The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G V N SRINIVAS RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUDRESH DESHPANDE, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE TIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISION E No.238 of 2025 t2th DAY OF DECEMBER,a0Z' Between: Kanaparthy S:rada. The State of 1'elangana. ORDERI AND ...Petitioner ...Respondent Heard Sri G.V.N.Srinivas Rao, leamed counsel fbr the revision petitioler anct Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor f,or respondent/State and perused the entire record'

2. This revision case is filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.2 to ser aside thr: order dated 2A.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.4909 ot' 2024 in C.C.No.467 of 201I on the file of the XIll Ariditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Flyderabad, (hereinafter referred as 'trial Court'), rvhereby the petirion filect under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to discharge the revision petitioner herein from charges under Sections 498-4, -106 and zl20 of the RY,J CRLRC 238 2025 Indian Penal code, lg60 ('tpc') and sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, l96l ('D.p.Act'), has been dismissed. B facts of the case: 3' The revision petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.2t0 of Z0ll registered on the file of the Malakpet Police Station under Sections 4gg-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 rodged by de facro complainant Smt. G' Sowjanya against her husband Kanparthy Bhaswan Hareet7accused No'1, sister-in-law K.R.Vyshnavi/accused No.3 and the revision petitioner herein/accused No.2. The said comprainr rvas lodged alleging cruelty, harassment and illegar demand for dowry by the accused, whire the main allegations are against accused No.l, accuscrcl No.i and the revision petitioner herein were implicated prirnarily due ro their relationship with accused No.l. The police after registering the trlR conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused lbr the ot'fences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of lpc coupled u,ith secrions 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act. 4' At that juncture, accused No.3 and the revision petitioner herein filed Crl'P'No'7339 of 2013 before this Coun to quash the charyes against them and subsequently, accused No.l filed crl.p.No.9lil ol.20l5 seeking to 2 RY,J CRLRC 238 2025 quash att the proceedings relating to C.C.No .467 of 201.1on the file of trial Court. Accused No.1 filed joint memo along with Crl.P.M.P.No-9185 of 2Ol5 seekinlS permission of this Court to compromise the matter by compoundinp; the said calendar case. In order to have peace, the parties have agreed ro settle the disputes outside the Court. By invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.rl. permission was accorded for ordering the charges leveled against accu:sed No.l as compounded by atlowing Crl-M-P.No-9185 of 20t5 in/arrd Crl.P.No.9l32 of 2015. Thus, the proceedings against the prirne accust:d i.e., accused No.l have been quashed by this Court vide order dared 2:.t.09.2015 in the said criminal petition. Whatever may be the reason. accused No.3 and the revision petitioner herein failed to pursue Crl.p.No.7339 of 2013 and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated

17.0i .2022 fior non-prosecution. Thereafter, the NBWs issued agaiust accused No. i and the revision petitioner were recalled directing thern to appear betbr,: thc Magistrate Court for taking up trial.

5. At that juncture, the revision petitioner f'rled itnpugned Crl.M.P.No..1909 ot 2024 in C.C.No.467 of 201I under Section 239 Cr.P.C. betbre the trial Court to discharge her from the charges leveled against her. l'he trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.02.2025 dismissed th: said petition on the sole ground that this Court has disntissed 3 RY,J CRLRC 238 2025 the criminal petition filed by revision petitioner and accused No.3 for quash of C.C.No.467 of 20lL Therefore, the trial Court has become functus fficio 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 o[ the present revlslon.

6. [n grounds of revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that the main calendar case was compromised and the charges leveled against accused No.l were quashed by this Court in Crl.M.lr.No.9l85 ol 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9l32 of 2015. Further, it is pleaded that therer are vague charges made against the revision petitioner without citing anv specific instances that constituted the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. The affected party i.e., the de facto complainant and accused No.I har.e compromised the matter by entering into Memoranduur of'Understanding lMOU), dated

05.08.2015 and entire proceedings were quashecl and therefirre, there can be no question of trial by the trial Court.

