The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, Station House Office, P.S. Hayathnagar'

2. Jula Srinivas Son of Chennaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ-Government Employee, Resident of Singireddypally Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapally District, T.S. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 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 stay all further proceedings in s.c No.454 of 2023 on the file of the court of V Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in respect of Accused No' 2 and 3, pending dis rosal of the above Criminal Revision Case- Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. Narender Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prose: ttor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri M. Anil Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER { THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.779 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated O1.I2.2O23 passed in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2023 in S.C.No.454 of 2023 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Drstrict at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the police of Hayathnagar registered Crime No.414 of 2027 against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304-8 of IPC, based on a complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased, who was married to accused No. 1 on 11.O3.2O19, was harassed by her husband and in-laws for additional.dowry of Rs. 1O,O0,0OO/- to enable accused No.1 to go abroad. The deceased allegedly faced cn-relty, physical harassment, and humiliation for not conceiving and ultimately committed suicide by hanging on 28.06.2021 at her residence in Hayathnagar. The Additional Pubiic Prosecutor opposed the discharge petition contending that the statements of witnesses clearly established the role of accused Nos.1 to 3 in I 2 sxs-.r Crl.R-C.Ito.ZZ9 of 2024 harassing the deceased for additional dowry rnd abetting her suicide. It was argued that the petition was I ot maintainable and that sufficient material existed on ft < rrd [o proceed against the petitioners, warranting dismissal ,1. the discharge petition.

3. The trial Court, after hearing both s r ers, vide order dated 01.12.2023, dismissed.the petition hol,l rrg that at the stage of considering a pedtion under Section 21 7, Cr.p.C., it is sufficien t if thc material on record prima fac;t ciiscloses the ingredients of the offence. The trial Court obs,rved that the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. ).C. indicated the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the , urrassment of the deceersed. Holding that the truth of the alre ,r,ations could only be tested during trial, the triar court found, o grounds to discharge the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, ll : petitioners filed lhc presen t criminal revision case.

4. Heard Sri K. Narender, learned counsel : rpearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Ktr: rar, learned Additional Public prosecutor appgqring on b : L,alf of the I I 3 SKS,J Crl.RC-I{o.779 of 2024 respondent - State and Sri M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

5. [rarned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the case though they had no role in the alieged offence and that petitioner No.2 was employed as a Security Guard in Singareni Collieries at Karimnagar and petitioner No.3, his 69-year-o1d mother, was an illiterate woman suffering from health problems and residing permanently at Karimnagar. He further submitted that they never lived with accused No. 1 and the deceased at Hyderabad, nor did they participate in any family affairs or demand additional dowry. He contended that none of the witnesses stated that the petitioners ever visited the couple's house or personally harassed the deceased, and that the allegations were omnibus and based only on hearsay from interested famiiy witnesses. He further contended that the trial Court failed to properly consider the material on record and the fact that even the police admitted the petitioners' separate residence, yet dismissed the discharge petition mechanically without assigning valid reasons' Therefore, he , I 4 sr(s,J Crl.RC No.779 of 2024 -fffi \ prayed the Court to set aside the order of the tri I Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case

6. On the o[her hand, learned counsel for respr r dent No.2 submitted that there is no illegality in the order rf the trial Court and the trial Court rightly passed the impu rned order. He further submitted that prima facie therr: are clear allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, ht, t'rayed the Court to dismiss the present criminal revision cast:

7. In the light of the submissions made tn both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material a ..ailable on record, it appears that though the petitioners corL' :nded that they were residing separately at Karimnagar e I <1 had no connection wrth the aflairs of accused No. 1 and th deceased, the record discloses otherwise. The material on record indicates that titl February 2027, all the accusecl :long with the deceased resided together, and there is also a showing thal accused No.1 received an e ransaction 'nount of Rs.5,00,000/ - from the family of the deceas: t. While considering a petition for discharge, the trial Cour, s required only to see whether the material placed by the pr: ;ecution is / ? 5 SI<S,J Crl.RC.No.779 of 2O2,+ sufficient to frame charges. The contentions raised by the petitioners regarding their separate residence and non- involvement are matters to be established during trial. Hence, considering the available material, it cannot be said that there is no sufhcient ground to frame charge against the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this criminal Revision Case is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/. P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional L.B.Nagar Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

2. The XXIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Hayathnagar 3. The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station' Rachakonda 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at HyderabadIOUT]

5. One CC to Sri K. Narender, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri M. Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies VH/?SL Kr HIGH COURT DATED: 0611112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.779 ot 2024 t[; 'itii' s t.,i,R c)o t \, il ,r,/ r 7 .C, $' .tl-l ,' -.,1r/ *l liParcHt:' jy'z '" :-=:-:::)2- DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C lo q("4 ft*