THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.779 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2023 in S.C.No.454 of 2023 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the police of Hayathnagar registered Crime No.414 of 2021 against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC, based on a complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased, who was married to accused No.1 on 11.03.2019, was harassed by her husband and in-laws for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to enable accused No.1 to go abroad. The deceased allegedly faced cruelty, physical harassment, and humiliation for not conceiving and ultimately committed suicide by hanging on 28.06.2021 at her residence in Hayathnagar. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the discharge petition contending that the statements of witnesses clearly established the role of accused Nos.1 to 3 in harassing the deceased for additional dowry and abetting her suicide. It was argued that the petition was not maintainable and that sufficient material existed on record to proceed against the petitioners, warranting dismissal of the discharge petition.

3. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, vide order dated 01.12.2023, dismissed the petition holding that at the stage of considering a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C., it is sufficient if the material on record prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offence. The trial Court observed that the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicated the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the harassment of the deceased. Holding that the truth of the allegations could only be tested during trial, the trial Court found no grounds to discharge the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal revision case.

4. Heard Sri K. Narender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case though they had no role in the alleged offence and that petitioner No.2 was employed as a Security Guard in Singareni Collieries at Karimnagar and petitioner No.3, his 69-year-old mother, was an illiterate woman suffering from health problems and residing permanently at Karimnagar. He further submitted that they never lived with accused No.1 and the deceased at Hyderabad, nor did they participate in any family affairs or demand additional dowry. He contended that none of the witnesses stated that the petitioners ever visited the couple’s house or personally harassed the deceased, and that the allegations were omnibus and based only on hearsay from interested family witnesses. He further contended that the trial Court failed to properly consider the material on record and the fact that even the police admitted the petitioners’ separate residence, yet dismissed the discharge petition mechanically without assigning valid reasons. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order. He further submitted that prima facie there are clear allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the present criminal revision case.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that though the petitioners contended that they were residing separately at Karimnagar and had