7. It is further pleaded that the quash petition and discharge petition are separate and independent proceedings which do not cause prejudice to the 4 RY,J CRLRC 238 2025 case of the parties. when the main accused has' been permitted to compound/compromise the matter, continuing the proceedings against the ' revision petitroner is an abuse of process of law. Lastly, in criminal cases the liabiliry ir; personal and there can be no vicarious liability attributed for the actions o I accused No.l . On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, the revision pretitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Findinss: g. A pertLsal of the record shows that the de facto complainant leveled charges against her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (accused Nos.l to 3 re,spectively) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 406 and 42(l of IPC coupled with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D-P-Act' Accused No.l allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty. harassment a6d illegal clernand for dowry. Whereas, the revision petitioner and his sister allegedly instigated accused No.1 to commit such of'f,ences while belittlrng the de facto complainant to put up with such harassment and cruelty ;ls she is a woman, who is supposed to endure the hardships' meted out to her ti'orn her husband and in-[aws' g. The rnatter was settled between the de facto complainant and accused No. I b1' entering into an MOU, dated 05.08.201 5. As per the said MOU, accur;ed No.l agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- torvards 5 RY,J CRLRC 238 2025 perrnanent alimony and full and final settlement arising out of the matrimonial relationship and in tum, the de facto complainant agreed to withdraw pending cases against accused No.l and his family members before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in C.C.No.467 of 201I and before IV Special Magistrate Courr, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, in D.V.C.No.273 of 2012. Further, it is agreed that o.P.No.3 57 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Family court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, frled by accused No.1 seeking divorce would be settled by way of mutual consent. On the basis of the said MOU, this Court vide order in Crl.M.P.No.9l85 of 2Ol5 inland Crl.p.No.gl32 of 2015, dared 2l-09.2015 compounded the charges against prime accused i.e., accused No.l and proceedings against him have been quashed. Crl.p.No.7339 of 2013 filed by the revision petitioner and her daughrer rvas lelt unattended leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution, which in turn lead to the trial Court recalling NBWs against the revision petitioner and her dau,qhter. l0- It appears that since there is no provision to restore the criminal petition which is disrnissed for non-prosecution, the revision petitioner had option of frling tresh criminal petition seeking quash or liling discharge petition belore the trial Court. When such an option was cxercised by the rcvision petitioner in the impugned petition i.e., Crl.M.tr.No.4909 o1.2024 6 I I t RY,J CRLRC 238 2025 in C.C.No.467 of 201l, solely on the basis of dismissal order of this Court in Crl.P.No. 7339 of 20 I 3, the said discharge petition has been dismissed. I l. The crux of the matter is that the main parties involved in the dispute i..e., the de l'acto corhplainant and accused No.l have settled the matter and the charges against accused No.1/husband have been compounded and the a I proceedings have becn quashed vide order of this Court in Crl.M. P.No.9 I 85 ol 20 I 5 in/and Crl. P.No .9 | 32 of 20 15, dated 2t -09.20 I 5. In such a scenario, rvhen the charges against the main accused are compounderl nothing remains proven against the revision petitioner. Further, when the charges against main accused i.e., accused No.l are compounded prosecuting the revision petitioner for same charges is nothing but abuse o. Court proccss, apart liom that, the same would cause untold hardship. In the circunrstances stated, the impugned order dated

20.02.2025 is liable to bc set aside.

12. In the result, thc Crirninal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the order dated 10.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.4909 of 2024 in C.C.No.467 ol 20ll on the tile of XIII Additional Clhief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, and conserluently, the revision petitioner herein/accused No.2 in C.C.No.467 ol'201 I on tlre tlle olthe atbresaid Court is hereby discharged frorn the cha.rges under Sections 498-4, 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 3. 7 RY,J CRLRC 238 2025 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, ifany, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGIST -( //TRUE COPY" CTION OFFICER To

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad' i: iii; .iuiion ior"" officer, Malikpet Police Station' Hvderabad ;. d; eC 6 snr c v N sRlNlvAS RAo, Advocate [oPUc] ;. i;; cc"io tn" Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telansana at . Hyderabad (OUT),

5. Two CD CoPies ADI(Sa ; STAI E .. C) L) 2 g lrN ttlt t( t HIGH COURT DATED i1211212025 CRLRC.No.238 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRLRC WITHOUT COSTS