ORDER :

1. The present petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 69/2011 pending on the file of learned IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (for brevity “the Trial Court”) for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said complainant was examined as PW-1 in the said case. During the course of trial, it appears that she has made certain allegations against the present respondents also in the alleged commission of the crime. This made the prosecution to file an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking their impleading as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

2. The Trial Court by its impugned order dated 04.10.2018 allowed the application and the sisters of the accused i.e. the present respondents herein were made as accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the said criminal case. Aggrieved by the same, those accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for brevity “Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Crl. R.P. No. 383/2018 under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) which Court by its Order dated 14.02.2019 allowed the said petition in part and set aside the Order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 69/2011. It is challenging the said Order, the de-facto complainant/ PW-1 has preferred the present criminal petition.

3. The petitioner and the respondents are being represented by their respective learned counsels. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent from both side, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard their arguments and perused the petition papers including the impugned Orders.

4. The only point that arises for my consideration is, whether the Order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court deserves any interference at the hands of this Court?

5. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court is that the present petitioner/complainant had instituted a complaint against her husband who is accused No. 1 by name T.S. Vasantha Kumar, and the present respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, by arraigning them as accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. It was alleged that the complainant was married to accused No. 1 T.S. Vasantha Kumar on 13.11.2009. At the time of marriage and pre-marital negotiations, accused No. 1 and his sisters had demanded huge amount of cash, gold and silver articles as dowry and after meeting the same, the marriage was performed. Even after the marriage, the accused were not treating the complainant cordially and rather the sisters of the accused by instigating accused No. 1, raised demand for additional dowry and also were ill-treating the complainant in her matrimonial home. That being the case, on one such date of incident which was on 30.10.2010 at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. the sisters of the accused No. 1, coming to the house of complainant abused her in filthy language and reiterated their demand for additional dowry, and all the accused threatened the complainant that if she were to come to their home without meeting their demand, she would be finished. This has made her to lodge a complaint in Mahila Police Station, Mysuru in Crime No. 181/2010.

After investigation, the complainant – police filed chargesheet only against accused No. 1 T.S. Vasantha Kumar for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 504 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and dropped the remaining three accused who are the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the charge-sheet. However, when the trial began in the matter, the complainant was examined as PW-1 who in her evidence made accusations against the present respondents also. It is thereafter the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court which came to be allowed by the Trial Court by its Order dated 04.10.2018 and the prese