IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7 of 2026 Date:06.01.2026 Between:

Vishaka Venkata Krishna Reddy and another …Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 & 3 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.2884 of 2025 in CC No.6992 of 2022 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge cum IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, wherein LW.1 was permitted to give evidence through video conferencing.

2. Heard S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has not assigned any valid reasons for permitting LW.1 to give evidence through video conferencing, but for the reason that she is a resident of USA. Further, the impugned order would cause great prejudice to the rights of the accused and that the accused are facing trial under Section 498-A IPC and that they need to confront many documents and cross-examine the witness on the same. The petitioners apprehend that the confronting of documents and evaluating the evidence of the witness in a proper perspective may not be possible through video conferencing. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order and to direct LW.1 to present physically for cross-examination.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly objected the same submitting that the trial court has assigned valid reasons for allowing the petition. He, further submitted that the prosecution is facing difficulty in securing the physical presence of LW.1 as she is a resident of USA and that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that the CC pertains to the year 2022 and the matter is posted for evidence of LW.1. At this juncture, the prosecution has filed an application on behalf of the de facto complainant-LW.1 to allow LW.1 to adduce evidence through video conferencing. The said petition was allowed vide impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by the accused. It is an admitted fact that both the de facto complainant and accused No.1 are residents of USA. Since securing the presence of the de facto complainant for the purpose of recording the evidence would be difficult, the prosecution has filed the application and the said reason was considered to be a valid ground by the trial court. Further, the trial court has also evaluated the possibility of confronting the witness with the concerned documents and also the mode of conducting cross-examination and recording the evidence of the de facto complainant through video conferencing as it is bound by the guidelines of the High Court issued vide Notification No.14//SO/2020 wherein the general principles for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Telangana were notified in the official Gazette.

7. The relevant portion of the said general principles is extracted hereunder for reference:

“3. General Principles Governing Video Conferencing: (i) Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings and proceedings conducted by the Court.

(ii) All proceedings conducted a Court by way of video conferencing shall be judicial proceedings and all the courtesies and protocols applicable to a physical Court shall apply to these virtual proceedings. The protocol provided in Schedule I s for proceedings conducted by way of video conferencing.

(iii) All relevant statutory provisions applicable to judicial including provisions of the CPC, CrPC, Contempt of Courts Act, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (abbreviated hereafter as the E