##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13996 OF 2025

DATE: 30-12-2025

Between:

Mangalapally Praveen and two others

… Petitioners

And

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.40 of 2025 in S.C.No.922 of 2019 by the learned

VIII 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 purpose of cross-examination, was dismissed.

2 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.13996 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 25.09.2025, and allow the present

application filed by the 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 filed by the petitioners under Section 311

Cr.P.C. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The material placed on record discloses that S.C.No.922 of

2019 pending on the file of learned VIII Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is

3 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.13996 of 2025

registered for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 449, 146,

147 and 148 read with 149 I.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. It 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 ETD,J

Crl.P.No.13996 of 2025

witness. In the present case, the witnesses were not confronted

with their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

7. In Vineeth v. State of Kerala, 2022:KER:71422, the statement under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not available to the accused when

PWs.4 and 6 were cross-examined and therefore, subsequently,

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 164 Cr.P.C. was not made available

to the accused at the time of cross-examination o