THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

19.09.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.308 of 2025 in SC No.76 of 2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, by recalling PWs.1 to 3.

2. Heard Mr.Mirza Azmath Ali Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 to 3 for further cross examination which was dismissed by the trial court. He further submitted that the witnesses were not cross-examined and much prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-accused and that in order to exercise his right of cross- examination, the witnesses have to be recalled. He further submitted that in the earlier instance, certain material questions were not been posed to the said witnesses and that recalling them is necessary to bring out the truth on record, but the trial court has made an error in dismissing the said petition. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition stating that the trial court has rightly dismissed the petition on considering the evidence on record. He further submitted that the said witnesses were already cross-examined by the defence counsel and hence, there are no merits in the present petition and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner is the accused in SC No.76 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 448, 436, 427, 323 and 506 IPC. It is borne out by the record that PWs.1 to 3 were examined as per the schedule. Subsequently, PWs.4 and 5 were also examined and the petitioner-accused was present on every date of hearing along with his counsel and the said witnesses were cross-examined at length. But, in the present petition, the petitioner stated that due to the changed circumstances, he wants to further cross-examine PWs.1 to 3. The petitioner has not put-forth any changed circumstances so as to recall the said witnesses and the points on which he wants to conduct further cross-examination are also not mentioned by the petitioner. During the course of arguments before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when PWs.4 and 5 were examined, he could trace out certain contradictions in the depositions of PWs.4 and 5 when compared with the depositions of PWs.1 to 3 and therefore, he wants to confront the said statements to the witnesses. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. The record reveals that PWs.1 to 3 were cross-examined at length by the defence counsel on the earlier occasion. Just because the subsequent witnesses have deposed something contradictory, the witnesses, who were already examined, cannot be recalled. The said contention forms a point for argument before the trial court and the petitioner can as well raise the other contradictions, if any. Thus, there is no reason made out by the petitioner to recall PWs.1 to 3 for further cross- examination. Hence, the trial court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The present petition lacks merit and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA October 28, 2025 KTL