THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1131 OF 2024

ORDER:

This revision case is filed by revision petitioner/accused No.1 challenging the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.2 of 2023 in SC.No.46 of 2019 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cum III Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam. The said Crl.MP., was filed seeking discharge of petitioner from the offences alleged against him under Sections 417, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act. Aggrieved by dismissal of the said petition, this revision is preferred.

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1, and Smt K.Siri Vennela, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for discharge without assigning any reasons or addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner, even if taken at face value, do not make out an offense, particularly under Section 417 IPC. He asserted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had a consensual relationship, and there is no evidence of cheating or inducement to part with property. He pointed out that the 2^nd respondent lied about her caste and provided fake photos, which led to the refusal on the part of petitioner to marry her. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioner is innocent of the offences as alleged, he prayed this Court to allow this revision case, setting aside the impugned order and discharging the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1, and learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for revision petitioner and asserted that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the discharge petition and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the impugned order. They contended that the matter is at the stage of almost concluding the trial and as there is a charge framed by the trial Court, and the matter is under trial, the question of discharging petitioner does not arise. Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision case.

5. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that admittedly, the parties were in love and the petitioner promised the complainant to marry and thereafter refused to do so stating that his parents had not accepted for the same. There are allegations that the complainant was abused in the name of caste after the marriage was refused for. However, it is to apparent to note that the allegations pertaining to caste abuse are against the accused Nos.2 and 3 and they were discharged from the liability as proceedings against them are already quashed. It is also seen that the petitioner had requested time for marriage stating that his sister marriage is scheduled in six months, but later refused or marriage. There is no physical relationship between the parties. Whatsoever allegations, they are result of failure of love between the parties and it cannot be said that there is cheating under the guise of marriage and no offences, as alleged against the petitioner, are attracted as there is no breach of trust. That being so, it can be held that there is no sufficient material on record to frame charges against the revision petitioner for the offences as alleged.

6. In view thereof, this criminal revision case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.2 of 2023 in SC.No.46 of 2019 and discharging the petitioner/accused No.1 and SC.No.46 of 2019.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date: 17.10.2025 PT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE