APHC010101892021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2177/2021 Between: 1. CH M RAJU, CH.M. RAJU S/O.C. RAMARAJU, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O H.NO 19-8-83/4, SIVAJI NAGAR, R C ROAD, TIRUPATI (URBAN), CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH SHO, RENIGUNTA (URBAN) POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. B YESU, S/O B. DORASWAMY, AGED MAJOR, R/O D. NO. 6-46, RAMAKRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. S ASHOK ANAND KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 This Court made the following ORDER: The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2020 in S.C.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. None represented respondent No.2, though vakalat is filed on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is an advocate for the witness in S.C.No.40 of 2016. The client of the petitioner is the 3rd witness in the charge sheet. The prosecution has examined her as a witness. The accused moved a petition in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2020 before the Court to summon the petitioner, who is the counsel of L.W.3, to mark the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.491 of 2015. The learned trial Judge allowed that petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said order. Learned counsel would submit that it is a criminal case; the petitioner has nothing to do with it. For the purpose of marking the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.491 of 2015, the counsel 3 need not be summoned to the Court to be examined on behalf of the defence. Learned counsel would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders in this regard. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State also would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, respondent No.2, who is accused in S.C.No.40 of 2016, filed an application before the IV Additional District Court, Tirupati, seeking permission to examine the petitioner herein as a witness to mark the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.491 of 2015. It is also not in dispute that the 3rd witness who was cited in S.C.No.40 of 2016 is the mother of P.W.1, who was not examined by the prosecution. It is also not in dispute that the mother of P.W.1 filed the said suit. The petitioner herein is counsel to the mother of P.W.1 who filed the said suit. There cannot be any dispute that the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.491 of 2015 is very much available to the parties. Such being the case, only for marking the certified copy of the plaint, the counsel on record who filed that suit on behalf of the party need not be summoned to the Court. Needless to say that respondent No.2 herein, being accused, can place the same before the Court in his examination after completing the prosecution evidence. He can still file that copy along with the 4 memo. The Special Court has every authority to look into such document and take proper decision in the subject matter in S.C.No.40 of 2016 according to law. 6. With these observations, this criminal petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2020 in S.C.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Respondent No.2 herein is at liberty to place the certified copy of the complaint in their defence. Learned Special Judge may take such document into the record and proceed with the case. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stands closed. Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA,J Date: 31.07.2025 MH 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 112 Crl.P.No.2177 of 2021 Dt.31.07.2025 MH