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.12061 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.224 of 2025 in SC.POCSO.No.15 of 2017 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 3 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 3 for further cross-
examination. He further submitted that PWs.1 to 3 were already
cross-examined, but the then defense counsel failed to put some
relevant questions to PW.1 to 3. 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
course of cross-examination and hence, to elicit the same, the
petitioners intend to put further questions, for which, recalling of
PWs.1 to 3 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 3 may be given. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the
order, dated 01.09.2025, and recall PWs.1 to 3 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.
2023 INSC 786
3 ETD,J
6. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order, dated
01.09.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.224 of 2025 in
SC.POCSO.No.15 of 2017 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 3 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
3, the petitioners intend to further cross-examine PWs.1 to 3. It is
borne out by record that PWs.1 to 3 were already cross-examined
at length. It is not out of place to mention that the present case is
under POCSO Act and the witnesses PWs.1 to 3 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 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
4 ETD,J
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
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
5 ETD,J
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
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
6 ETD,J
further cross-examine PWs.1 to 3. 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
