The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for taking cognizance, the careful scrutiny of allegations, and the need for independent evidence to continue with the prosecution.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Petition No.3734 of 2019 is filed by A2, A3, A5, A6, A7 and A8 and Criminal Petition No.3738 of 2019 is filed by A4 questioning criminal proceedings against them in CC No.39 of 2015 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed complaint alleging that her marriage was solemnized with A1 on 06.02.2011 and at the time of marriage, jahez articles worth Rs.5.00 lakhs, 10 thulas gold, furniture worth Rs.4.00 lakhs were given. For six months, they led happy marital life. Thereafter, the petitioners were harassing the defacto complainant for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. The defacto complainant gave birth to two sons. Since heavy money was spent at the time of marriage, the parents neither were unable to give any money to the accused nor fulfill their demand. For the said reason, ill-treatment increased. The accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 locked her in room, she was beaten mercilessly. Due to the illtreatment, health condition of the defacto complainant deteriorated and she was sent out of the house stating that unless Rs.10.00 lakhs was given, petitioners would perform marriage of A1 with another girl. In the private complaint, it is further alleged that all these petitioners were influential. On 29.06.2014 in the evening, when the complainant was in her parents’ house, these petitioners along with supporters went to the house and beat her causing internal injuries. The neighbours and others helped her. Again on 25.07.2014 also, she was beaten up and threatened at Balanagar. Aggrieved by the said acts, complaint was filed on 30.07.2014, which was referred to the police for the purpose of investigation.

3. The police, having registered the crime, filed final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. In the said final report, the police found that the allegations leveled against all these petitioners/A2 to A8 were found to be incorrect on the basis of the evidence collected and there was no proof to sustain allegations against A2 to A8, as such, their names were deleted.

4. The defacto complainant preferred protest application, which was considered by the Court and by order dated 07.12.2016, the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate has taken cognizance against these petitioners.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, A4 preferred criminal revision No.59 of 2017 on the file of VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which was dismissed upholding cognizance order against these petitioners by the Magistrate.

6. Sri Pappu Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the learned Magistrate had committed error in taking cognizance of the offence without examining any witnesses. In the event of the police filing final report excluding the names of the accused for any reason, the defacto complainant can only approach the concerned Court and file a private complaint. The procedure to be followed is under Section 200 Cr.P.C. He further submits that without examining any of the witnesses, only on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, which are the statements of the defacto complainant and others, the Magistrate had taken cognizance which is contrary to the procedure. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions have to be allowed and proceedings against the petitioners have to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that no error was committed by the Magistrate in taking cognizance against the petitioners. Since prima facie case was found from the evidence of complainant, it would suffice to issue summons. The events narrated make out a case against the petitioners and their innocence or otherwise can be ascertained by the trial Court after examining the witnesses.

8. Learned Magistrate ought to have examined the witnesses before issuing summons to these petitioners. The necessity to examine witnesses as contemplated under section 200 Cr.P