HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRL.R.C.No.149 of 2019

ORDER:

The present revision, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant against the impugned order, dated 23.01.2018, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.192 of 2017 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the said Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the order, dated 15.03.2017, passed in Crl.M.P.No.6829 of 2016 in C.C.No.159 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, and thereby discharged the 2nd respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

The facts, which led to filing of the Criminal Revision Case, are as under:-

Basing on the complaint lodged by the revision petitioner, a case in Crime No.470 of 2015 has been registered against the 2nd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 500 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against the 2nd respondent herein, which was numbered as C.C.No.159 of 2016 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.6829 of 2016 under Section

239 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the case. By an order, dated 15.03.2017, the trial Court dismissed the said discharge petition. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.R.P.No.192 of 2017 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. After considering the rival submissions, by an order, dated 23.01.2018, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision holding that the prosecution against the 2nd respondent is not justified and there is no material to frame a charge against him and accordingly, discharged the 2nd respondent. Challenging the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner/wife.

Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State, the 2nd respondent/Pankaj Rai, who appeared as party-in-person and perused the record.

A perusal of the material available on record would disclose that by an order, dated 09.04.2019, this Court dismissed Criminal Revision. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Apex Court. Vide order, dated 03.11.2020, the Apex Court remanded the matter to this Court for disposal afresh.

During the present remand proceedings, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 2nd respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 13.12.2014 as per the customs prevailing in the Hindu law. The 2nd respondent being widower, married the revision petitioner, who is a divorcee. The second marriage of the parties was hurriedly fixed at the behest of the 2nd respondent, after consulting astrologers, after the death of his first wife. Thereafter, the revision petitioner was subjected to lot of mental and physical torture and was also subjected to cruel behaviour in the hands of the 2nd respondent and this ultimately driven the revision petitioner out of matrimonial house. Therefore, she was constrained to file a complaint against the 2nd respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 500 IPC and after investigation the police also filed a charge sheet against the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that though the second marriage of the revision petitioner was performed with the 2nd respondent during pendency of the F.C.A.No.109 of 2007 before this High Court, the provisions under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have no application as it operates only against the husband and in support of his submission, he relied upon the decision reported in Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal1 and contended that without taking the aforementioned factors into consideration, the Court of S