THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.222 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.863 of 2024 in S.C.No.18 of 2023, on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. The petitioner is questioning the dismissal of the discharge application filed by him before the District and Sessions Judge. The offences under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC were taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and committed to the Court of Sessions, and in the Sessions Court, a discharge application was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

4. The case of the defacto complainant, who is the wife of the petitioner, is that the petitioner was her husband, who is harassing her for additional dowry, and on the date of incident, i.e., 09.08.2021, the petitioner beat her, sat on her, and poured sainik pesticide into her mouth. On the basis of the said complaint, the crime was registered under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Learned Magistrate committed the case, having found that the offence under Section 307 is made out.

6. The petitioner then approached the Sessions Judge by filing a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

7. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the Police have deleted the offence under Section 307 of IPC and filed a charge sheet only for the offences under Sections 498- A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Once the investigation of the Police revealed that the petitioner did not commit any act falling within the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC, learned Sessions Judge ought to have relied upon the final report of the Police to discharge the petitioner from the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

8. Having gone through the record, it appears that there were two persons in the room, one is the petitioner and the other is the defacto complainant, who are husband and wife. At the earliest point of time, it is alleged that the petitioner beat the defacto complainant, sat on her, and forcibly poured sainik pesticide into her mouth.

9. The Police filed a charge sheet stating that the defacto complainant tried to commit suicide. No reasons are given in the charge sheet/final report for the Police to arrive at such a conclusion. Unless there is evidence that was collected during the course of investigation by the Police, the question of deleting the provision under Section 307 of IPC does not arise. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the application seeking discharge. There are absolutely no grounds to entertain the revision.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 04.04.2025 dv THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.222 OF 2025 Dt. 04.04.2025 dv