Point of Law: an order passed in a petition filed to discharge the accused is an intermediate order/quasi final order against which a revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Therefore, it is held that the present revision is perfectly maintainable under law.

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1121 of 2018 in C.C.No.227 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District, whereby the petition filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.2 to 6 in the above C.C.No.227 of 2017 seeking discharge from the case was dismissed.

2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 6 in C.C.No.227 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.05.2013 as per their caste custom. Dowry and other customary articles were given to accused No.1 as per the demand made by accused No.1 and his parents at the time of marriage by the father of the de facto complainant. Within a short period after the marriage, the mother of accused No.1 died due to ill-health. Accused No.2, who is the father-in-law of the de facto complainant, started blaming the de facto complainant stating that on her arrival into their house that the said unfortunate incident of death of his wife took place. He used to harass her in this regard. Accused No.1 also used to visit the house in a drunken state and subject the de facto complainant to physical and mental harassment. He also used to demand additional dowry from her and harass her. Accused No.2, who is his father, used to support him. Accused Nos.3 and 5 are the two married sisters of accused No.1. Accused Nos.4 and 6 are the husbands of accused Nos.3 and 5 respectively. They used to come to the house of accused No.2 during festival seasons. They used to harass the de facto complainant stating that the Aadapaduchu Lanchanams given to accused Nos.3 and 5 at the time of the marriage is very meager and demanded her to pay more money to them towards Aadapaduchu Lanchanams. They also stated that if she satisfies their demand that they would allow her to lead happy marital life with their brother-accused No.1. They also harassed the de facto complainant demanding money from her. Therefore, all the accused-A-1 to A-6, have harassed the de facto complainant with unlawful demands and subjected her to cruelty and committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. On the report lodged by the de facto complainant a case in Crime No.128 of 2017 of Vinukonda P.S. was registered against the accused and the police investigated the said case and after recording the statements of the witnesses, charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. The trial Court took cognizance of the said case and after the accused made their appearance in the said case and when the case is coming up for hearing on charges, accused Nos.2 to 6, who are the petitioners herein, filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the case on the ground that the allegations made against them by the de facto complainant are vague and no specific dates of the alleged harassment are given in the report lodged by the de facto complainant with the Police and the said allegations are all absolutely false. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing in the State of Gujarat and accused Nos.5 and 6 are residing in the State of Tamil Nadu and they have been falsely implicated in this case by making false allegations against them. So, the prosecution against them is not maintainable on the basis of the said vague and false allegations and no offence is made out against them and the allegations are only omnibus allegations and thereby prayed for their discharge from the said case.

6. The de facto complainant filed a counter opposing the said petition stating that this is not the stage to consider whether the allegations are false or not