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 Stay all further proceedings in S.C. SPL No. 192 of 2022 on lhe file of Fast Track Special Judge for trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, 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 G. Sundaresan, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER r-::::.1r1_ii:],-;Fr '' .!i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE - I\NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON.BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE:,,I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14580 OF 202 ; DATE:30-1 2-2025 Between: Kanuku Mahesh And Petitio n er The State of Telangana, Through L.B Nagar Police Statton, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad Respondent ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the pett t rner-accused seeking to quash the order, dated 18.10.202: passed in Crl M.P.No 837 of 2025 in S.C.Spl NoI92 of 2022 I y the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal rf Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga ReddY District a: L.B. Nagar, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner, unclir Section 31 1 Cr P C., seeking to recall PW.'l for further cross ex I nination, was d ism issed. ) ETD. Crl.P No.ll-i80 of 2015 '

2. Heard Sri G. Sundaresan. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the present petition. The trial Court ought to have allowed the petition and recalled pW. 1 for further cross-examination, so as to arrive at just decision He further submitted that dismissal of the present petition would cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order, dated .l 8.10.2025, and recall PW.'l for further cross-examination. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgments of the High iourt of Kerala in Vineeth v. State of Keralaland the High Court of Karnataka in Mohammad Ali Akbar v. State of Karnataka2.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has passed a well reasoned order dismissing the present petition. There is no necessity to recall pW..l , who is the -\:tltr2:K1_nl1,122 ' 1022 SCC Ont,ine Kar I0l8 w victim in the case, for further cross examination ll therefore, _) Ir ll).. \;o.l 1560 ol ,llrl5 prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 5 6 Perused the record The present S C Spl.No.192 of 2022 is regit; ,:red for the offences under Sections 376(3), 342, 354D and 5l Section 3 read with 4 of POCSO Acl, 2012 examrnation and cross-examlnation of PW.'1 i ; ; l.P.C and The chief co m pleted Subsequently, the present Crl.M.P.No 837 of 2O',a ' is filed to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. A perusa rf the record reveals that PW.1 was examined on 14.11.2024 an<l on the same day, she was subjected to cross-examination at ( ngth by the defense counsel. Learned counsel for the petit ct ,-r contends that PW 1 was partially examined But, the mate' rl placed on record makes it clear that PW.1 was thoroughly ,;ubjected to cross-examination. Further, the petition filed by t re petitioner before the trial Court does not disclose any spec f : reason for recalling PW 1, except stating that limited f - ther cross- examination is essential to discover the truth and 1 .r ensure fair trial The petitioner did not mention any specific rezrr cn or fact as to why he would like to further cross-examine PW.1 The petition 4 ll1.D,J (]rl.P.No I1580 ot2025 filed under Section 31i Cr.p.C. cannot be allowed in a routine manner. Further, recalling the victim for further cross_ examination in the cases under the POCSO Act would further traumatize the victim. 7 ln Vineeth's case (supra 1), the statement under section 164 Cr.p.C. was not available to the accused when pWs.4 and 6 were cross_examined and therefore, subsequen y, the accused has filed petition under Section 3i1 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 for the reason that the statement under Section 164 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. But, in the present case, the petitioner has not cited any such reason and the facts of the said case differ from the case on hand. Since the cross-examination of pW..l is already completed and the petitioner has not made out any specific reason for further cross_ examination of pW..1 , the said case law is not applicable to the case on hand -iffi 5 EI'L).J CrL.l . o.l45tio 0f2025 ln Mohammad Ali Akbar's case (supra 2), the v

8. family member of the accused and she was in ict :tim was a r: with the accused. The said facts were not elicited during the cross- examination of the victrm and therefore, the petition u' .ler Section 31'1 Cr.P C. was filed, but the same was dismissec :y the trial Court. Challenging the same, the accused filed a pt: tion before the High Court of Karnataka. The reason stated by 1 're accused was that if the said facts of relationship between the ; ;cused and the victim were elicited from the mouth of the victim, :he case of the petitioner would likely end in acquittal as it woul' become a consensus act, since the victim is the daughter of m: ernal uncle of the accused. The High Court of Karnataka obset' victim has crossed 1B years of age as on the date c'1 petition under Section 311 Cr.P C and as such, ng that the filing of the he rigor of Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Se>:t al Offences Act gets diluted, as the victim is not a child any mc crossed 1B years of age, and that recalling the ra'i facilitate a fair trial, has allowed the petition. But, i' 'e after she ness would the present case, the victim is aged about 13 years as on :he date of commission of offence i.e., in the year 2022. Now, s re would be around 16 years of age and therefore, the facts of t e said case \ \ differ from the case on hand and so the said case law is also not 6 DID.J C.J P.No. ui80 o12025 applicable

9. lt is reiterated that pW..1/victim was cross-examined at length and the petitioner has not assigned any specific reason for further cross-examination of the said witness, who is a minor. ln view of [he above held discussion, it is oprned that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition with justifiable reasons. Hence, the Criminal petition lacks merit. 10 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed ftrliscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// I S .P. PONNA KRISHNA S STANT REGIST CTION OFFICER To ' I::,r:SffLLSessions court ror the rriat ano oispo\lr or pocso cases, 2. The Fast Track Soeciat Judge for_Trial and Disposal of Rape and pOCSO Act cases, L.B.Nagai, Ranga n""oov oisiiicj"v 3. The Station House Officer, L.B.Nagar police Station t ly;":"3:Jid?r"rf'0"" Prosecutor' Hish court ror the state or reransana at e'ovurc

5. One CC to Sri G. Sundaresan, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ,?.- :+) .-)' ) .) * .1= je. rt iS Te 1 6 l:B ltjZti -2. * \ : r HIGH COURT ETD, J DATED: 3011212025 ORDER CRLP.No.14580 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION -J rs nl'lee