APHC010290932023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4229/2023 Between: Kati Balaji ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/: 1. KILARU NITHIN KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. TALLADA RAMESH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2414 of 2021 in C.C.No.403 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuur, Krishna District and further permit the petitioner to recall P.W.1 for further 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4229 of 2023 Dated 02.02.2026 cross examination in C.C.No.403 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent filed a petition for restitution of mutual divorce in H.M.O.P.No. 4624 of 2015 by the 2nd respondent on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudivada, but that petition was withdrawn by the her. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he needs to cross examine the 2nd respondent on certain other important aspects which were not very much available with the petitioner at the time of her cross examination. Therefore, for the ends of justice P.W.1 is required to be further summoned and cross examined. 5. Per Contra, Mr A. Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed to grant any relief on the ground that P.W.1 was cross examined on 16.10.2015 at length further she cross examined on 24.10.2015 at length. After lapse of nearly three years and two months the petitioner filed the present petition to recall P.W.1 for further cross examination to question on the aspect of conformation of some documents to her. Therefore, they urged to dismiss the petition. 6. On perusal of the record, the learned Trial Court has categorically mentioned that P.W.1 was cross examined ant it was completed on 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4229 of 2023 Dated 02.02.2026 24.01.2018. An application under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ filed on 21.02.2021. Twice an opportunity of cross examination of the P.W.1 was forwarded by the learned Trial Court to the petitioner, the petitioner has cross examined P.W.1 at length it must be pointed that nearly three years and two months the petitioner has leisurely chosen to filed an application to recall P.W.1 under Section 311 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for the purpose further cross examination. 7. As seen from the record, there are no bona-fide on the part of the petitioner to file an application for further cross examination of the petitioner. The attempt made by the petitioner is nothing but to drag the further proceedings. The calendar case of the year 2017. The crime is of the year 2017. Nearly 8 years have passed by yet the matter has not reached its legal conclusion. Since ample opportunities were given twice to the petitioner for cross examination of P.W.1, again seeking for recall and cross examination of the P.W.1 in courts is nothing but abusing the process of law. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 02.02.2026 KMS 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4229 of 2023 Dated 02.02.2026 262 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4229 of 2023 Date: 02.02.2026 KMS