Telangana High Court
Pathri Pochaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 12 February, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12512 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant seeking to quash the order dated 12.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.536 of 2023 in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge For Trial of Cases under the SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short, "the trial Court") wherein the learned Judge of the trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to receive certain documents and recall PW1 for marking the same.
2. Heard Mr.B.Karthik Navayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr.N.Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 8.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 448, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(v)(x) of the SCs/STs (PoA) Act. The case for posted for arguments before the trial Court. At that stage, the petitioner has filed certain 2 documents i.e., Ex D2 ex-parte judgment in O.S.No.16 of 2004 against which, an I.A.No.126 of 2016 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad is pending. The trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed the said application stating that it was filed after lapse of (18) months of completion of cross-examination of PW1 and PW2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay cannot be a ground to dismiss the application as Section 311 of Cr.P.C. permits the Court to re-open the case at any time of proceedings. Therefore, he seeks to allow this Criminal Petition.
5. Learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 8 submits that the trial Court had rightly and appropriately passed the impugned order and interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that there is no perversity in the impugned order as re-opening the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, after posting the matter for arguments, would ultimately cause 3 delay in dispensing justice. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Petition.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 12.02.2025 ESP