##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.468 of 2025

DATE: 06.04.2026

BETWEEN:

Ambika @ Hansika Yadav and another

…..petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5

And

The State of Telangana and others …..Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the

order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2313 of 2022 in C.C.No.6660 of 2022 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2 SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.468 of 2025

2. The brief facts of the case are that Accused Nos.1 to 6 filed the petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from C.C.No.6660 of 2022 pending for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is their case that the allegations are false and have been made as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 in F.C.O.P. No. 628 of 2021. They contended that the police filed the charge sheet mechanically without proper investigation and without considering their reply to the notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioners further stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged parents, accused Nos.4 and 5 are married sisters living separately, and accused No.6 is a married brother living independently, and all of them have been falsely implicated due to matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and the de

facto complainant.

3. The prosecution opposed the petition contending that the investigation revealed a prima facie case against the accused and that the statements of witnesses and material collected support the allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment. The trial Court, after hearing both sides and

3 SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.468 of 2025

perusing the record, held that at the stage of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be considered and the defence of the accused cannot be evaluated in detail. Upon examining the complaint, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, and charge sheet, the Court found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners and observed that the truthfulness of the allegations can only be decided during trial and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioners/accused

Nos.4 and 5 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

4. Heard Sri Mir Mukarram Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. Though notice served upon

respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., as the trial Court failed to appreciate that the allegations in the charge sheet are vague, omnibus and do not disclose any specific overt acts, time, date or place against the petitioners.

4 SKS, J Crl.R.C.No.468 of 2025

He further submitted that the case is a counterblast to matrimonial disputes and that distant relatives have been falsely implicated without any material to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. He contended that even if the entire prosecution case is taken at face value, no prima facie case is made out, and the trial Court misapplied the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by refusing to discharge the petitioners despite absence of incriminating material. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the investigation has disclosed a prima facie case against the accused and that the statements of the complainant and witnesses, along with the material collected, clearly indicate involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. He further submitted that