THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1214 of 2024

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed before this Court, praying to set aside the order dated 04.11.2024 passed against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.69 of 2023 in S.C.No.707 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/accused No.2 filed Crl.MP.No.69 of 2023 in SC.No.707 of 2022 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 504 of IPC. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 04.11.2024. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal revision case is filed.

3. Heard Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 – State. None appeared for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant alleging offenses under Sections 417, 420, and 504 IPC is baseless, and the allegations prima facie do not constitute the offenses as alleged against the petitioner. He contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the discharge petition without properly appreciating the legal and factual submissions, and averred that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 417 IPC, which require dishonest inducement and delivery of property, are not satisfied. He further contended that there is no material on record to implicate the petitioner, except for witness statements that do not support the allegations, and even the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., do not disclose the essential elements of the alleged offenses. Therefore, while advocating that the petitioner is liable to be discharged, he prayed this Court to allow this revision case, discharging the petitioner from SC.No.707 of 2022.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the discharge petition, and there are no illegalities in the said order. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal revision case.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the only point for consideration before this Court is ‘whether the petitioner is entitled for discharge of allegations in SC.No.707 of 2022’. As seen from record, the allegations against this petitioner, who is accused No.2, are that she cheated the complainant by commenting that the complainant is fat and called off her marriage with accused No.1, and abused her in filthy language. Even according to the statement of LW.1, and the complaint averments, there are no other allegations leveled against the petitioner to show that petitioner promised to complainant that she would perform the marriage of complainant with accused No.1. The relationship between the complainant and the petitioner is altogether different. The only allegation is that the petitioner called the complainant fat and such averment is not sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner for the offences as alleged. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 04.11.2024 passed against petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.69 of 2023 in S.C.No.707 of 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar, and discharging the petitioner/accused No.2 from the above case.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J

Date: 15.09.2025

PT