Point of Law: if the said Court finds at any stage of the case that it has no jurisdiction to try the case, under Section 322 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to stay the proceedings and submit the case with a brief report explaining its nature to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or to such Magistrate having jurisdiction as the Chief Judicial Magistrate directs

JUDGMENT :

This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 11-4-2014 passed in Crl.M.P. No.2018 of 2013 in C.C.No.608 of 2012 whereby the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C by accused 3 to 5 seeking discharge from the case was allowed.

2. Facts germane to dispose of the criminal revision case may be stated as follows:

(a) The petitioners are accused 3 to 5 in C.C.No.608 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. They are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(b) On the report lodged by the de facto complainant that accused No.1, who is her husband and the petitioners herein, who are her mother-in-law and brother-in-law and his wife, have all subjected her to cruelty and harassed her, a case in Crime No.325/2012 was registered against them under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against accused 1 to 5 in the said case.

(c) When the said case is pending trial before the trial Court, accused 3 to 5, who are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the de facto complainant and the wife of the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant, filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge from the case on the ground that there is no material against them to frame charge against them and to try them for the said offences and also on the ground that the Chilakaluripet Police, who registered the said case and investigated the same and filed the charge-sheet, have no jurisdiction to register the said case and investigate the same and the Court at Chilakaluripet also has no jurisdiction to try the case, since as per the allegations made in the FIR, the entire offence took place in Guntur, which is the place of accused No.1 and his parents.

(d) After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the said petition and discharged the petitioners on the ground that there is no evidence against accused 3 to 5 to show that they have harassed the de facto complainant and that the ingredients contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not existing against accused 3 to 5 and as such there is no material to proceed against them.

(e) Aggrieved thereby, the de facto complainant filed this revision case assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court erred in holding that there are no eyewitnesses to prove the allegations made against accused 3 to 5 and that there is no material to proceed against them and in discharging them on the said ground. He would submit that the trial Court, at the stage of framing charge or considering the petition to discharge the accused, cannot undertake the exercise of appreciating the evidence on record and all that the trial Court has to see is whether the allegations mentioned in the FIR prima facie constitute any offence against them and whether there is sufficient evidence to try them for the said offence or not. If the Court finds that there are allegations made against them constituting the said offences and there is sufficient evidence to try them for the said offence, the Court has to frame a charge and try them for the said case and decide the truth or otherwise of the said allegations only in the final adjudication of the case. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order of the trial Court is legally unsustainable and thereby prayed to set aside the same.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused 3 to 5 would submit that the contents of the FIR do not disclose any offence against accused No.3, who is the mother-in