THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.239 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri G.V.N.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State and perused the entire record.

2. This revision case is filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.3 to set aside the order dated 20.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.4908 of 2024 in C.C.No.467 of 2011 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred as ‘trial Court’), whereby the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to discharge the revision petitioner herein from charges under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘D.P.Act’), has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case:

3. The revision petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.210 of 2011 registered on the file of the Malakpet Police Station under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act. The said FIR has been registered on the complaint lodged by de facto complainant Smt. G. Sowjanya against her husband Kanparthy Bhaswan Hareeth/accused No.1, mother-in-law Kanaparthy Sarada/accused No.2 and the revision petitioner herein/accused No.3. The said complaint was lodged alleging cruelty, harassment and illegal demand for dowry by the accused, while the main allegations are against accused No.1. Accused No.2 and the revision petitioner herein were implicated primarily due to their relationship with accused No.1. The police after registering the FIR conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of IPC coupled with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act.

4. At that juncture, accused No.2 and the revision petitioner herein filed Crl.P.No.7339 of 2013 before this Court to quash the charges against them and subsequently, accused No.1 filed Crl.P.No.9132 of 2015 seeking to quash all the proceedings relating to C.C.No.467 of 2011 on the file of trial Court. Accused No.1 filed joint memo along with Crl.P.M.P.No.9185 of 2015 seeking permission of this Court to compromise the matter by compounding the said calendar case. In order to have peace, the parties have agreed to settle the disputes outside the Court. By invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. permission was accorded for ordering the charges leveled against accused No.1 as compounded by allowing Crl.M.P.No.9185 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9132 of 2015. Thus, the proceedings against the prime accused i.e., accused No.1 have been quashed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2015 in the said criminal petition. Whatever may be the reason, accused No.2 and the revision petitioner herein failed to pursue Crl.P.No.7339 of 2013 and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2022 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the NBWs issued against accused No.2 and the revision petitioner were recalled directing them to appear before the Magistrate Court for taking up trial.

5. At that juncture, the revision petitioner filed impugned Crl.M.P.No.4908 of 2024 in C.C.No.467 of 2011 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court to discharge her from the charges leveled against her. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.02.2025 dismissed the said petition on the sole ground that this Court has dismissed the criminal petition filed by revision petitioner and accused No.2 for quash of C.C.No.467 of 2011. Therefore, the trial Court has become functus officio and only after adducing evidence on both sides, the guilt of the revision petitioner would be established and that mini trial cannot be conducted, when there is prima facie evidence to proceed against the revision petitioner for the charges leveled against her. As such, the petition was dismissed vide impugned order leading to filing of the present revision.

6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that the main calendar ca