The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISTO CASE No.239 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri G.V.N.Srinivas Rao, leamed counsel for the revision petitioner and Srl Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State and perused the entire record.

2. This revision case is t'iled 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 lZ0l l on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judiciat 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 disrnissed. Brief facts of the case:

3. The revision petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.210 of 20ll registered on the file of the Matakpet Police Station under Sections 4g8-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 faclo complainant Smt. G- Sowjanya against her husband Kanparthy Bhaswan Hareeth/accused RY,J CRLRC 239 2025 No.l, 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 498-4, 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. I 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.l as compounded by allowing Crl.M.P.No.9185 of 2AL5 in/and Cr[.P.No.9132 of 2015. Thus, the proceedings against the q" 2 _ ",: ..;.iqG7 ,f./ i --I7 I I I I C I I t ' I I E I I I I i i a : i l RY,.I CRLRC 239 2025 prime accused i.e., accused No.l have been quashed by this Court vide order dated 2l .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 1,7.03.2022 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the NBWs issued against accused No.2 and the revision petitioner were recalled directing thern 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 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 of the present revision. 3 RY,J CRLRC_239_202s

6. In 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.P.No.9l85 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9132 of 2015. Further, it is pleaded that there are vague charges made against the revision petitioner without citing any specific instances that constituted the offence as alleged in the charge sheet. The affected party i.e., the de focto complainant and accused No.1 have compromised the matter by entering into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated

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

7. It is funher pleaded that the quash petition and discharge petition are separate and independent proceedings which do not cause prejudice to the case of the parties. When the main accused has been permitted to compound/compromise the matter, continuing the proceedings against the revision petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Lastly, in criminal cases the liability is personal and there can be no vicarious liability attributed for the actions of accused No.l. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, the revision petitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4 RY,J CRLRC 239 2025 Findings:-

8. A perusal 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 respectively) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 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 and illegal demand for dowry. Whereas, the revision petitioner and her mother allegedly instigated accused No.1 to commit such offences while belittling the de facto complainant to put up rvith such harassment and cruelty as she is a woman, who is supposed to endure the hardships, meted out to her from her husband and in-laws. g. The matter was settled between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 by entering into an MOU, dated 05.08.2015. As per the said MOU, accused No.l agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards permanent alimony and fulI and final settlement arising out of the matrimonial relationship and in turn, the de facto cornplainant agreed to withdraw pending cases against accused No. I and his family members before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in C.C.No.467 of 2011 and before IV Special Magistrate Court, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, in D.V.C.No.273 of 2012. Further, it is agreed that 5 RY,J CRLRC 239 2025 O.P.No.357 of 2Ol3 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, filed by accused No.l seeking divorce would be settled by way of mutual consent. On the basis of the said MOtl, this Court vide order in Crl.M.P.No.9l85 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9132 of 2015, dated

21.09.2015 compounded the charges against prime accused i.e., accused No.1 and proceedings against him have been quashed. Crl.P.No.7339 of 2013 filed by the revision petitioner and her mother was left unattended leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution, which in turn lead to the trial Court recalling NBWs against the revision petitioner and her mother

10. It appears that since there is no provision to restore the criminal petition which is dismissed for non-prosecution, the revision petitioner had option of filing fresh criminal petition seeking quash or filing discharge petition before the trial Court. When such an option was exercised by the revision petitioner in the impugned petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.4908 of 2024 in C.C.No.467 of 2011, solely on the basis of dismissal order of,this Court in Crl.P.No.7339 of 2013, the said discharge petition has been dismissed.

11. The crux of the matter is that the main parties involved in the dispute i..e., the de facto complainant and accused No. I have settled the matter and the charges against accused No.t/husband have been compounded and the proceedings have been quashed vide order of this Court in 6 -r- :T,W : ir. RY.J CRT,RC 239 2025 Crl.M.P.No.g185 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9l32 of 2015. dated 21.09.2015. In such a scenario, when the charges against the main accused are compounded nothing remains proven against the revision petitioner. Fufther, rvhen the charges against main accused i.e., accused No.l are compounded prosecuting the revision petitioner for same charges is nothing but abuse of Court process, apart from that, the same would cause untold lnconvenlence In the circumstances stated, the impugned order dated

20.02.2025 is liable to be set aside

12. [n the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting 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 XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, and consequently, the revision petitioner herein/accused No.3 in C.C.No.467 of 2,011 on the file of the aforesaid Court is hereby discharged from the charges; under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pend_i1g in thig a_ppeal, 9!gll sQqd glgsed Sd/. NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR I Ir 6 ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Magistrate Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [,fUT] ,, \ \!,. 1 Qne QC to []ri G.V.N.Srinivas Rao, Advocate IOPUCI Y

5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL *.**"*4+;r";p**=r,,*i{: jrsif t}ri iq,: --- :':"lr1rxrrr::{::'1 : 7 ': a!,::.-i "_ j!,:,.,':iii1::lr',,: _: **'1- HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.239 of 2025 \ /-- --a: ./).'^ -,,.\ I s ''/ic',"' I t ;, I _'.\ l 0 \Jti N m5 t'y o a_ * Og SDA TC''tf't) * ALLOWING THE GRIMINAL REVISION CASE €

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISTO CASE No.239 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri G.V.N.Srinivas Rao, leamed counsel for the revision petitioner and Srl Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State and perused the entire record.

