Telangana High Court
Thorrikonda Venkateshwarlu And ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 27 June, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4783 AND 4881 OF 2022
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State, and
perused the record.
2. The petitioners herein in Crl.P. No.4783 of 2022 are
arraigned as accused Nos.3 to 11 and 13 to 19 in C.C. No.39 of 2018
pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Sulthanabad, while petitioners in Crl.P. No.4881 of 2022 are arraigned
as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.105 of 2017 pending on the file of
the very same Court.
3. The petitioners herein had filed applications under Rule - 37
of the Criminal Rules of Practice (for short 'Crl.R.P.) vide Crl.M.P.
Nos.1392 and 1391 of 2019 seeking permission of the Court below to
represent accused Nos.4 to 11 and 13 to 19 by accused No.3 in
C.C.No.39 of 2018 and to represent accused No.2 by accused No.1 in
C.C. No.105 of 2017, respectively. Vide order dated 02.07.2019, the
Court below allowed the said petitions on the condition that accused
Nos.4 to 11 and 13 to 19 in C.C. No.39 of 2018 and accused No.2 in
KL,J
Crl.P. Nos.4783 & 4881 of 2022
C.C. No.105 of 2017 have to be present as and when Court so ordered
for their presence, more particularly on the date on which material
witnesses are proposed to be examined and till then, their presence is
only dispensed with as per the provisions of Section - 205 of Cr.P.C.
as well as provisions of Rule 37 of the Crl.R.P.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that pursuant to the said
orders, dated 02.07.2019, the aforesaid accused did not appear before
the Court below on 12.05.2022, but the Court below had issued Non-
bailable Warrants (NBWs) against all the accused. The petitioners
herein had filed petition under Section 70 (2) of the Cr.P.C. in both the
cases seeking to recall / cancel the said NBWs issued against them,
vide Crl.M.P. Nos.77 and 76 of 2022 respectively. Vide order dated
17.05.2022 in both the cases, the Court below ordered the said
petitions, as an interim measure, duly keeping NBWs issued against
the accused, in abeyance, with a specific direction to the accused to
give an unequivocal undertaking that the accused would present on
each and every adjournment, in the ensuing / future date of
adjournments without fail and also made available accused presence
as and when the Court below so ordered, irrespective of existence of
orders passed in the petition under Rule - 37 Crl.R.P. and the very
KL,J
Crl.P. Nos.4783 & 4881 of 2022
failure in this regard by the accused leads to initiation of proper and
necessary steps for their attendance by invoking the relevant
provisions of the Cr.P.C. Now, the petitioners herein aggrieved by the
said order of the Court below to the extent of a direction to them to
appear before the Court below on each and every adjournment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
accused No.3 is aged about 80 years, accused No.4 is aged about 60
years and accused No.13 is aged about 70 years in C.C. No.39 of
2018. Many of the accused are women and they are not in a position
to appear on every date of hearing. With the said submissions, she
sought to quash the said orders to the extent indicated above.
6. As discussed above, the offences alleged against the
petitioners herein are under Sections - 494 and 506 of IPC. The Court
below vide orders dated 02.07.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.1392 of 2019 in
C.C. No.39 of 2018 and Crl.M.P. No.1391 of 2019 in C.C. No.105 of
2017, permitted accused No.3 in C.C. No.39 of 2018 to represent
accused Nos.4 to 11 and 13 to 19 and accused No.1 to represent
accused No.2 in C.C. No.105 of 2017, however, directed them to be
present as and when the Court so ordered their presence, more
KL,J
Crl.P. Nos.4783 & 4881 of 2022
particularly, on the date on which material witnesses are proposed to
be examined and till then, their presence is only dispensed with as per
the provisions of Section - 205 of the Cr.P.C. as well as provisions of
Rule - 37 of the Crl.R.P. The petitioners herein have not complied
with the said orders. The said C.Cs are posted for trial. Therefore,
their presence is required for the purpose of identification. They have
not appeared before the Court below and they have not complied with
the said orders. Thus, the Court below had issued NBWs. In the
impugned order, the Court below directed the petitioners herein to
give an unequivocal undertaking that they would present on each and
every adjournment, in the ensuing / future date of adjournments
without fail. According to this Court, the Court below has rightly
directed the petitioners to appear on the dates on which material
witnesses are proposed to examine.
7. In a matter like this, identification of parties is compulsory.
However, considering the fact that accused No.3 is aged about 80
years, accused No.4 is aged about 60 years and accused No.13 is aged
about 70 years in C.C. No.39 of 2018, their presence on each and
every adjournment as directed by the Court below in the impugned
order dated 17.05.2022 in Crl.M.P. Nos.77 and 76 of 2020 in C.C.
KL,J
Crl.P. Nos.4783 & 4881 of 2022
Nos.39 of 2018 and 105 of 2017 respectively is modified to the effect
that they shall appear before the Court below only on two (02)
occasions i.e., for examination under Section - 313 of the Cr.P.C. and
on the date of pronouncement of judgment. With regard to the other
accused, the conditions imposed by the Court below in the order dated
02.07.2019 and in the impugned order dated 17.05.2022 stand
unaltered.
8. Criminal Petition No.4783 of 2022 is accordingly allowed in
part to the extent indicated in the above, while Crl.P. No.4881 of 2022
is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
criminal petitions shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
27th June, 2022
Mgr
