High Court · 2025

Prosecutor, High Court for the Ii;,"Tf"all3iT3?[iasf8;tv AX'3'-Tift fi hl'8'"fi'"::fl #i ["i:'[*3" about 32 Years, R/o' 16-9-688/1' ...ResPondenUComPlai IAN O:1 OF 2024 Petition under Sectio stated in the affidavit filed pleased to extend the Crl.RC.No.276 of 2023 date IAN O:5OF 2023 n 482 of Cr.P'C praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition' the High Court may be interim stay granted in lA'No 1 of 2023 in d 29.12.2023- Petition under Section 482 of Cr 'P 'C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend interim stay granted in l'A'No'4 ol 2023 in Crl'R'C'No 276 of 2023 dt.6-11-2023 ---. F IA NO: 40F 202s petition under Sec stated in the affidavit ,,rrilon preased to extend interim 2023 dt.3o_B_ 2023. oU, of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances in support of the petit stay sranted in r.A No.3 "il;ri",r"1lJ::[.i%:; IANO:3 oF2023 Petition under Section 4R) at r- - n a stated in the affidavit ,rrrilon ou, of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances n: :: *l# ;;:,,;":," ; ;H:l ;' l"_ : 1,:: :;,:. J:T J:,1" :y. : IA NO| 2OF 2023 petition under Sec stated in the arridavit, fl t:,';:;:: ffi :,:,ffi T: pleased to extend interim stay granted in l.A.No.1 of 2023in Crl.R.C.No. 276 of tJ:il"l:il ;" 2023 dt.28_4_2023. IA NO: oF 2023 1 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay a, further proceedings incruding the appearance of the petitioner in c c No' 285 0f 2014 0n the fire of the court of the X* Additionar chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad. Counsel for the petitioner(s): SRl. T S ANIRUDH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1:pUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2:MS NUSRATH BANU The Court made the following: ORDER - -. *-r_t - '.r' t?!'- 'l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E'V' VENUGOPAL No.276 0F 2023 cRIMINAL REVI SION CASE oRDER:- the order, The present revision is filed questionrng dated 04.04'2023 passed in Crl'M P'No'4797 C.C.No.2B5 of 2Ol4 on the fiie of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad' of 2018 in the petitioner' 2. Heard learned counsel for Mr.E.Galesh, learned' Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing ior respondent No' 1-State and Ms'Nusrath Banu, learned counsel for respondent No'2' 3. The facts of the case in brief are tkrat de-facto complainant filed a case in Crime No 12 of 2OOB on the file of Asifnagar Police Station' Hyderabad' against the petitioner and others for the offence und'er Section 498 (A) oflndianPenalCode.Afterfilingofthechargesheet,the sarne was numbered as C'C'No'285 of 2014 on the file of Chief MetroPolitan Magistrate' learned XIII Additional The Hyderabad (for short' 'the trial Court') petitioner/ accused No'3' facto comPlainant, filed C.C.No.285 of 20L4 before who is the sister-in -law ol de Crl.M.P.No.4797 of 2018 in the trial Court seeking to I I l i { l l I 2 ciischarge her lrom the said case The trial CoLrit, uiile order, dated 04.O4.2023, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner/accused No.3 filed the presen t (-riminal Revision Case. : '-\ 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed biz the petitioner uncler Sectio n 239 of Cr.p.C.; the learned trial Judge ought to have seen that petitioner, who is the sister of accused No.l, was married in the year, I97T and ever since, she has been residing in eatar, U.A.E. with her irl.sband; there are no specific ailegations agamst the petitioner expect that she used to instigate accused No.1 to harass de-facto complainant mentally arrd physically; there are no ouert-acts attributed against the petitioner; there is no mention about date or time of the aiieged incident where the petitioner instigated accused No. r to harass respondent No.2. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner pravs this Court to O1.O4.2023 Crt.M. p.No.4797 set aside the order, dated of 2O1B in C.C.No.2B5 of 2014 passed by learned trial Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Hclrish Dahiga @ Ilarish 6r, another a. The State of punjab and A I _ _- -r--. -.r*;.,r.;?t. _l arrd Pagal Sharma a' State of Puniab'and othersl anothet2

5. Learned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent N9 2 submit that grave allegations are levelied against the petitioner' therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed Cri.M.P'No'4 797 of2018 in C'C'No'285 of 2O14' 6. A perusat of the impugned order would show that the trial court rerying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and Others o' StoLte (NCT of Delhi) and Another'3 Haish Dahiga ond Others u' The State of Punjab and Others;a Shakson Belthissor u' State of Kerala and Another;s and' Sherish Hardenia and othersa.st4teofM.Pandothersj6hadd.ismissedthe discharge application on the ground that there is prima facie evidence agarnst the accused and the petitioner/A-3 is also involved in the harassment against th.e de facto complainant along r,r'ith other accused' Further' documentarl' evidence was available lhat on the instigation made by the petitioner/A3, the father of de facto t c.ta.t6,o--zols sc, datc.l 23.10.2019 2 SLP (Crr) No.3995 oi 2022, dt- 26-lt 2/J24 ' eooa) 2 scc s6l '(2otgi :t: ..ea: ..o 3 (2ot7i ta scc aa., 6 (2ota) ta scc 406 4 complarnant deposited arr amount of Rs. l.O0 lakh in the account of the de faclo complainant for purchasing flat of Ai to A3. But the trial Court has not recorded any reasons with regard to the contradictions in the statements of the uttnesses r-ecorded under Section 161 of Cr.p.C. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the iearned trial Court should reconsider the matter afresh, accordingly, the order passed b-y the learned trial Court in Crl.M.p.No.4Z97 of 2Oi8 in C.C.No.28S of 2(,tt on the file ol the XIIi Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is set aside and this matter is remalded back to the learned trial Court to decide the same on merits afresh and pass appropriate orclers in accordalce urith law. oi_ the case

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case rs disposed of remanding the matter to the trial Court for consideration afresh.

8. Miscellar-reous petitions, if arly pending, in the Crimina-1 Petition, shall stand closed SDI- K SREE RAMA MURTHY UTY REGISTRAR D SECT\ON OFFTCER (\Aatrr\a Courtl 21 ltTRuEcoPYll Ch\el na\ Nddr\o \Aagrs\rate \Aetropo\tan ocate IOPUC\ Ad'J Reddt' H,{d"$:. 0f\e cc to Sr\ 1S No\$)dh \, l I I 1o, Two ccs to pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana [oUTl I \

4. Two CD CoPies' YJR /IPSL A.I I }t V HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 t \ \ { ( ORDER CRLRC.N o.276 ot 2023 ii o \ t .*. i iiE S;4 I6. d 2 ruB 2025 o4 \(r _\ .t (]+ P4 TCH DISPOSING OF CRTMINAL REVIS ION CASE. f4- 25 4- Lf