IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17773 OF 2025 DATE: 20-01-2026 Between: Elkati Anil … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

... Respondent

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to set aside the docket order, dated 12.11.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.479 of 2025 in S.C.No.44 of 2023 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, whereunder, the petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Venu Cheggam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed the recall petition; that the dismissal of recall petition would cause great prejudice to the rights of the petitioner; that the petitioner is facing serious allegations under Section 376(2)(n) I.P.C.; and that in case the victim and her mother are not recalled for further cross-examination, the petitioner cannot establish his defence properly. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned docket order, dated 12.11.2025, passed by the trial Court and recall PWs.1 and 2 for further cross examination. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, through its Officer-in-charge, Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 2292

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the relief, submitting that PWs.1 and 2 were already cross-examined at length before the trial Court and that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the recall petition with proper reasoning. Thus, there are no merits in the Criminal Petition. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. S.C.No.44 of 2023 is pending on the file of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 376(2)(n), 493 and 506 I.P.C. In the said S.C., Crl.M.P.No.479 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner herein to recall and reopen the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-examination. The only ground on which the recall petition is filed is that there is a change in the counsel on record and that the previous counsel has not posed certain questions to PWs.1 and 2. It is stated that the material points with regard to omissions, contradictions, actual facts of the case and the questions with regard to the geography of the scene of offence were not put to the victim girl and her mother and thus, the petitioner intends to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-

examination.

7. The petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed in a routine manner, unless reasonable grounds are made out in the petition for recalling the witness. A perusal of the depositions of PWs.1 and 2 reveals that they were cross- examined at length with regard to all the allegations and the alleged facts of the case. The petitioner has mentioned in the petition that PWs.1 and 2 are to be cross-examined on the material points of omissions, contradictions, actual facts of the case and also on the geographical location of the scene of offence, but he has not pointed out as to which of the contradictions or omissions, if any, that occurred in the chief examination of the witnesses, are to be tested. It is only a general statement made by the petitioner that he has to cross- examine on the omissions and contradictions. No specific aspects on which the petitioner intends to pose such questions, are mentioned in the petition. Thus, the victim and her mother cannot be recalled in a routine manner in such sensitive matters.

8. Further, change of counsel cannot be considered to be a valid ground to recall the witnesses to arrive at a just decision in the case. In AG v. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another, AIR 2015 S