APHC010572132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9302/2024 Between: 1. MADIRAJU SUBRAMANYAM, ,S/O. M.OBULA RAJU LATE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O. VIJAYAPURAM (V) AND (M),CHITTOUR DISTRICT. 2. MADIRAJU NARAYANAMMA ,, W/0. M.OBULA RAJU LATE. AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. VIJAYAPURAM (V) AND (M),CHITTOUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF A.P. , AT AMARAVATHY 2. K VENKATESULU, S/O LATE K.RAGHAVA RAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION,RESIDENTS OF VIJAYAPURAM (V) AND (M),CHITTOUR DISTRICT 3. K RAMALAKSHMI, K.VENKATESULU,S/O LATE K.RAGHAVA RAJU. AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENTS OF VIJAYAPURAM (V) AND (M),CHITTOUR DISTRIC ...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 Courtmay be pleased to set-aside the order dated 08.11.2024 in CrI.M.P. No.1494 of 2024 in C.C. No.168 of 2019. on the file of AddI Civil Judge , Puttour, FAC -CUM Judicial Magistrate of 1 class , Nagari, Chittoor District and to pass such 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No.168 of 2019. on the file of AddI Civil Judge , Puttour , FAC -CUM Judicial Magistrate of 1st class Nagari Chittoor District, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following Oral order: The instant petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed, by the Petitioners to set aside the order dated 08.11.2024 to recall the witness L.W.Nos.7 to 9 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.1494 of 2024 in C.C.No.168 of 2019, on the file of Additional Civil Judge, Puttor-FAC- cum-Ist JFCM. Nagari, Chittoor District. 2. Heard Ms.K.Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent/accused and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the defacto-complainant. In the present case, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are injured witnesses. Learned counsel would further submit that they underwent treatment in a private hospital after being discharged from the government hospital, and they now wish to cross-examine the said doctor on behalf of the prosecution. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition solely on the ground that the Investigating Officer did not record the statements of the said witnesses, and therefore, examining them before the Court without such statements is not tenable. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution can examine any witness, even if their statements were not recorded by the police during the investigation. 4 6. Considering the submissions made and upon a fair reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the sole reason for dismissal of the petition is the absence of prior police statements from the said witnesses. Such reasoning is not sustainable under law. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Court can permit the prosecution to examine any witness, even if their statements were not recorded during the investigation. 7. As can be seen from the contents of the petition filed by the prosecution, it is clearly mentioned that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the informant and the victim on the date of registration of the crime and the following day. The treatment by the doctor i.e., the proposed witness took place ten days after the registration of the crime, and therefore, the Investigating Officer could not record the statements of these witnesses. However, the fact remains that the Court can permit the prosecution to examine the said witness. The only requirement is that the defence must be given the opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. 7. In that view, this criminal petition is allowed, by setting aside the order dated 08.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 1494 of 2024 in C.C.No.168 of 2019, on the file of Additional Civil Judge, Puttour, FAC-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagiri, Chittoor District. The learned trial Judge may fix the date for examining the proposed witness and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ 5 Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.07.2025 MH THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 166 Criminal Petiton NO: 9302 OF 2024 Date: 23.07.2025 6 MH