APHC010473262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI :i FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBEFfg TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o W- PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9465 OF 2025 Between: 1. M/s.Tilak Associates (A1), O/o D.No.6-7-61 to 65, 7/3, Arundelpet, Guntur Town, Rep. by its Managing Partner, K.V.Tilak (A2). Kolluru Venkateswara Tilak (A2), S/o. Bala Gangadhara Tilak, Aged 34 Years, R/o. D.No.5-88-8, 3rd line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur, Managing Partner, M/s. Tilak Associates, Guntur. Kolluru Jyothi Tilak (A3), W/o.Venkateswara Tilak, Aged 29 years, R/o. D.No.5-88-8, 3rd line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur, Managing Partner, M/s.Tilak Associates, Guntur Kolluru Suseela Tilak (A5), W/o.Bala Gangadhara Tilak, R/o D.No.5-88- 8, 3rd line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur, Managing Partner, M/s.Tilak Associates, Guntur 2. 3. 4. ...Petitioners/Accused AND State, Represented by Inspector of Police, CID, Guntur ...Respondent Petition filed under 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the order dated 26.08.2025 in CRL.MP.717 of 2025 in CC 3/FD/2006 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Guntur. 7 / / f iA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurpstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC 3/FD/2006 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge at Guntur pending disposal of the Quash Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava Counsel for the Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor For CID The Court made the following order: 7 ■/ •% APHC010473262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9465/2025 Between: 1.M/S.TILAK ASSOCIATES (A1).. ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR TOWN PARTNER K.V.TILAK (A2) 0/0 D.NO.6-7-61 TO 65, 7/3, REP. BY ITS MANAGING 2.KOLLURU VENKATESWARA TILAK (A2)„ S/O.BALA GANGADHARA R/0 D.NO.5-88-8, 3RO LINE, TILAK, AGED 34 YEARS LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR, MANAGING PARTNER, 3.KOLLURU JYOTHI TILAK (A3)„ W/0.VENKATESWARA TILAK, AGED LAKSHMIPURAM, M/S.TILAK ASSOCIATES, 29 YEARS, GUNTUR, MANAGING PARTNER, GUNTUR R/O D.NO.5-88-8, 3RD LINE, 4.KOLLURU SUSEELA TILAK (A5)„ W/O.BALA GANGADHARA TILAK, R/O D.NO.5-88-8, 3RD LINE, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.TILAK ASSOCIATES. GUNTUR LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. STATE, Represented by Inspector of Police, CID,Guntur ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitloner/accused(S): 1.SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA Counsel for the Respondeat/compiainant: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9465/2025 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, seeking quashment of the Order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.715 of 2025 in C.C.No.3/FD/2006. Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of 2. the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 476, All-IK r/\N 120 of IPC, Section 5 of APPDFE Act in C.C.No.3/FD/2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that because of change of Public Prosecutor in the Trial Court, the present Public Prosecutor filed a petition to recall the 32 witnesses for examination, since the then Public Prosecutor gave up their evidence. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Judge despite counter affidavit filed by the accused, without giving any reasons, allowed the petition in a casual way. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the impugned Order may cause prejudice to the rights of the accused and it may cause further delay in the disposal of T the matter, since the matter iIS pending before the Court from the year 2006 ^ onwards. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and would submit that the learned Trial discretion and allowed the petition, witnesses who were given up by the then Public vehemently opposed the petition Judge has rightly exercised his permitting the prosecution to examine the Prosecutor. \ 5. Considering the submissions and record, this Court is of the view that the i Order. It is needless to or other proceedings, may call any person a fair look at the material placed impugned Order is a well reasoned on say, that the Trial Court at any stage of an enquiry, trial as a witness, or recall and evidence of such person case. As such, the learned re examine any person who is already examined, if the appears to be essential for a just decision of the Trial Judge exercised his discretion to recall the witnesses whose up by the earlier Public Prosecutor. As the learned names were given Trial Judge allowed the prosecution to examine such witnesses, the impugned Order does brook any interference of this Court while not exercising the inherent jurisdiction. However, to meet the ends of justkie, learned Trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial in this matter and fix the trial schedule giving the opportunity presence of such witnesses, any adjournments in a matter according to law a period of six (6) months from the to the prosecution in advance to secure the Learned Trial Judge is further directed not to grant casual way by mere asking and dispose of the as expeditiously as possible preferably within date of receipt of copy of this Order. 7 5 6. With the above said observations, this Criminal As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending Petition is disposed of. if any. shall stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Guntur. Guntur District. One CC to Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC’s to the Special Public Prosecutor for CID, High Court of A.P. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. GPC vna HIGH COURT DATED: 17/10/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 9465 OF 2025 ^01 NOV 2025 ^! - yco ^"sQjfrent Sectlon^'^ DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL PETITION