Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1447 (AP)

Seeli Srinu v. Seeli Galinki Suseela

2022-12-09

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2022
ORDER : This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are A.1, A.4, A.5 and A.6 in Sessions Case No.94 of 2018, on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women at East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, with a prayer to transfer the said Sessions Case to any other Court which this Court may prefers. 2. The substance of the averments, which are necessary to decide this application, can be extracted as follows as per the contents of the petition: The petitioners are facing trial in S.C.No.94 of 2018 under Sections 493, 417, 420, 376, 313, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short). They filed Criminal Petition No.6384 of 2019 to quash the case. It was allowed quashing the case against A.2, A.3 and A7. Though the petitioners could obtain the interim stay in the above said Criminal Petition No.6384 of 2019, on several occasions the trial Court insisted for copy of the order with serious warning. After disposal of the Criminal Petition as above, the case was taken up for trial. During the course of cross examination of the witnesses, the Presiding Officer in two or three occasions commented the counsel to do the case in a faster way. On 11.11.2022 when the Advocate posed a question to the investigating officer about the presence of the witnesses at the time of mediators report at the scene of offence, the Presiding Officer asked the counsel not to pose leading questions. Counsel explained to the Presiding Officer as to why he posed such question, but the Court did not allow to pose such question. Their counsel felt that unless the questions are posed, cross examination will become futile. Then the counsel felt and submitted to the Court that if the cross examination is done before the Court, no justice will be done to the petitioners, as such, he is not interested to do the cross examination and he will seek transfer of the Sessions Case. Then the trial Judge and counsel had warm discussion. The counsel shown dissatisfaction and represented before the Court that he will not undertake cross examination and he will seek transfer. Then the trial Judge adjourn it. Hence, the petition for transfer. 3. On filing the petition, this Court called for remarks of the Presiding Officer. Then the trial Judge and counsel had warm discussion. The counsel shown dissatisfaction and represented before the Court that he will not undertake cross examination and he will seek transfer. Then the trial Judge adjourn it. Hence, the petition for transfer. 3. On filing the petition, this Court called for remarks of the Presiding Officer. As first respondent is the defacto complainant, on her behalf the State is represented by the Public Prosecutor and as there is no necessity to hear the defacto-complainant, the notice is dispensed with. 4. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the Public Prosecutor, argued without any counter opposing the prayer. 5. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the Sessions Case No.94 of 2018 pending on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women at East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, is liable to be transferred to any other Court? Point:- 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that when the learned defence counsel before the Court below was cross examining the investigating officer, the learned Presiding Officer objected it and though he explained about the necessity of posing certain questions, he was not allowed to do so, as such, counsel represented before the Presiding Officer that justice will not be done to the petitioners, as such, he would seek transfer of the case. He would contend that admittedly the defence counsel posed a question to elicit the presence of some of the accused at the time of scene observation proceedings and Presiding Officer did not allow to pose such question, which creates apprehension in the minds of the petitioners, as such, it is a fit case to grant relief. 7. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would oppose the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that the Presiding Officer had power to object questions which are irrelevant and if the learned counsel for the petitioners was able to convince the Presiding Officer about the admissibility and relevancy of the questions, Presiding Officer would have allowed it and on flimsy grounds the prayer of the petitioners cannot be granted. He would further submit that the case before the Court below is sensitive one and the Court is specially designed to try the offences against the women and the prayer of the petitioners deserves no merits. 8. He would further submit that the case before the Court below is sensitive one and the Court is specially designed to try the offences against the women and the prayer of the petitioners deserves no merits. 8. The Presiding Officer submitted the remarks along with the copy of deposition of P.W.8 in part apart from copy of the docket sheet. Even the petitioners also enclosed the copy of the docket sheet. At the outset, this Court would like to make it clear that para No.2 of the contents of the petition is such that the Presiding Officer insisted the petitioners to file the copy of stay order with serious warning. According to the Presiding Officer in the grounds, he directed the accused to file the status of the stay order before the Hon’ble High Court from time to time. It is bounden duty of the Presiding Officer to ask the accused to file the copy of the order. It is not as though when this Court has granted stay for a limited period, the Presiding Officer would go in adjourning the matters indefinitely. Hence, there is no justification finding fault with the Presiding Officer, as the Presiding Officer asked for filing of stay order as averred in para No.2 of the petition. 9. The solitary ground on which the petitioners have apprehension of the so-called injustice is that when the learned defence counsel posed questions as to the presence of some of the accused at the time of observation report, the learned Presiding Officer objected for it and though the counsel explained necessity to pose such questions, he was not allowed to do so and that the petitioners have apprehension that injustice will be caused to them, as such, they represented before the Presiding Officer that they would seek transfer of the case. This is the ground on which transfer application is filed. 10. The Presiding Officer in the remarks stated that during the cross examination of P.W.8, the counsel for the accused posed a question with regard to the presence of A.1 at the time of Ex.P.2-observation report and Ex.P.3-mediators report and then the Court raised objection with regard to the presence of A.1 and then the defence counsel informed to the Court that he intends to move the transfer application and refused to continue the cross examination. This is even evident from the docket sheet attached with the transfer petition. Apart from this, this is also evident from the copy of the deposition of P.W.8 and the manuscript of the copy of the docket. 11. It is to be noticed that the Presiding Officer has every power to object, if a particular question posed by the defence counsel is irrelevant. The contention of the petitioners is that though the counsel clarified it, but the Presiding Officer did not allow it to be posed, as such, petitioners apprehend injustice. In my considered view, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is without any basis. As evident from para No.2 of the contents of the petition from the beginning, the petitioners appears to have not satisfied as the Presiding Officer insisted to file the copy of the stay order which he was bound to do. So, from the beginning they appear to have developed unnecessary apprehensions. Leave apart all those things, Advocate before the Court below is nothing but an Officer of the Court, who has to assist the Court in the administrative of the criminal justice. If the Presiding Officer raised any objection for certain answers during the course of cross examination, the Advocate can as well request the Presiding Officer to record in the deposition the question that is proposed to be posed to the witness and give his ruling. Even in my considered view, the Presiding Officer when the counsel posed a question which in the Presiding Officer was said to be irrelevant, he ought to have recorded the question proposed to be posed and to give his ruling about the admissibility or otherwise of the question. Neither the Presiding Officer nor the counsel did so. In my considered view, absolutely, the petitioners have no basis at all to apprehend that justice will not be done to them. 12. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that basing on these grounds, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be accepted. There is no dispute that the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women at East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, is specially designed for trial of cases against the women. The Sessions Case is of the year 2018, which can be termed as an old case. There is no dispute that the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women at East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, is specially designed for trial of cases against the women. The Sessions Case is of the year 2018, which can be termed as an old case. Having regard to the above, absolutely this Court sees no reason to grant the relief prayed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Transfer Petition is dismissed with an observation that it is open to the learned defence counsel before the Court below to request the Court to record the question proposed to be posed by him, if in the opinion of the Court it is irrelevant or otherwise and in such contingency, the Court shall record the question and shall give its ruling about the admissibility or otherwise. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.