HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.474 of 2024

ORDER

In this Criminal Petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner/accused is challenging the order, dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2024 in S.C.No.936 of 2018. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the de facto complainant/P.W.1 for further cross-examination was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the examination of PW.1 was completed on 21.07.2022 and on the very same day the defense counsel also cross-examined PW.1. Again on 27.07.2022 the defense counsel filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., vide Crl.M.P.No.77 of 2022 to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination and the same was allowed on 23.08.2022 and the case was scheduled for cross-examination of PW.1 on 21.09.2022. On that day, the defense counsel extensively cross-examined PW.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that subsequently PW.1 has filed a Memo dated

12.12.2023 and when the petitioner/accused came to know about the same, he has again sought recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination by filing Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2024 in relation to the Memo filed by P.W.1. However, the said Crl.M.P. was dismissed by the trial Court observing that the petitioner was given opportunity twice to cross-examine PW.1 and PW.1 did not disclose anywhere that she does not know the case facts or that she was threatened by PW.3 to give false evidence and therefore, there are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed, through impugned order dated 04.01.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that only because PW.1 filed the Memo dated 12.12.2023 after his cross-examination, the petitioner is seeking further cross-examination of PW.1 on the contents of said Memo and nothing else.

4. The Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this criminal petition.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions of both the counsel and the material placed on record, this Court finds that after closure of evidence, PW.1 seems to have filed a Memo dated 12.12.2023 stating that PW.3 is her maternal uncle and accused is her brother in relationship and both are having disputes regarding the financial transactions, as such they are quarreled with each other. It is alleged that PW.3, who is her maternal uncle made her to depose false before the Court. The trial Court, while passing orders in Crl.M.P. No.1 of 2024, has not taken into account the contents of said Memo dated 12.12.2023 and rejected the petition. However, the fact remains that after closure of evidence only, the said Memo dated 12.12.2023 was filed by PW.1 and therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 with regard to the said Memo dated 12.12.2023. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to allow the petition.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 04.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2024 in S.C.No.936 of 2018 pending on the file of the Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2024 in S.C. No.936 of 2018 stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner/accused to cross-examine P.W.1, however, the cross-examination of PW.1 shall strictly be confined to the contents of Memo dated 12.12.2023. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this