At the stage of framing charges under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the accused has no right to produce and rely upon defense materials; the court must determine the existence of a prima facie case solely based on the charge sheet materials provided by the prosecution.

Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the records relating to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 1340 of 2024 in C.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and set aside the same by allowing the revision petition.

ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1340 of 2024 in C.C.No.38 of 2019 dated 08.08.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, dismissing the application filed for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are the accused 2 and 3 in C.C.No.38 of 2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 498(A) IPC.

3. It is evident from the records that on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Deepika Rani, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2018 against three persons including the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC and that after completing the investigation, final report came to be filed before the jurisdictional Court and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.38 of 2019 and is pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court-Magisterial Level, Madurai.

4. When the calendar case was pending for framing of charges, the petitioners, who are the accused 2 and 3, have filed the above application in Crl.M.P.No.1340 of 2024 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking orders to discharge them from the above case. The respondent police has filed a counter statement raising serious objections. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 dismissing the discharge application. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revision came to be filed.

5. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first accused Praveenraj was solemnized on 29.05.2015.

6. The case of the prosecution is that at the time of marriage, the defacto complainant's parents had given 81 sovereign of gold jewels and household articles valued at Rs.3 lakhs and 9 sovereign of jewels to the first accused, that even at the time of marriage and reception, the petitioners for not giving teak wood berow, had abused the defacto complainant's parents in filthy language, that the first accused had threatened the defacto complainant that he would release the video taken at their first night, that all the accused had harassed the defacto complainant and subjected her to mental cruelty, that on 14.08.2016, baby showering ceremony was conducted and at that time, the second petitioner has collected 81 sovereign of gold jewels from the defacto complainant and failed to return the same to her and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and that they had also abused the defacto complainant demanding more dowry, failing which, they would not allow the defacto complainant to live with the first accused.

7. The case of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant has also filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the same is pending in D.V.C.No.27 of 2020, that the defacto complainant has examined herself as P.W.1, that the complaint of the defacto complainant was earlier referred to the District Social Welfare Officer/Dowry Prohibition Officer, that the defacto complainant and the petitioners had appeared before the District Social Welfare Officer for enquiry, that after enquiry, the District Social Welfare Officer has given a report stating that no dowry harassment was caused