APHC010568192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12116/2025 Between: 1. KOMATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE VENKATAPATHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC MILK BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE R/O IBRAHIMPATNAM POST, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, A.P. 2. KANAGALA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. EAST IBRAHIMPATNAM POST, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521456 ...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 quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1965/2024 in C.C.No.833/2024 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Krishna at Vijayawada; and consequently direct the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter from the stage of the evidence of PW1 alone. without permitting the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 by eschewing the evidences of both, in view of the earlier stand of the respondent as per the Court record and the operation of the doctrine of estoppel 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.833/2024 on the file of the Court the Rent Controller-Cum-IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum- of the Hon’ble IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Krishna at Vijayawada pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KOTESWRA RAO GOLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12116 OF 2025 ORDER: The present petition is filed under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 seeking quashment of proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.1965 of 2024 in C.C.No.833 of 2024, against the petitioner, pending on the file of learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri. Goli Koteswararao, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed petition before the Trial Court under Sec. 115 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to eschew the evidence of PW2 and PW3. Learned counsel would further submit that the PW1/Respondent No.2, on 26.04.2024, during his examination stated that there are no further witnesses to produced and the same was recorded by the Trial Court. Subsequently, the petitioner introduced PW2 and PW3 for examination, against to his earlier statement and the court permitted the same. Learned counsel would submit that the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner without considering the earlier statement of the Respondent No.2 and prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the court may pass appropriate orders. 4 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of material placed on record, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner observing as follows: “8. At the outset, it is necessary to emphasis that Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act operates only in situations where a party, after having made a clear representation and having induced the opposite party to act on it, subsequently denies the truth of that very representation. The object of the doctrine of estoppel is to prevent inconsistency and to protect the other party from prejudice caused by reliance on such a representation. In the present case, the counsel for the respondent did make a statement before this Court that no witnesses apart from PW1 would be produced, and this fact is not denied by him at this stage. What has happened is that, at a later stage, the complainant sought permission to adduce further witnesses. This conduct may amount to a change in strategy or an attempt to supplement the case, but it does not amount to a denial of the earlier statement itself. 9. For estoppel to apply, the 'respondent would have to say that "no such statement was ever made" or would otherwise have to deny the truth of the earlier declaration. Since that is not the situation here, the technical requirements of Section 115 are not attracted. The complainant has not denied the fact of the earlier statement; rather, he has admitted it and merely sought to place additional material on record. Therefore, strictly speaking, Section 115 cannot be invoked to strike off the evidence of PW2 and PW3 altogether. It is not the case where the Respondent No.2 introduced PW2 and PW3 to fill up lacunae in the case and it is the right of the Respondent No.2, as a complainant, to put forth all his evidence before the court. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner since he can cross-examine the witnesses and elicit truth. The order of the Trial Court does not bruke any interference by this court and the present Criminal Petition deserves dismissal. 5 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 24.11.2025 SNI 6 326 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.12116 of 2025 Dt. 24.11.2025 SNI 7