APHC010715992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13550/2025 Between: 1. SAMARIA SUNEEL KUMAR, S/O LATE KOTI NAGULU,HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.RESIDENT OF NEAR POTHURAJU BABU TEMPLE,BESIDE THE HOUSE OF SAMIYELU,KOTHAGUDEM. ELURU-1, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE, A.P., AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. POLIESETTY SRIDHAR, S/O HARI PRASAD NARAYANA GUPTA,HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.RESIDENT OF D.NO.60-4-28,KATHEPUVEEDHI CENTRE, DEDUKALAVARI STREET,ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed by the Petitioner herein/Accused, against the docket order dated 01.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.876 of 2025 in C.C.No.510 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eluru-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. 2 2. Heard Sri E.Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is facing trial in C.C.No.510 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, wherein he has filed Crl.M.P.No.876 of 2025 seeking recall of PW1, as the counsel could not cross-examine PW1 on certain crucial aspects relating to the issuance of a second legal notice in the matter, wherein the facts were stated differently. Learned counsel would further submit that a fair opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to work out his remedies by recalling PW1 in order to put such crucial questions. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. As seen from the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant reported that no counter was filed in the said application. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application observing that the petition was filed in order to protract the further proceedings. 6. Considering the submissions made and on a fair reading of the impugned order, the petition cannot be said to have been filed to drag on the proceedings. The petitioner moved the said application before the Court when the matter was posted for further evidence. In that view of the 3 matter, the opinion expressed by the learned trial Judge is not tenable. Notice to the respondent No.2 is dispensed with before this Court, as they had reported no objection before the trial Court. 7. In the said facts of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the docket dated 01.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.876 of 2025 in C.C.No.510 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Eluru-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is hereby set aside. The learned trial Judge is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW1 on the crucial points which were left out, without repeating the questions already put in the earlier cross-examination. The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial of the case and shall not cause any further delay. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 02.01.2026 ASR 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.13550 of 2025 Dt.02.01.2026 Asr