APHC010484132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9606/2025 Between: 1. ALLE ANNAVARAM, S/O. RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, MUDIRAJULU, CHIGUMKOTA VILLAGE, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. MUCHU VENKANNA, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, MUDIRAJULU, CHIGURUKOTA VILLAGE, MUDINEPALLI MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT AMARAVATI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUDINEPALLI POLICE STATION MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, 2. XXX, XXX ...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 pleased to quash the order dated 19-06-2025 in Crl.M.P.No.431 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.633/2022 on the file of the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.431 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.633/2022 on the file of the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam, pending disposal of the Criminal petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KHAJA KHUTUBUDDIN SHAIK Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9606/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of the Order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam in Crl.M.P.No.431 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.633 of 2022. 2. Heard Sri Khaja Khutubuddin Shaik, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the accused facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.633 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judge Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam. He would further submit that the petitioners have preferred petition under section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to reopen the case of the prosecution to recall P.W.2. He submits that P.W.2 is the victim girl, who deposed during trial that she left the house with cell phone, and submits that the cell phone particulars of the victim girl are very much required to clear the 4 ambiguity as to where she stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a fair opportunity may be given to the accused to prove their innocence. He also submits that Crl.M.P.No.431 of 2025 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Special Judge Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam on the ground that the Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible within the period of one year from the date of taking cognizance. Learned counsel prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the impugned order is a reasoned one. She contends that in a POCSO case, the victim cannot be recalled at the instance of the accused as a matter of right. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at impugned order and the material placed on record, examination of witnesses is completed and the matter is coming up for arguments before the Special Court. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly discloses that she stayed with the accused No.1 after leaving the house. After taking ten adjournments for the arguments, the defence filed the present petition to recall P.W.2 who is victim in this matter. The record further reveals that during cross-examination, it was elicited from P.W.2 that she took a cell phone when she went with Accused No.1 and stayed in a shed near the house of Paul Babu, the brother-in-law of one Vamsi. It is needless to say that the witnesses is not supposed to be recalled to cover up any latches and lacunas in the case to the undue advantage to either parties as rightly 5 stated by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The victim girl and witness in the POCSO case are not supposed to be recalled in a casual way. The impugned order is a reasoned one. There are no grounds to interfere in the said Order by exercising the inherent jurisdiction and accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.09.2025 SNI 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9606/2025 Dated.17.09.2025 SNI 194