CRLP/16449/2026 of Syed Waheeduddin Khan Vs State of Telangana on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been fited by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2026 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO Act) Cases-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.924 of 2026 in S.C.PC.No. 154 of 2020, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to recall PW. 10 for further cross- examination.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, pursuant to the order dated 06.10.2026, the Investigating Officer informed AT HYDERABAD CRIMINAL PEI'ITION No.16449 of 2026 AND

victim about the tiling of the present Criminal Petition on 09.10.2026. ln spite of the same, victim has not chosen to enter appearance. This matter came up for consideration on 12.10.2026, and, to give one more opportunity, it was posted to today. Till date, none appears on behalf of victimb. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter.

3. Heard Mr.P.Rana Kamalasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. I .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 354-A,354-D and 506 ofthe IPC and Sections 8 and 12 read with Section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act,2012, in S.C. PC,No.i54 of 2020 before the leamed trial Court. PW.1, the victim girl, was recalled pursuant to the petition filed by the prosecution on 21.01.2026. The prosecution got marked Exhibit P8, the birth certificate, through PW.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.924 of 2026, seeking recall of PW. I0, the Investigating Officer, for cross- examination and confiontation with the document that was marked through PW. 1. The leamed trial Court, without properly

considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, erroneously dismissed the petition. He further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if PW. 10 is recalled for cross- examination to confront him with the document that was marked through PW.l. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to iaw.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner filed the petition only with an intention to drag on the proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner filed the petition after a lapse of seven months from the date of re-examination of the victim girl, PW.1, and the leamed trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the leamed trial Court.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that, basing on the petition filed by the prosecution, PW. I was recalled on 21.01.2026 for the purpose of conducting chief-examination and marking Exhibit P8, the birth certificate, through PW.1. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.924 of 2026, invoking the provisions of Section 3l I of tle Cr.P.C. read \

with Section 348 of the BNSS, seeking recall of the Investigating Officer/PW. l0 for further cross-examination and confrontation with the document, i.e., Exhibit P8, which was marked through Ptr'.1/victim girl. fhe leamed trial Court dismissed the petition solelv on the ground that the petitioner had filed the present petition seeking recall of PW.10 after a lapse of seven months from the date of re-examination of PW. I

7. lt is relevant to mention that in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and othersr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power under Section 31 I Cr.P.C. is very wide and is intended to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and render a just decision. The Court observed that a witness may be recalled at any stage of the trial if such recall is essential for the just decision of the case and when the party seeking recall did not have an earlier opportunity to elicit relevant facts. lt was further held that recall should not be refused on technical grounds when such examination would assist the Court in proper adjudication of the matter and when no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party. In the case on hand, the specific case of the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer is required to be confronted with the I Crirninal Appeal No.2634 ot 2023 d.ared, 29.O8.2023

document. The record discloses that the document was marked after the re-examination of PW.l. Hence, if this Court grants one opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW.i0, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution. However, the petitioner has not prosecuted the matter before the leamed trial Court in a diligent manner and filed the present petition seeking recall of PW.10 after a lapse of more than seven months from the date of re-examination of PW. I .

8. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to give an opportunity for cross-examination of PW. I 0, and the impugned order dated 16.09.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.924 of 2026 in S.C. PC. No.154 of 2020 by the leamed trial Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to PW.10 and to conclude the cross- examination of PW. 10 on the specified date as fixed by the learned

trial Court. ln default, the leamed trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/i SECTI OFFICER

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trail and Disposal of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO Act) Cases -Cum-Xll Additional Sessions Judge. Hyderabad.

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to Sri P Rana Kamalasan, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies DL/ABK To, I

HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16449 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q A 't S T e q v :) o 2U2$ CT

1 1 :) D * i l) s I \r' e?e