(1) This revision case has been filed challenging the order, dated 14.7.2009 in Crl. MP No.355 of 2009 in SC No.206 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

(2) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The second respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that she was married to Al on 14.4.2006 as per Muslim Law. A2 and A3 are the parents, A4 and A5 are the brothers, A6 and A7 are the sisters and As is the maternal aunt of Al. A9 is the son of A8. The accused, after receiving huge cash, gold ornaments, electronic items and jahez articles towards dowry from the complainant, harassed her to get additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also her case that her brother Minhajuddin paid the said amount of Rs,1,00,000/- to the accused by obtaining loan from the bank. It is also her case that on 10.8.2007, Al to A9 with a common intention attempted to kill her due to which she received bleeding injuries on both the hands and that when her brother, who visited the house of the accused, tried to rescue her, he was also attacked due to which he also received bleeding injuries. The complainant and her brother were treated in Yashoda Hospital, and thereafter, filed a dowry harassment case against the accused.

On 29.9.2007, A8 to A10 were arrested in the above dowry harassment case. AT to A7 have forcibly and illegally entered into the house of the de facto complainant situated at Prakash Nagar and started abusing her and her family members and threatened her to withdraw the dowry case and when she refused for the same, Al and A2, at the instigation of A3 to A7, attacked her by giving fist blows and pressed her neck with his waist belt with an intention to kill her and also snatched away her 214 tulas gold chain from her neck. Due to attack by the accused, she fell down and the accused fled away by threatening to spoil her life and to sell away her gold ornaments and jehaz articles.

(3) ThereAFTER, she filed a complaint on 13.10.2007 against the accused, which was registered as Crime No.385 of 2007 by Begumpet Police Station, for the offences under Sections 307, 382, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The police, after completing the investigation, laid the charge-sheet.

(4) AL to A9 in the FIR are shown as A8, A9, A3, A4, A10, A5, A6, A7 and AL respectively in the charge-sheet. The police, after completing the investigation, laid the charge-sheet holding that AL to A10 committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 450, 382, 307, 354 and 506 read with 149 and 109 of IPC.

The petitioners filed an application in Crl. MP No.355 of 2009 praying to discharge them. The learned Sessions Judge, holding that at the time of framing of charge it is not necessary and proper for the Court to consider the inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of witnesses and that the Court has to see whether there exists any prima facie or not and if it appears that there exists the prima facie case, charges have to be framed against the accused, dismissed the said application.

(5) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the alleged incident had occurred on 20.9.2007, the FIR was issued on 13.10.2007 and there is inordinate delay in registering the case. It is further argued that in the FIR, there is no whisper about A2 and the de facto complainant for the first time referred the name of A2 when her statement was recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the allegation against A2 is that he had caught hold of the hands of the de facto complainant when Al, as shown in the charge-sheet, beat her. It is further argued that the in the FIR, it is mentioned that when the complainant became restless and fell down, the accused ran away. Whereas in the charge-sheet it is mentioned that the complainant raised cries and when neighbours came, on seeing them, the accused ran away. It is further mentioned tha