THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of the orders dated 30.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.325 of 2025 in C.C.No.603 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hydearbad against the petitioner/accused No.1.

[

2. I have heard Mr.B. Yuvraj, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that, at the final stage of the trial, the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the Petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) seeking to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. The Court allowed the petition on 13.02.2025 and scheduled the matter for 20.02.2025 for cross-examination of the witness. However, the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunity on the appointed date, following which the Court closed the opportunity for cross-examination and posted the matter for arguments.

Subsequently, on 22.02.2025, the petitioner once again filed an application under Section 311 CrPC, seeking to recall PW.1 for cross-

examination. This second petition was dismissed in the impugned order, observing that the petitioner had already been afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness but failed to avail the same. It further noted that Section 311 Cr.P.C is not intended to be misused as a tool for delay or abuse of process, and accordingly dismissed the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the Court below had earlier allowed the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by directing the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 on 20.02.2025, the petitioner’s counsel was unable to appear on that date as he had to travel out of station to attend the 10th-day ceremony of his mother-in-law. While this reason could have been explained in detail in the present petition, the Court, though it recorded the explanation, declined to accept it on the ground that the petitioner was attempting to misuse the process of law and cause delay. He further contends that during the cross-examination, PW.1 is expected to provide essential facts which are vital to the petitioner’s case. He emphasizes that the absence of the petitioner’s counsel was neither deliberate nor negligent, but rather due to unavoidable and compelling circumstances. He therefore prays that the petitioner be afforded one final opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the interest of justice, and it would assist the Court in arriving at a just and fair conclusion.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this is successive petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after having failed to utilize the opportunity granted by the Court. The Prosecutor supports the trial Court’s decision to deny further indulgence, asserting that the Court acted within its discretion in closing the petitioner’s opportunity for cross-examination. He further submits that the filing of applications, especially at the stage of final arguments, suggests an attempt by the petitioner to prolong the proceedings and delay the conclusion of the trial.

7. I have perused the materials on record.

8. Upon considering the submissions of both parties and perusing the record, it is evident that in the earlier petition, Crl.M.P. No.1811 of 2024, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to cross-examine PW.1. However, the cross-examination could not be conducted on the scheduled date. The petitioner contends that his counsel was unable to attend due to an unavoidable personal obligation on that day.

Having regard to the circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner’s absence was not deliberate. Nonetheless, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to make alternative arrangements or, at the very least, apprise the Court of the situation and seek an adjournment. T