Katravath Bichya Naik, v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-21. Katravath Bichya Naik, v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
13444) I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA I AT HYDERABAD I WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX i 1 PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 17915 OF 2025 Betwee n: Katravath Bichya Naik S/o. Pathya Naik, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Private lecturer, R/o. Lingotam Thanda, Lingotam (v), Achampet [\rlandal, NagarKurnool- 509375 ... Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2. Smt. Katravath Alivela, W/o. Bichya Naik, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Brahmanapally, Chandapu(v), Achampet Mandal, NagarKurnool-509201 . 3. K. Himabrndu, D/o. Bichya Naik, Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Brahmanapally, Chandapu(v), Achampet lvlandal, NagarKurnool-509201 ...
Res po n de nts/Petitio n e rs Petrtion under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the common order dated 10-12-2025, passed in Crl. M. P No 2810 and 2811 of 2025 in lrl C. No. 14 of 2015 by the Judicial I\/agistrate of First Class, Achampet. l. A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in common order dated 10-12-2025, passed in Crl. M. P. No. 2810 and 2811 of 2025 in t\/. C No 14 ot 2015 by the Judicial fvlagistrate of First Class, Achampet and grant such other relief or reliefs in the circumstances of the case to secure the ends of Justice.
This Petition coming on for hearrng, upon perusing the l\/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Janardhan Goud Sunkari, Advocate foi the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-State and None appeared for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Court made the following: ORDER H +iiix,-. *- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA i AT HYDERABAD i I I ! THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA i CRIMINAL PETITION No. 17915 OF 2025 DATE:21-01-2026 Between Katravath Bichya Naik Petition er And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and two others Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the common order, dated 10 12. 2025. passed in Crl. M P. Nos 2810 and 2811 of 2025 in M. C. No.
14 of 20i 5 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Achampet, whereby, the applications filec by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein seeking to reopen the case and to recall PW. 1 for the purpose of marking certain documents, are allowed. \\ LTD. J Crl. l'. No. 179 I 5 o12025 2. Heard Sri Janardhan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has made an error in recalling PW. 1 and that there is no necessity to recall PW. 1 to receive the documents He further submitted that the process of trial is already completed and the matter is posted for arguments and that at this stage, recalling PW. 1 is not just and proper He further submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not put-forth any cogent reasons for recalling PW. '1 and thus, there are no merits in the petitions.
He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned common order, dated 1012. 2025. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has passed a reasoned order and that PW. 1 was examined, but the proposed documents were not marked through her at the earlier point of time. He further submitted that the documents which are proposed to be filed are essential to prove the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, because the 'la 3 ETD,J Crl. P. No 17915 of2025 petitioner is denying the very paternity of the child. He, therefore, prayed to drsmiss tl^e Criminal Petition 5 Perused the record 6 Respondent lllos. 2 and 3 herein are alleged to be the wife and daughter, respt:ctively, of the petitioner herein. Respondent Nos 2 and 3 filed M C. No. 14 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet, under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , seeking maintenance from the petitioner. ln the said M. C. , the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed Crl. M. P. Nos.
2810 and 2811 of 2025 seeking to reopen the case and to recall PW. 1 for the purpose of marking certain documents. The case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that the proposed documents were not available with them at the earlrer point of time; that now they are traced out; and that they rntencl to get the same marked. A perusal of the depositions placed on record reveals that the petitioner is denying his marriage with respondent No. 2 and that specific questions are put to respondent No. 2 in the cross-examination with regard to the denial of marriage. PW. 1 has filed only one document i. e. , Ex. P1, which is the marriage photograph of petitioner and respondent No. 2. The said document is also marked subject to \\ 4 ITD,J Crl I' No. l79li oi20li objection, as the sard photograph is filed without negative. It is also pertinent to mention in this regard that since the petitioner is denying the paternity of respondent No.
3, earlier a petition was filed before the trial Court for conductlng DNA test, which was allowed by the trial Court and the said order was confirmed by this Court, but the Honourable Sppreme Court has set aside the same vlde S. L. P. (Crl. ). No. 75'16 of 2021, dated 28. 0'l 2025. Thus, there is serious dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which needs to be proved to proceed with forjust decision in the l\4. C. Thus, the trial Court has expressed its reasons for allowing the present petitions for reopening the case and recalling PW. 1. Admittedly, the case is at the stage of arguments. The M. C. pertains to the year 2015 Recalling the witness would take some more time, but since it is essential to estabfish the relationship, recalling of PW. 'l is justified for receiving the proposed documents.
The petitions filed before the trial Court does not disclose any details of the documents to be marked, however, during the course of arguments it rs submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 intend to file certain documenls, which prove the marriage of respondent No. 2 with the petitioner. Therefore, there is no error committed by the trial w LTI),J (lrl. l'. No. 17915 oi 2025 Court in allowing the petitions. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that in spite of the orders of the Honourable Supreme CoLrrl to dispose oi the matter at the earliest, the trial Court is getting the matter prolonged. But the present petitions are allowed foi' the rea son that respondent Nos 2 and 3 should be given an opportur rty to prove their case by filing certain docr-rrnents, which are essentaal for just decision of the case A single opportunity nray be given to respondent Nos.
2 and 3 by fixing a date of hearing and on the said date, the witness can be allowed to produce the documents and the petitioner's counsel can complete the cross-examination on the same day, so that it would lead to a jusl decision by the trial Court. The trial Court, however, shall not grant any further adjournment after that and shall dispose of the natter at the earliest 7. Subject to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of lVliscellaneous Petitions pendrng, if any. shall stand closed Sd/- Sd/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Judicial IVIagistr;ate of First Class, Achampet 2 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Iour] 3 One CC to Sri Janarlhan Goud Sunkari, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies GNK/DL N/ HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112026 iHE S (' ORDER t I c CRLP. No. 17915 of 2025 ! C) 2 3 t,iil ll ,t * . sPATC DISPOSING THE CRIM! NAL PETITION I ? s T ? e
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.