ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), by the petitioners, who are the accused/A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.251 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-XIII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District, feeling aggrieved by the proceedings dated 25.06.2019 whereby the learned Magistrate framed charges against them.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused/A-2 to A-4 whereas the nd respondent herein is the complainant in C.C.No.251 of 2019.

3. The complaint given by the 2nd respondent was registered as a case in Crime No.20 of 2019 of Veerullapadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners/A2 to A-4 and the accused/A-1. The police after due investigation filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same against the petitioners and A-1 for the said offences and the same was numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2019. Pursuant to the summons, the petitioners and A-1 appeared before the Court below on 25.06.2019 and they were furnished copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution and on the same day itself charges were framed against them for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred this Criminal Revision Case contending that the Court below did not give them breathing time in between compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framing charges under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and no opportunity was provided to them to peruse the charge sheet and other material and in a hurried way framed the charges.

5. Heard Sri P.SaiSuryaTeja, learned counsel for the petitioners/ A-2 to A-4, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant.

6. Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-4, in elaboration, would submit that the Court below furnished the documents and framed the charges at a time and thus the petitioners have not been given any opportunity to go through the contents of the documents relied on by the prosecution and further their counsel was also not present on that date as he was under the impression that the case would be adjourned to another date for hearing on charges. Hence, the petitioners were denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to effectively defend their case and to file discharge petition. It is further contended that sections 239 and 240 of CrPC in specific terms say that the Court shall hear the parties apart from considering the report and documents sent with it before arriving at the conclusion of discharging the accused or of framing a charge against the accused. Sections 239 and 240 CrPC mandates the Court below to examine the accused and hear the prosecution as well as the accused and then arrive at conclusion as to whether the material placed before him would furnish a reasonable basis for the accusation. However, the impugned orders clearly show that the Court below failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the accused, which is an essential requirement, and in a hurried manner framed the charge. Hence, prayed to set aside the charges framed against the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decisions in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667, Swapnil and others vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 567 and Prithvi Nath vs. R.C. Kaul, 1974 SCC OnLine J&K 28.

7. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned trial Judge, upon considering the police report and other documents, having satisfied that there is a