APHC010153902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3352/2025 Between: INDURI PRATHAP REDDY, S/O. LATE INDURI PEDDA NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCU. AGRICULTURIST, NEAR CHAVIDI, GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. BOBBA GOPAL REDDY, S/O. B. LAI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, SIRVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. SOMGIREDDY NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. CHINNA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, SIRVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. GANGADASARI PEDA OBUL REDDY, , S/O. NAGI REDDY, R/O. GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, SIRVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. GANGADASARI MAHESHWARA REDDY, S/O. NAGI REDDY, R/O. GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, SIRVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. GANGADASARI RAVICHANDRA REDDY RAVI, S/O. CHINNA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED 40. YEARS, R/O. GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, SIRVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 7. B JYOTHI KRISHNA KANTHA REDDY, S/O. LATE HUSSAIN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, SIRVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 8. INDURU SREEDHARA REDDY, S/O. LATE CHINNA NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. GOVINDAPALLE VILLAGE, SIRVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 9. PALAKOTI SRINIVASULU CHAKALI SREENU MADHU, S/O. LATE PALAKATI VENKATA SIVUDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SREEPATHIRAO PETA, ATMAKUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST. 10. RAMBABU, A JANASHAKTHI NAXAL ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. S V RUTHVIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / Complainant, seeking to quash the Order dated 03.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2023 in S.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allagadda. 2. Sri S.V.Ruthvik, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the proposed documents i.e., the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 form part of the investigation and are relevant for proper adjudication of the case. Learned counsel would further submit that if the said statements are not received by the Court, the prosecution as well as the family of the victim will be deprived of relevant evidence that can assist in proving the case. 3. Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for Respondents/Accused and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. The language employed in Section 231 of Cr.P.C indicates that the Prosecution is entitled to produce any document supporting their evidence. The Prosecution cannot be tied down to only those documents produced along with the final report. If an important document or a witness has been omitted or was not produced, for whatever reason it may be, the Prosecution cannot be denied an opportunity to bring it on record as a piece of evidence in the trial. Though the Prosecution failed to produce relevant documents at the 3 time of filing of charge sheet, it is always open to the Investigating Officer to produce it with the permission of the Court. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified since the function of a criminal court is administration of criminal justice. There is no embargo to accept any material, if the same is essential for a just decision in the case. 5. Admittedly, the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 were recorded at the earliest point of time and are part of the record and they are essential to establish the case of the Prosecution. Denial of opportunity to produce the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 on behalf of the Prosecution will deprive the avenues of the victim in producing relevant evidence. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge suffers from infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside in order to provide a fair opportunity to the Prosecution to prove their case. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 03.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.114 of 2023 in S.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allagadda. The learned trial Judge is directed to receive the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 recorded by the Inspector of Police. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.08.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3352 of 2025 Dt.18.08.2025 Dinesh