The High Court · 2025

Revision Gase fired under section 3g7 & 4o1 of cr.p.c. against the Judgment dated 09-06-2014 passed in crlA.No.180 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Metropolitan Sessions . Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, preferred against the Judgment dated 2B-02-2o13 passed in c.c.No.219 ot 2o1oon the file of the court of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Between: Padigimarri Ravi Kumar, S/o. p.Markandeya, Age:35 years, Occ: pvt., Job, R/o. H.No.5-94, Bhavani Nagar, Road |,lo.ii, Ditsukh"natar,'Saroornag"r, iirJ.i"O"O. ...petitioner/appellant AND State of Telangana, rep., by public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Dasharatha Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E. Ganesh, . Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.123l OF 2014 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is fiIed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) aggrieved by the Judgment dated 09.06.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.18O of 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cybearabad at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred as the Iearned appellate CourtJ by modifying the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 28.02.2013 in C.C.No.219 of 2OlO passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B Nagar (hereinafter referred as 'the learned trial Court').

2. Heard Sri A.Dasaratha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State -re spondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with one Mamatha on 28.02.2008 at Ashok Function Hall, Saroornagar. At the time of marriage, the parents of Mamatha gave an amount of Rs.15,OO,O0O/- cash, 20 \ \ iI I ! I 2 tulas of gold in the form of dowry and spent Rs.5,OO,OOO/_ towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, she joined the societ5r of the petitioner at Bhavaninagar, Dilsukhnagar and lived happily for a period of two months. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started harassing her for additional dowry. She informed the same to her parents and they tried to convince the accused, but he did not change his behavior and therefore, the parents of Mamatha conducted a panchayath. In the said panchayath the accused agreed to look after her well, but they did not change ttreir attitude and tried to kill her. Then, she escaped from there and lodged complaint against the accused in Crime No.72 of 2O1O for the offences under Section 49g_A and 506 of IpC ald Section 3 and 4 of Dowqz prohibition Act (for short Dp Act). 4. The learned trial Court vide Judgment dated 2L.O2.2OL3 passed in C.C.No.219 of 2OLO found petitioner_accused No. 1 guilty for the offence under Sections 49g_A of IpC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/_, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. The accused No.l is acquitted for the offences under Section 506 of IpC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences 3 under sections 498-A, 5O6 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act' Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal'

5. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated 09.06.2014, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.18O of 2O13, modifying the Judgment of Conviction ald Sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Re'rision Case is preferred.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned trial Court arrd the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and passed their respective Judgments. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned judgment. 7 . l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Iearned appellate Court rightly passed the impugned Judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

8. Before the learned trial Court, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.l and 7 were examined and Exs.Pl and P2 were marked. DWs.l and 2 were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked. I 4 -i

9. The learned trial Court upon careful consideration of the material available on record, uide its Judgment, convicted and sentenced petitioner as stated supra.

10. The learned appellate Court upon re_appreciating the material available on record modified the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner for the offence under Sections 49g-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine amount of Rs.2,OOO/_ imposed against him is confirmed. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. 1 1 . A perusal of the record shows that this court vide order dated L2.06.2OI4 passed in CRL.R.C.M.p.No.1948 of 2Ol4 suspended the sentence of imprisonment pending this Crimina_l Revision Case and enlarged petitioner on bail. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments. L2. In the case on hand, the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court concurrently hetd that the petitioner herein was guilty for the offences under Section 49g_A of IpC, which hnding, in my consid.ered view, does not cell for a 5 interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., as there are no grounds much less valid grounds, or irregularities, or illegalities, to interfere with the well considered Judgments of both the Courts and accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed \

13. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, upon considering the fact that the petitioner suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court as well as the appellate Court ald as ten long years have elapsed from the date of frling th is Revision, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The fine amount of Rs.2,OOO/- is increased to Rs.SS,OOO/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only). The petitioner shall be paid an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- to the de-facto complainant as compensation within a period of two months from today and the remaining Rs.5,000/- shall be remitted to the State. If petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. I I ( { \ I 6 L4. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. C) As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, any)

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar (with records, if 2. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Women police Station, Saroornagar. 5. Two ccs to the Public prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri A. Dasharatha, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies Kamigh I HIGH COURT DATED:241O112025 \ I ORDER CRLRC.No.1231 ot 2014 IilE Sr {\ o( c o O '.)'+ 0 4 AUE 2025 D^,.' _<i.-:.- ;t /0 @ /t // /7 ,/z { DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE