Allowed

The State of Telangana v. Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022CRLP/408/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged an order preventing prosecution witnesses from exam█nction due to their presence abroad. The High Court set aside the lower order, allowing witnesses examination within eight weeks to prevent miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.10.2018 was set aside, permitting prosecution witnesses to be examined within eight weeks.

The State of Telangana Vs Vangalpudi Vijaya… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I^s2se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:408 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of Telangana, through Station House Officer, ClD, H)derabad, rep., by its The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONERYCOMPLAI NANT

¶10

AND

¶11

Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Ravinder Rao, Age-23 Years, Occ-Private Service, Fl/o. lndira Nagar Colony, Bodupall, Ranga Reddy District, N/o. 261132, Kaikaluru Village of Krishna District

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶13

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 quash the Order passed by the Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide Crl.M.P.No. 4276 of 20'tB in C.C No. 262 o'f 2O14, Dt.26.10.2018

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Assistant PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) on behalf of the Petitioner No.1 and of Sri Mohd. Naseer Pasha, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

IION'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶17

(:RIMINAL PETITION No.4O8 OF 2019

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of CrirrLinal Procedure, by the petitioner-complainant to quash the Ortiers dated 26.10.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.4276 of 2018 in C.C.No.262 of 2Ol4 passed by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan,{agistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder, the iearned Magistrate ha:i deciined the request of the prosecution to recall LWs 1 to 3 anc. 5 to 7 for their examination.

¶20

Heard lezrrned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who has filed the petition. )'lo representation on behalf of the respondentaccused. Bvr:n on the last occasion also there was no representation r:n behalf of the respondent-accused. Therefore, the submissions of respondent-accused are treated as heard.

¶21

Learned Ar;sistant Public Prosecutor submits that LWs 1, 2 and 7 are now r,:siding in Singapore and LWs 3, 5 and 6, who are Bank Manalrer and Nodal Oflicers, are not present in the address given by them and therefore, in spite of best efforts, the prosecution could not secure their presence. He submits that in spite of repeated requests made by the prosecution, the trial

¶22

Dt.DNR. J Crl.P.No.408 of 2019

¶23

¶24

Court has closed the evidence, the evidence of LWs 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 is very crucial in order to prove the case of the prosecution against the respondent-accused and therefore, sought for permitting the prosecution to produce LWs 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 by setting aside the order dated 26.lo.2}la passed by the trial Court.

¶25

Perused the copy of the petition frled under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, copy of the counter and the order passed by the trial Court.

¶26

The prosecution has registered a case against the respondent-accused for the offences under Section 66(C) and (D) of Information Technologr (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was done by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, C.I.D., Hyderabad, and charge-sheet was filed before the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, who in turn has taken cognizance of the case and numbered as C.C.No.262 of 2014.

¶27

According to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, initially the prosecution has tried to serve the summons to the witnesses

¶28

Dr.D,\R, J CtLP.No.408 of 2019

¶29

¶30

I I

¶31

to their add::ess in India. Later, the^{prosecution came to know} that the witnesses are residing in Singapore. Initially,^attempts were made t,-' secure the presence of witnesses, but on account of pre-occupration of the witnesses,^presence of^{witnesses could} not be secur',-'d a]1d thereby, the trial Court has closed their evidence and -ssued summons to other witnesses.

¶32

As seen from the record, the trial in C.C.No.262 of 2OI4 has not been :ompleted. In most of the cases, the^prosecution has not beerr putting efforts for bringing the witnesses for IS examination and thereby the evidence of the prosecution being closed. But on perusal of the record, this is one case where learned Assistant Public Prosecutor consistently making efforts to secur3 the presence of witnesses. The very purpose of examining witrresses is to see what the truth or otherwise of the charges framec against accused is to be unearthed. Uniess, the prosecution wir-nesses are permitted to be examined, the guilt against respon rlent-accused cannot be proved. When the witnesses available, declining them to record their evidence amounts to mir;carriage of justice. Therefore, considering the circumstances, the request of the prosecution should have considered.

Dr.DNR, J

CrLP.No.408 of 2019

B. Taking into consideration of the nature of the case and stage of the proceedings of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order dated 26.10.2018 in Cri.M.P.No.4276 of 2018 in C.C.No.262 of 2Ol4 passed by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside. It is submitted by the petitioner that the witnesses are still residing in Singapore and hence sufficient time may be granted for issuing summons. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of the tria-I Court shall request the tria,l Court to put a day convenient to the witnesses and on that day the prosecution shall examine the witnesses within eight weeks. The learned VI 1S Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, permitted to examine the witnesses within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall^stand

¶39

closed.

¶40

¶41

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANThEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I Lt SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Vl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

¶44

Two CCs the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

One CC to SRI MOHAMMAD NASEER PASHA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies

¶47

One Spare Copy

HIGH COURl'

DATED:2611(t12022

\ g€ S-1r,'1 €
(
:t
1g DEI ?m]

¶53

ORDER

¶54

CRLP.No.408 of 2019

¶55

ALLOWING TII|E CRIM!NAL PETITION %

The State of Telangana v. Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana v. Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar

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

Kavvampally Durgaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Pannala Govardhan Reddy Vs Smt. B.Laxmi

N. Manohar Reddy Vs Syed Fhazil

Rjeshwariraman Vs State of Telangana

Mr.Puneeth Agarwal and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another