Telangana High Court
Mallela Linga Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12152 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused seeking to quash the order, dated 01.09.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.223 of 2025 in SC.POCSO.No.259 of 2020 by the learned Special Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and POCSO Act, at Nalgonda, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners seeking to recall PWs.1 to 4 for further cross-examination, was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri V.R. Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking to recall PWs.1 to 4 for further cross- examination. He further submitted that PWs.1 to 4 were already cross-examined, but the then defense counsel failed to put some relevant questions to PW.1 to 4. He further submitted that there was a compromise entered into between the de facto complainant and the accused. The said truth was not elicited during the earlier 2 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12152 of 2025 course of cross-examination and hence, to elicit the same, the petitioners intend to put further questions, for which, recalling of PWs.1 to 4 for further cross-examination is very much required. He further submitted that the petitioners be permitted to avail all the defenses and hence, an opportunity to further cross-examine PWs.1 to 4 may be given. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the order, dated 01.09.2025, and recall PWs.1 to 4 for further cross- examination. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others 1.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the contention of the petitioners is with regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties outside the Court and the Court is not concerned with the said settlement and the witnesses cannot be recalled for the said purpose. She further submitted that the trial Court has passed a reasoned order. She, therefore, prayed to uphold the order, dated 01.09.2025.
5. Perused the record.
1 2023 INSC 786 3 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12152 of 2025
6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order, dated 01.09.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.223 of 2025 in SC.POCSO.No.259 of 2020 by the learned Special Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and POCSO Act, at Nalgonda. The said Crl.M.P. was filed to recall PWs.1 to 4 for further cross-examination. The contents of the petition shows that the parties got compromised the matter outside the Court and thus, to elicit the said facts from PWs.1 to 4, the petitioners intend to further cross-examine PWs.1 to 4. It is borne out by record that PWs.1 to 4 were already cross-examined at length. The counter filed by the prosecution shows that the settlement arrived at outside the Court by luring the victims or threatening them is not maintainable and therefore, the witnesses cannot be recalled. It is not out of place to mention that the present case is under POCSO Act and the witnesses PWs.1 to 4 are none other than the victim herself and her family members. Recalling the said witnesses would traumatize them further. In deciding the petitions under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it has to be observed as to whether there are any justifiable reasons for recalling the witnesses. In case, if they were not cross-examined earlier or in case any fact has to be elicited or when it is essential 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12152 of 2025 for a just decision of the case, only then recalling of the witnesses can be allowed, but it cannot be allowed for filling the gaps or for convenience of the parties. In this case, the only reason stated by the petitioners is that the parties have entered into a compromise and that they want to elicit the said fact by recalling the witnesses. But, the witnesses cannot be recalled for the said reason. If there is any ambiguity in the initial testimony of the witnesses, then the witnesses can be recalled. But, in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that there is ambiguity in the cross-examination of the witnesses. A perusal of the depositions of the witnesses does not show any such ambiguity. There is no substance in the reasons stated by the petitioners. Thus, there is no point in recalling the witnesses.
7. The learned petitioners' counsel has relied upon Satbir Singh's case (supra). In the said case, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was made to recall the appellant himself. The allegation was that the appellant made a complaint against the accused that they being ex-employees of his Company have stolen the company data and used such data to manufacture equipment, which was being manufactured by the appellant's company. During trial, before the report was obtained from the 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12152 of 2025 Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, 'CFSL'), the evidence of the appellant was recorded. However, when the CFSL expert, who had prepared the report, was examined by the Court, he described the data which was found on the hard disk of the accused, but there is no reference as to whether they were comparable in regard to what was allegedly stolen from the appellant-company. Thus, under those circumstances, the appellant was constrained to apply for his recall as a witness, which was done within five days of recording the evidence of the CFSL expert. But, the same was rejected by the trial Court and the High Court and hence, the matter has reached to the Honourable Apex Court. In such circumstances, it was held that recall of witness is justified since at the relevant point of time, in his initial deposition, there was no occasion for the appellant to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of the data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined. Therefore, it was held that an opportunity is to be given for re- examination of the witness and hence, the petition was allowed to recall the witness.
8. In the present case, the facts differ from that of the cited decision. The witnesses were already cross-examined. There is 6 ETD,J Crl.P.No.12152 of 2025 no new fact to be elicited. The only contention of the petitioners' counsel is that there is a compromise entered into between the parties and hence, to elicit the same, the petitioners intend to further cross-examine PWs.1 to 4. Thus, there is no justifiable reason to recall the witnesses in this case. Hence, it is opined that there is no legal infirmity in the order, dated 01.09.2025. passed by the trial Court and therefore, the same is upheld.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 12.11.2025.
MD