2. This revision case is t'iled 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 lZ0l l on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judiciat 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 disrnissed. Brief facts of the case:

3. The revision petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.210 of 20ll registered on the file of the Matakpet Police Station under Sections 4g8-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 faclo complainant Smt. G- Sowjanya against her husband Kanparthy Bhaswan Hareeth/accused RY,J CRLRC 239 2025 No.l, 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 498-4, 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. I 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.l as compounded by allowing Crl.M.P.No.9185 of 2AL5 in/and Cr[.P.No.9132 of 2015. Thus, the proceedings against the q" 2 _ ",: ..;.iqG7 ,f./ i --I7 I I I I C I I t ' I I E I I I I i i a : i l RY,.I CRLRC 239 2025 prime accused i.e., accused No.l have been quashed by this Court vide order dated 2l .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 1,7.03.2022 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the NBWs issued against accused No.2 and the revision petitioner were recalled directing thern 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 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 of the present revision. 3 RY,J CRLRC_239_202s

6. In 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.P.No.9l85 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9132 of 2015. Further, it is pleaded that there are vague charges made against the revision petitioner without citing any specific instances that constituted the offence as alleged in the charge sheet. The affected party i.e., the de focto complainant and accused No.1 have compromised the matter by entering into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated

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

7. It is funher pleaded that the quash petition and discharge petition are separate and independent proceedings which do not cause prejudice to the case of the parties. When the main accused has been permitted to compound/compromise the matter, continuing the proceedings against the revision petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Lastly, in criminal cases the liability is personal and there can be no vicarious liability attributed for the actions of accused No.l. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, the revision petitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 4 RY,J CRLRC 239 2025 Findings:-

8. A perusal 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 respectively) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 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 and illegal demand for dowry. Whereas, the revision petitioner and her mother allegedly instigated accused No.1 to commit such offences while belittling the de facto complainant to put up rvith such harassment and cruelty as she is a woman, who is supposed to endure the hardships, meted out to her from her husband and in-laws. g. The matter was settled between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 by entering into an MOU, dated 05.08.2015. As per the said MOU, accused No.l agreed to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards permanent alimony and fulI and final settlement arising out of the matrimonial relationship and in turn, the de facto cornplainant agreed to withdraw pending cases against accused No. I and his family members before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in C.C.No.467 of 2011 and before IV Special Magistrate Court, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, in D.V.C.No.273 of 2012. Further, it is agreed that 5 RY,J CRLRC 239 2025 O.P.No.357 of 2Ol3 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, filed by accused No.l seeking divorce would be settled by way of mutual consent. On the basis of the said MOtl, this Court vide order in Crl.M.P.No.9l85 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9132 of 2015, dated

21.09.2015 compounded the charges against prime accused i.e., accused No.1 and proceedings against him have been quashed. Crl.P.No.7339 of 2013 filed by the revision petitioner and her mother was left unattended leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution, which in turn lead to the trial Court recalling NBWs against the revision petitioner and her mother

10. It appears that since there is no provision to restore the criminal petition which is dismissed for non-prosecution, the revision petitioner had option of filing fresh criminal petition seeking quash or filing discharge petition before the trial Court. When such an option was exercised by the revision petitioner in the impugned petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.4908 of 2024 in C.C.No.467 of 2011, solely on the basis of dismissal order of,this Court in Crl.P.No.7339 of 2013, the said discharge petition has been dismissed.

11. The crux of the matter is that the main parties involved in the dispute i..e., the de facto complainant and accused No. I have settled the matter and the charges against accused No.t/husband have been compounded and the proceedings have been quashed vide order of this Court in 6 -r- :T,W : ir. RY.J CRT,RC 239 2025 Crl.M.P.No.g185 of 2015 in/and Crl.P.No.9l32 of 2015. dated 21.09.2015. In such a scenario, when the charges against the main accused are compounded nothing remains proven against the revision petitioner. Fufther, rvhen the charges against main accused i.e., accused No.l are compounded prosecuting the revision petitioner for same charges is nothing but abuse of Court process, apart from that, the same would cause untold lnconvenlence In the circumstances stated, the impugned order dated

20.02.2025 is liable to be set aside

12. [n the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting 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 XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, and consequently, the revision petitioner herein/accused No.3 in C.C.No.467 of 2,011 on the file of the aforesaid Court is hereby discharged from the charges; under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the D.P.Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pend_i1g in thig a_ppeal, 9!gll sQqd glgsed Sd/. NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR I Ir 6 ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Magistrate Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [,fUT] ,, \ \!,. 1 Qne QC to []ri G.V.N.Srinivas Rao, Advocate IOPUCI Y

5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL *.**"*4+;r";p**=r,,*i{: jrsif t}ri iq,: --- :':"lr1rxrrr::{::'1 : 7 ': a!,::.-i "_ j!,:,.,':iii1::lr',,: _: **'1- HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.239 of 2025 \ /-- --a: ./).'^ -,,.\ I s ''/ic',"' I t ;, I _'.\ l 0 \Jti N m5 t'y o a_ * Og SDA TC''tf't) * ALLOWING THE GRIMINAL REVISION CASE €