Telangana High Court
Parelli Rama Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 24 July, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Criminal Petition No.14511 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') challenging
the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1225 of 2024 in
M.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Kodad.
2. I have heard Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr.
C.Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents No.2 and
3, i.e., the wife and daughter of the present petitioner, initiated
maintenance proceedings by filing M.C. No. 3 of 2020 before the
Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad.
During the pendency of that matter, they filed an interlocutory
application seeking to introduce certain documents obtained from
Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020. The trial court, relying on the
precedent established in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat
2 NTR,J
Crlp_14511_2024
and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 1, permitted the documents to be
received into evidence subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy.
Aggrieved by this interim order, the present petitioner filed the
current petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
impugned order suffers from legal impropriety. The petitioner's core
contention in the maintenance proceedings is that the alleged
marriage with respondent No. 2 is void, as he is already married and
the purported second marriage conducted at the Arya Samaj is
without legal standing. Further pleaded that, the petitioner had
earlier filed Crl.M.P. No. 663 of 2023 seeking to introduce
documents such as a marriage certificate, Aadhar cards, a birth
certificate, and marriage photographs and through Crl.M.P. No. 664
of 2023 sought to recall PW-1 for marking the said documents and
these applications were allowed on 26.12.2023.
5. Whereupon, the petitioner filed criminal petitions Crl.P. Nos.
316 and 317 of 2024, challenging the trial court's orders. This Court,
by a common order dated 27.08.2024, held that the Photostat
copies of the documents in question were inadmissible in evidence,
although permitted the trial court to recall PW-1 for marking the
3 NTR,J
Crlp_14511_2024
documents if the originals were produced and this decision attained
finality.
6. Against this backdrop, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed
Crl.M.P. No. 1225 of 2024 to introduce certified copies of the
documents claiming that they are secured from the file of Sessions
Case. The petitioner opposed the petition on the grounds that the
Sessions Case is still pending and that the certified copies in
question are derived from unmarked Photostat documents which
had not been admitted as exhibits. He further contended that these
certified copies are not primary evidence and are thus inadmissible.
Additionally this court in the common order dated 27.08.2024
passed in the earlier Criminal petitions directed to allow the
petitioners to examine the PW1 upon filing original documents only.
That apart, emphasized that an RTI response confirmed that the
certified copies were issued against attested photocopies but not
the original documents, hence rendering the certified copies of
dubious evidentiary value.
7. Furthermore contended that the court below overstepped its
jurisdiction by recalling PW-1 and posting the matter for further chief
examination on 28.11.2024, even though the application only sought
4 NTR,J
Crlp_14511_2024
permission to receive documents. The petitioner criticized the trial
court's observation that, since originals were filed in the criminal
case, the certified copies could be accepted characterizing this as a
premature expression of opinion that may prejudice the case.
Accordingly, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned
order.
8. In response, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3
contended that the trial court rightly admitted the documents subject
to proof, admissibility, and relevancy, and that all objections raised
by the petitioner can be addressed at the stage of final adjudication.
They emphasized that the trial court followed settled legal principles
and that the petitioner's objections are both speculative and
premature. Moreover, they alleged that the petitioner has been
using pending legal proceedings as a pretext to evade his
maintenance obligations, causing undue hardship to Respondents
Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a proper application to introduce
certified copies issued by the Sessions Court. While such certified
copies are generally admissible, the trial court has rightly made their
5 NTR,J
Crlp_14511_2024
reception subject to further determination on proof and relevancy.
Accordingly, the petitioner retains the right to contest admissibility at
the appropriate stage. The Public Prosecutor thus requested the
Court to issue suitable directions based on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10. I have perused the materials on record and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel.
11. According to the petition, the documents sought to be
introduced are certified copies purportedly issued by the Sessions
Court in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020. The impugned order
clearly states that these documents are received subject to proof,
admissibility, and relevancy. Thus, on the face of the record, it is
evident that the trial court has conditionally received the documents,
reserving a decision on the documents evidentiary value.
12. It is a well-settled principle of law that the mere act of
receiving documents into the record does not amount to their
admission as evidence. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v.
Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC
752, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that even the marking of
documents does not confer admissibility; that determination must be
6 NTR,J
Crlp_14511_2024
made either immediately or at the stage of final judgment,
depending on the nature of the objection. Accordingly, the
petitioner's apprehension that the receipt of documents by the trial
court causes prejudice to his rights is prima facie unfounded.
13. While the petitioner relies on this Court's earlier decision
dismissing the application to receive Photostat copies on the ground
of inadmissibility, it is important to note that the order included a
rider, namely, that the witness may be recalled if the originals are
produced. This observation should not be interpreted restrictively to
mean that only the production of originals enables the party to seek
introduction of documentary evidence. Rather, such expression
must be construed as leaving open legally permissible alternatives
under the law, including secondary evidence under Section 65 of
the Indian Evidence Act, where applicable.
14. The trial court's observation that the certified copies were
obtained from originals allegedly filed in the Sessions Case is,
therefore, a presumptive and provisional finding rather than a
conclusive determination. Consequently, the petitioner's assertion
that the court has already formed an opinion on admissibility is
unconvincing.
7 NTR,J
Crlp_14511_2024
15. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to produce, as part of the
record, any document received under the RTI Act to substantiate the
allegation that the originals were not filed in the Sessions Court.
Mere pleadings, however well-articulated, cannot substitute for
proof. In this context, the trial court's express statement that the
admissibility of the documents is kept open indicates that the
petitioner will have ample opportunity to contest the documents'
evidentiary value at the appropriate stage.
16. It must also be noted that the trial court has drawn support
from the legal principle enunciated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v.
State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that objections to the admissibility of documents or oral
evidence should generally be deferred and decided at the stage of
final judgment, unless the evidence is manifestly inadmissible in law.
This approach helps avoid interruptions in the trial and ensures
judicial efficiency. Where the admissibility is debatable as in this
matter or contextual, it is prudent to reserve the ruling for final
adjudication.
17. In light of the above, this Court finds no illegality or
impropriety in the impugned order. The trial court has explicitly
8 NTR,J
Crlp_14511_2024
noted and preserved the petitioner's objections, thereby
safeguarding his right to contest proof, admissibility, and relevancy
at the appropriate juncture. The apprehension that the trial court has
prejudged the issue is, therefore, without basis.
18. For the reasons stated above and in the absence of any
demonstrable merit, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, it is
clarified that the right of the petitioner is retained to raise all
objections regarding proof, admissibility, and relevancy of the
documents at the appropriate stage during trial. The trial court shall
consider and decide upon such objections in accordance with law
while adjudicating the matter on merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date:24.07.2025
ccm
