GANDIKOTA MALLESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order, dated 08.07.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.546 of 2019 in C.C.No.322 of 2016 on the file of the XXVI-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, and also the consequential docket order, dated 21.11.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1176 of 2019 in C.C.No.322 of 2016.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the 2nd respondent/ complainant lodged a private complaint, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, which was referred to Police, Yacharam Police Station, under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Basing on the said reference, a case in Crime No.284 of 2015 of Yacharam Police Station, came to be registered. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420 and 506 of I.P.C., which was taken on file as C.C.No.322 of 2016.

(3.) When the matter was posted for further evidence of the prosecution, the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 filed Crl.M.P.No.546 of 2019, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of further cross-examination. It is stated in the petition that at the instance of P.Ws.2 and 3, P.W.1 filed the case with all sorts of false allegations and P.Ws.1 to 3 in a conspired manner converted the civil dispute into criminal case by lodging false complaint. It is also stated that P.Ws.2 and 3 are only the relevant persons to know the real facts about Ex.P6. It is also stated that the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 failed to get all relevant documents pertaining to the mischievous acts of P.W.3 and further due to lack of legal knowledge failed to inform all the real facts and also to hand over all relevant documents to their previous Counsel on record, as such, the previous Counsel on record has not completely cross-examined P.Ws.1 to 3 to elicit the real facts in dispute and to prove the innocence of petitioners/A-1 to A-3, conspired acts of P.Ws.1 to 3, concealed and hidden intention of P.Ws.2 and 3 in lodging the false case against the petitioners/ A-1 to A-3. Hence, to meet the ends of justice and for proper adjudication of the case, it is just and necessary to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross-examination, otherwise, the petitioners/ A-1 to A-3 will be put to irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated by any means.