APHC010535052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10468/2025 Between: PAILA RAVI, W/O. MADHAVAYYA (L), AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 39-8-21/7, FLAT NO. 1, SAMPATH ENCLAVE, MURALINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. HAMUNTHU VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, BS/O. CHINNI KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.39-25-17/4/3, MADHAVADHARA, VISHAKAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M. SAPTHAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SAMANTHA KRISHNA SRIRAMAKAVACHAM 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed, by the Petitioner/De facto complainant, seeking to quash the Order dated 12.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.4786 of 2025 in C.C.No.4888 of 2021 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2 2. Heard Sri M.Sapthagiri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Samantha Krishna, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the De facto complainant, who lodged a case in Crime No.19 of 2017 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and the matter is pending before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.4888 of 2021 for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that the Prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.4786 of 2025 under Section 275 Cr.P.C to record the evidence of L.W.6 – Paluri Seshamamba through audio video linkage and the same was dismisses as not-pressed since the witness was not in a position to give evidence during that time. Learned counsel would further submit that, thereafter they filed the present Crl.M.P.No.4786 of 2025 and the learned trial Judge dismissed the said petition stating that the earlier petition was dismissed as not-pressed and the Petitioner failed to file the document to show that the witness, who is aged 73 years, was suffering from Cancer. It is further submitted that L.W.6 - Paluri Seshamamba is a crucial witness to establish the case of the Prosecution. L.W.6 is a 73 years old woman and suffering from Survical Cancer and she is not able to appear before the Court to give evidence in this matter. Learned counsel would further submit that, not-pressing the earlier petition which is filed for the same relief, cannot come 3 in the way of the Court to consider the present application. The medical certificate to show the health condition of the witness, is placed on record. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the Petitioner stating that, since the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt is on the Prosecution, a fair opportunity may be given to the Prosecution to examine L.W.6, who is unable to attend before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 / Accused opposed the petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application on the grounds that the Prosecution has not submitted the medical record of the witness and that the earlier application for the self-same relief was not- pressed by the Prosecution. 7. It appears that, since the case is lodged against the Accused for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the burden is on the Prosecution to prove such guild. It is represented that L.W.6, who is a 73 years old woman is the crucial witness and the medical record is placed before this Court to show that she is suffering from survical cancer and is not able to attend before the Court. In that view, giving an opportunity to the Prosecution to examine L.W.6, through audio video linkage, cannot cause prejudice to the rights of the Accused. 4 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The learned trial Judge is directed to take necessary steps to record the evidence of L.W.6 - Paluri Seshamamba through audio video linkage. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:30.10.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10468 of 2025 Dt.30.10.2025 Dinesh