APHC010362822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7515 OF 2025 PRATAPA Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through the Station House Officer, Patamata PS, Vijayawada City, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT AND 1. Muvva Venkateswara Rao S/o.Brahma Murthy, aged 38 R/o.D.No.3-47, Nuthakki Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Syed Mastan, Valli S/o.Davood Buda years. aged 26 years, R/o.Bethavolu Centre, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3. Shaik Gouse, S/o.Mahaboob Saheb aged 38 years, R/o.Janda Chettu Centre, Manikonda (V), Unguturu Mandal. Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 528 of BNSS praying that in the - Of Criminal Petition, the dated 25.06.2025 passed in Petition filed under Section circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds High Court may be pleased to quash the Order / CrI.M.P.No. 348 of 2025 in SC No.86 of 2022 on the file of Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC No.86 of 2022 on the file of Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada pending disposal of main Criminal Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : MS.K.PRIYANKA LAKSHMI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents : -- The Court made the following ORDER : // 1 APHC010362822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7515/2025 Between: 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATAMATA PS, VIJAYAWADA CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATI. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.MUVVA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/0. BRAHMA MURTHY, AGED 38 YEARS, R/0. D. NO. 3-47, NUTHAKKI VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.SYED MASTAN, S/0. DAVOOD BUDA, AGED 26 YEARS, R/0. BETHAVOLU CENTRE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.SHAIK GOUSE, S/0. MAHABOOB SAHEB, AGED 38 YEARS, R/0. JANDA CHETTU CENTRE, MANIKONDA (V), UNGUTURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court begs to file this Memorandum of Criminal Petition aggrieved by the Order dated 25.06.2025 passed in CrI.M.P. No. 348 of 2025 in SC No. 86 of 2022 Mahila Court, Vijayawada lA NO: 1 OF 2025 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Sessions Judge, 2 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC No. 86 of 2022 on the file of Hon’ble Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada pending disposal of main Criminal Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1. 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7515/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner/State, seeking to quash the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No. 348 of 2025 in S.C.No.86 of 2022 on the file of Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that notice is served on the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Accused on record before the Trial Court. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 called absent. None represented. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed in CrI.M.P.No. 348 of 2025 in S.C.No.86 of 2022 on the file of Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada dated 25.06.2025, the prosecution preferred the present petition challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer dismissing the petition filed to recall LW Nos. 17 to 19. 4. As can be seen from the record, the Police after due investigation filed report against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 380, 120-b, r/w 34 of IPC. When the case is coming up for recording the evidence of the Police Officers; who has registered the case. 4 who have investigated into and also the person who filed charge sheet. The witnesses did not appear before the Court. Learned Judge dismissed the petition stating that the Police are not clear about their representation before the Court as to the service of the summons on the witnesses. On one breath they are saying that they have informed to the witnesses about the date of trial and yet on another breath, they are saying that summons are not served on the witnesses. That is why, the learned Judge rejected the memo filed by the prosecution and closed the evidence of LW Nos. 17 to 19. Immediately, thereafter, the prosecution filed the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.348 of 2025 to reopen the evidence and recall the LW Nos. 17 to 19. LW Nos. 17 to 19 are the Investigating Officer, the person who registered the case and the person who conducted the investigation and arrested the accused and seized the material objects and filed charge sheet. That was also dismissed. On the face of it, the witnesses are crucial to the case of the prosecutionand it is a case of murder. As can be seen from the copy of the order, there is an observation that the witnesses having knowledge about the date of their evidence, did not turn up. Such being the case, the learned Trial Judge might have taken further steps to secure their presence by issuing Bailable warrant. If that is not sufficed, the learned trial judge might have taken next step by issuing Non- bailable warrant against the witnesses. But the Court had not done the same and closed the evidence of the prosecution. 5. in that view, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Learned Trial Judge is requested to fix a date for examination of LW 5 Nos. 17 to 19 before the Trial Court. The prosecution is directed to secure the presence of the witnesses before the Trial Court on that date without fail. I As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER SE To, The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Station House Officer, Patamata Police Station, Krishna District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Amaravati [OUT] Two CD Copies BSV TAC 1. 2. 3. 4. HIGH COURT DATED:21/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7515 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION