Allowed

Teggula Vikram Goud, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Nov 2021CRLP/3239/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to recall witnesses PW-11 and PW-12 in a POCSO trial for cross-examination, setting aside the lower court's dismissal order. The court imposed conditions regarding time limits and witness expenses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissed in Crl.M.P No.56 of 2021 set aside; witnesses PW-11 and PW-12 recalled for cross-examination within 30 days.

Teggula Vikram Goud, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶4

AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

rHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶8

c RIMIN AL PETI TION NO: 323I OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Teggula Vikram Goud, S/o,.. Late.. Venu Gopal, Aged 21 years, Occ.private hmptoyee, R/o. H.No 1-39/1, pedda r""pr5*Virliti,l Snuir,-Jnu,orlo""N;d;ili Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

...Petitioner/Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, through police Station Bollaram. Hvderabad. represented by its^{public prosecutor,} High Court of Telangaha, Hydeiabad.

¶14

...RespondenUComplainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases Under Rape and POCSO Acl,2012, at Hyderabad to recall the witnesses i.e PW-1 1 and 12 lor the purpose of Cross examination by setting aside orders dated 25-03-2021^passed in Crl. M.P No 56 of 2021 in SC.PCtl\o.48 of 2018.

¶16

l.A. NO: 'l OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the tvlemorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased} to grant stay of all further^{proceedingsin SCPCS.No. 48 of 2018 pending on the file} of Special Sessions Judge^{for Trialof cases under Rape and Pocso Act,2012,at} Hyderabad,^pending disposal^{of the Criminal Petition.}

¶18

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the argumentsof Sri N. Venkataiah,} Advocate for the Petitioner^{and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.}

¶19

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶20

¶21

¶22

THE^{HON'BLE Dr']USTICESHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶23

gBgEB: :ition,^{under sedion 4Bz ot the code of} This^{criminalPetitlorr' "'-,} --,^{.cr.p,c.,),is filed by the} Criminal^{Procedure'1973 (for short''Cr'P'C} challenging^{the order' dated 24'03'2021} petitioner/accused' in^{Sessions Case PCS No'48/2018} passed by^{the in Special Crl'M'P'No'UU Sessions} ''0"^{Court for trial of cases under Rapeand} Protection^{of CnifOrenfrom Sexual OffencesAct' 2012'Hyderabad'} wherein^{the subject application filed by the petitioner/accused} under^{Section 311 of Cr'P'C seekingto reopen and recall PWs'11} and^{12 for cross-examination ' was dismissed'}

¶24

Heard^{both sides' Perused the record'} 3'^{It is evident from the record that PW'11 and PW'12 were not} cross-examined^{at all' it is the case of the petitioner/accused that} :::"":"t' due^{to Covid-1e pandemic' PW'11 and PW'12 were} examined'^{It maY be noted that when there was decreaseln} Covid-19^{cases' the Courts started functioning physically and} insisted^{for conduct of the Court proceedingsphysically'where} there^{was urgencyin the matters'Admittedly' there are laches on} the^{part of the petitioner/accusedin not cross-examiningPW'11} and^{PW'12' However'in the interest of justiceand to arrive at a} just conclusion'^{PW'11 and PW'12 are required to be cross-} examlned ' /

¶25

¶26

¶27

Under these circumstances, this Criminai petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.O3,2[2lpassed in Crl.M.p.No.56 0f 2021 in Sessions Case pCS No.4B/2018 by the Speciat Sessions court for trial of cases under Rape and protection of children from sexuar offences Act, 2072, Hyderabad, is set aside, on the following terms and conditions:

¶28

i) The petitioner/accused is granted thirty (30) days rime from today to cross-examine pW.11and pW.12.

¶29

ii) On arrival of pW.11 and pW.12 in the Court below, before proceeding with the cross-examination, the petitioner/accused shall pay T.A and D.A to pW.11 and PW.12, to whatever amount they are entiUed to.

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal

¶31

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶32

SDi. I. NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// t.-.

¶33

SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

The special Sessions Judge for Triar of cases under Rape and pocso Act, 2012, al Hyderabad.

¶36

The Station House Officer, Bollaram police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] .

¶37

One CC to Sri N. Venkataiah, Advocate tOpUCl

¶38

Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy MMK TR \ k

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211112021

ORDER

CRLP.No.3239 ol 2021

1 t\ e S TA r€
c ?0?1 (;)
2 4 u()v
t':
.:
*
a E.9 P C,

¶44

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION i,

¶45

1)
*

Teggula Vikram Goud, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teggula Vikram Goud, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohith Thumma and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt. Dasu Chandravathi, Vs The Station House Officer

Smt. I.Ramadevi Vs Sunil Bajaj

Ammarajula Rajeswar Vs The State of Telangana

B. Balraj Goud Vs The State of Telangana and another

Smt. Sadia Sultana and 3 others Vs Sri Mohd. Hafeezuddin and another