THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.210 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2024 by the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short “appellate Court”), confirming the order dated 25.01.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021 in DVC No.94 of 2021 by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the DVC before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The facts of the petitioner in DVC are that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021 requesting the Court to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to return her Stridhan or any other property or valuable securities, documents, certificates including other belongings pertaining to her and her husband being retained by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the matrimonial house and that they did not allow her to collect the same and that she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 22.01.2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that she went again on 12.02.2021 to her matrimonial home to collect the important belongings but respondent No.1 prevented her and her husband from entering inside and abused using foul language and also attempted to assault her and her husband. Subsequently, respondent No.1 has lodged a false police complaint on 12.02.2021 as a counter blast. It is her case that she got married to one Rohit Saini Choudhary on 26.02.2020 and that it was a love marriage involving inter cultural and inter-caste marriage and after the ceremonies, she joined the company of her husband at her in-laws place. She further submitted that respondent No.1 is her step mother-in-law and respondent No.2 is the father-in-law, respondent No.3 is the sister-in-law and that her natural mother-in- law committed suicide in 1999. It is submitted that at the time of marriage her father made it clear to her in-laws that they do not believe in the concept of dowry but heeding to their request, he has spent huge amount for the celebration of marriage and that he has given a diamond bracelet worth of Rs.3 Lakhs to Disha Saini and diamond ring to respondent No.3 and that respondent No.1 entertained evil intention and did not like her to get married with Rohit Saini Choudhary and further made a demand of Rs.50 Lakhs as dowry and thus, his father has paid them Rs.50 Lakhs from the account of Swagath Marriage & Function Hall, a partnership firm run by his father along with others. On learning this, her husband felt very angry with the respondents 1 and 2 for their unjustified demand. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has reluctantly transferred an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs to the account of Swagath marriage and Function hall through NEFT of Anil Kumar Chowdhary. That her father also gave gold and diamond jewellery worth of Rs.60 Lakhs and also presented BMW car to the bridegroom as per the demands of respondent No.1 and 2. She further submitted that her father and relatives also have presented Rado watch worth Rs.85,000/-, Maserati Watch worth Rs.68,000/-, silver plates for pooja worth Rs.25,000/- to her, then her father and relatives have further presented the following gold and other articles to Rohit Saini Choudhary:

a. Watch with brand bearing Breitling worth of Rs.5.50 lakhs.

b. Two tulas of Gold chain c. Rado Watch worth of Rs.1.00 Lakh d. Maserati Watch worth of Rs.68,000/-

e. Bracelet weighing about 2.5 tulas

4. That all the above said items are in the custody of respondents 1 and 2. She further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have presented a diamond set and the maternal grandmother of Rohit Saini Choudhary, has presented a gold set to her at the time of marriage and that maternal uncle of Rohit Saini Choudhary gave two gold sets and his other relatives also presented Rs.3 Lakhs as shagu