2018 and the affidavit in chief examination of PW.'l was filed in 2019 and thereafter, sufficient opportunity was given for cross-examination of pw.1, but the defence counser faired to cross-examine the witness and therefore, the cross_examination of PW.1 was recorded as closed. Thereafter, a petition under Section 311 of Cr.p.C., was filed and the same was allowed and a chance for cross-examination was given and pW..l was cross_ examined in part on two occasions and the matter was posted for further cross-examination, after which the learned defence counsel has sought for an adjournment for once and thereafter on one day, there was a boy-cot by the Bar and thereafter, on one day, the complainant was absent and it was posted to 03.10.2025, but on the lsaid date, the defence counsel failed to appear and hence, further \ cross-examination of pW.1 was closed and the matter is posted for 3 EfD,J C.l.P. No-A3o!, ot 2025 313 Cr.P.C. examination on 07.1 1.2025 and matter ir; adjourned to '14.11.2025. Since the counsel for the accused see<s to further cross-examine the witness on few important document: , it is opined that one more chance can be given to the defence cour sel to further cross-examine PW.1, without seeking any further adjor .nments, the counsel shall complete the cross-examination by closri rg the same on the same day, to meet the ends of justice.

7. ln the result, the criminal petition is allowed ;etting aside the docket order dated 03.10.2025 passed in CC No,t lO9 of 2022 by the l-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Namc:lly, and the matter shall be posted for further cross-examination of : //.1 and the trial court shall fix a date for further cross-examination cf pw.1 within a period of (10) days from the date of receipt of a cop), tf this order and on the said date the defence counsel shall cross_e < rmine pW.,l without seeking any further adjournment. Miscellaneous etitions, if any pendin , shall stanc closed. P Sd/. S. MI( LIKARJUNA RAO ASSIT;'ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S ECTION OFFICER Nampally, Hyderabad Distriit

1. The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Crimir,i I Courts at 2. The Station House Officer, Saifabad police Station, Saifatri d, Hyderabad 3 4 5 District One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENTVAS Advocate [OpU( | One CC to SRI SHARAD SANGHT Advocate IOpUbi- - ' - Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court foithe Stite of Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies elangana at To 6bVM/PR HIGH COURT DATED: 0711112025 C ORDER CRLP.No.14142 of 2025 t t\t1t i-) ]TAi f 1'- OS ,.+ \ 2:- 'l ir0 , 7- 6) -j -,. ALLOVI'ING THE CRIMINAT PETITION 1 1, U\ \'t/