Bhairagowni Yuva Srinivas Goud, Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[^3444l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10849 OF 2023

¶7

13etween:

¶8

Bhairagowni Yuva Srinivas Goud, S/o. Bhairagowni Yuva Kumar Goud, Age. 42 yearc, Occ: Employee, R/o. H. No. 24-4'14, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Lothukunta, Venkatapuram, Secunderabad.

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶12

...Respondent No.1/Respondent

¶13

K. Venkatesh Goud, S/o. K. Narayana, Age: Not Known, Occ. Self-Employed, R/o. H. No. 21-44, Venkalapuram, Alwal, Secunderabad.

¶14

...Respondents No.2/Complainant

¶15

Petrtion under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in i'(r lvlenrorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to r;u,ash the order passed in Crl. M.P No. 364 of 2023 in C.C. No. 1974 of 2020 on the ,rle: of the learned ll AJCJ-CUM-ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at tlalkajgrri

¶16

r.r,. NO: 2OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in 1.ho fulemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order granted on 0611112023 in Cd P.No.10849 of 2023, till the disposal of main case, in the interest of justice.

¶18

l.n. NO: 'l OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that^{in the ci .r umstances statedin} the fi/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{HighCo I t may be pleasedto} grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1974 of 2C20 on the^{file of the} tearned ll AJCJ-CUtV-ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cytrlrabad,^{at Malkajgiri,} pendrng disposal of the [\rlain petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing tl e Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumerrl;^{of Sri Surya Balu} Mahendra, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D Arun Kumil ,^{learned Additional} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sr I Srinivas, Advocate ior the Respondent No.2.

¶21

'flre Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶23

AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA

¶25

CRIMIN AL PETITION N o.10849 of 2023

¶26

DATE OF ORDER:11 .02.2026

¶27

Between:

¶28

Bhairagowni^yuva Srinivas Goud

¶29

...Petitioner/Accused

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana rep.by its Public prosecutor & another.

¶32

.. Respondents

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal^procedure (for short, ,Cr.p.C) seeking to set_aside the order dated 22.09.2023 passed in crr.M.p.No.364 of 2023 in C.C.No.1974 of 2020, on the file of the learned It Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri

¶35

2 Heard Sri Surya Balu [\4ahendra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri J.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2

¶36

!, I

¶37

2

¶38

El'D,J Ctt P.No.tt)E4t 1Ltzl

¶39

t I I t

¶40

Learned petitioner's counsel submits that the^- rial Court has passed an erroneous order by dismissing the peti i rn filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the evidence c f pWl for the purpose of cross-examination. He further subnr tted that the petitioner is put to prejudice in not allowing him to :ross_examine PWl and that in case, if PW1 is not recalled for cror;: ,-examination, the petitioner/accused cannot put forth his defenct,, properly and therefore prayed to set-aside the order dated 22.02 2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.364of 2023 in C.C.No 1974of 2020.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has subnr 1ed that pW1 was already cross-examined by the defence counsel t n 04.O1 .2023 and that after six months, the present petition is filed ;eeking recall of PWI just for the reason that there is a change ir the counsel. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and it lacks merits. He therefore prayed to dismiss the same.

¶42

Perused the record

¶43

C.C.No.1974 of 2O2O is filed under Sectior 13g of The Negotiable lnstruments Act, 1881. The petitioner I rerein is the accused and has filed Crl.M.p.No.364 of 2023 under i:ction 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of pW1 for the purpose of crosr; examination.

¶44

3

¶45

ETD,J

¶46

A copy of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.364 of 2023 is enclosed along with this criminal petition.

¶47

The reason stated by the petitioner before the Trial Court for recall of PW1 is that he could not cross-examine PW1 when the matter was posted for cross-examination as there was a misunderstanding between the petitioner and his counsel and that to elicit certain true facts for proper adjudication of the case, PW1 needs to be recalled. A copy of the deposition of PW1 dated 04.01.2023 is produced by the counsel for respondent No.2 which discloses that PW1 was cross-examined on the said date. Once the witness is cross-examined, the petitioner herein should make out specific grounds for recalling the said witness, as to on which specific aspect he wants to further cross-examine the said witness. ln the instant case, the said grounds are not mentioned. The only reason stated by the petitioner's counsel is that PW1 is not crossexamined. The said reason appears to be false as per the record.

¶48

B. ln this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AG Vs.SHlV KUMAR YADAV & ANRi wherein the Court, while dealing with the issue of recall of witnesses after completion of recording the statement of accused under

¶49

I C.l.A-No!.1187-11E8 ot2015 ersint our of sLP {Crt.)No5-1899 1900of 2015

¶50

4

¶51

E'Tb,J C .P]lo.1t)E49^2O2l

¶52

Section 313 Cr.P.C., held that "Mere change^{of cotnselcannot be} ground to recall the wifnesses and hence dlsmlsse I the application filed for recall of the wrtnesses.^"

¶53

ln the present case, since PW1 is already cro:^{s-examined by} the previous defence counsel and no specific reasorr^{s stated by the} learned petitioner's counsel for recalling the said wit,^ress, this^Court comes to a conclusion that the Trial Court has righr l ' dismissed^the petition filed by the petitioner. This Court does not fin 1 any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court ut ich is in^proper perspective. Hence, the petition lacks merits and th r same is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissr: I upholding the orders dated 22.09.2023^passed in Crl.M.P.No.3)4 of 2023 in C.C.No.1974 of 2020, on the file of the learned ll^Idditional Junior Civil Judge-cum- ll Additional Metropolitan Magistratr,, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

¶55