SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 53605

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Gillella Sheshi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP 3840/2025



THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3840 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to set aside the order dated 04.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.361 of 2025 in C.C.No.953 of 2022 on the file of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Wanaparthy.

2. Crl.M.P.No.361 of 2025 was filed by the prosecution to recall Pw.1 and also to receive the documents in evidence. The respondents/accused opposed the said petition by filing counter stating that the case is posted for arguments and at this stage, the petition is not maintainable and the documents which are going to be filed are no way relevant to the case. On considering the said submissions, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, this criminal petition is filed by the defacto-complainant.

3. Heard Sri R.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents which are filed herein are certified copies and the same are not given to learned Public Prosecutor before the trial Court due to inadvertence. If these documents are not filed, it will cause grave prejudice to the complainant. As such, requested the Court to give one opportunity for recall of Pw.1 and for marking of the subject documents.

5. Though notice served on respondent Nos.2 to 5 and vakalat filed by Sri Mukesh Kumar Dubey for the said respondents, there was no representation on their behalf on

29.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 01.05.2025 and even today also.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the petition and requested the Court to give one opportunity to the prosecution for recall of Pw.1 and also for marking of documents.

7. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the documents which are intended to be marked by the petitioner herein are final report in Cr.No.98 of 2013, judgment in O.S.No.113 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, Patta certificate-452, Pahanies for the years 1954-55 and for the years mentioned in the petition in Crl.M.P.No.361 of 2025 and report of Tahsildar dated 22.08.2012. All the said documents are certified copies. The judgment in O.S.No.113 of 2012 and the final report in Crl.No.98 of 2013 are issued by the concerned officials and the relevancy of documents can be decided while disposing of the case. Hence, the trial Court is directed to recall Pw.1 and fix a date for cross-examination of Pw.1. The petitioner herein is directed to file the documents on the date fixed by the trial Court. The trial Court is also directed to give opportunity to the accused for cross-examination of Pw.1.

9. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date :02.05.2025 Rds

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top