The High Court · 2025

Dr.Seeramsettr Srinivas, S/o. Krishna, Aged about 38 years, Occ. It/BBS, It/ D General [\,4edicine at Hyderabad. R/o. H.No. 6-1-128A/, VDO'S Colony, Khammam District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. Dr.Unnamatla Sruthi, D/o. Hemanth ltrlani Kumar, Aged about 32 years, Occ. tvlBBS Doctor, C/o. KHI[4S Hospital, B.K. Bazar, Khammam, Rl/o.H.No.5-5- 1 30/A' Musthafanagar' Khammatespondents/Defacto comprainanuLW-1 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in S.C.No. 46 of 2019 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. C. Sharan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri D. Arun Kumar Additional Public Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Smt. K. Siri Vennela Prosecutor The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE I( SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.113 L OF 2o24 ORDER: This revision case is filed by revision pr No. 1 challe nging the order dated 24.1O I Crl.MP.No.2 ot 2023 in SC.No.46 of 2019 o titioner/ accused 024 passed in r the file of the Special Sessions Judge lor Triai of Cases unrl, r the Schedulecl Castes and Schedulcd 1'ribes (preven tion of At III Additional Sessions .,ludge, Khammam. .l.l was filcd seeking discharge of petitioner frr alleged ag:rinst him under Sections 4 tZ, . Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (pOA) I dismissal of the said petition, this revision is pr ocities) Act cum r: said Crl.MP., m the offences )6 of IPC and :t. Aggrieved by rferred,

2. Heard Sri C_sharan Recldy, learned col.t sel for revision petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned li iditional public Prosecutor appearing flor respondent No.1, rnd Smt K.Siri Vennela, learned counsel for respondent No.2,

3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner ;ubmitted that the trial Court erred in clismissing the applicatic r for discharge without assigning any reasons or addressing tre contentions 2 -- raiscd by the petitioner. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner, even if taken at face value' do not make out an offense, particularly under Section 417 IPC' He asserted that the petitioner and the 2"d respondent had a consensual relationship, and there is no evidence of cheating or inducement to part with property' He pointed out that the 2nd respondent lied about her caste and provided fake photos' which led to the refusal on the part of petitioner to marry her' Therefore, while advocating that the petitioner is innocent of the olfences zrs alleged, he prayed this Court to allow this revision case, setting aside the impugned order and discharging the Petitioner.

4. Pcr contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor' appearing for respondent No.1, and learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for revision petitioner and asserted that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the discharge petition and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the impugned order' They contended that the matter is at the stage of almost concluding the trial and as there is a charge framed by the trial Court, ancl the matter is under trial, the question of 3 discharging petitioncr does not arise. Therefor: prayed this Court to dismiss the revision case

5. Having regard to rival submissions made, r nd on going . through the material placed on record, it is noted that admittedly, the parties were in love and the petiti,r rer promised the complainant to marry and thereafter refu s rd to do so stating that his parents had not accepted for thr: same. There are allegations that lhe complainant was abused rr the name of caste after the marriagc was rcfused for. Hol,r e /cr, it is to apparent to note that the allegations pertaining t I caste abuse are against the accused Nos.2 and 3 and they r.,r.e r : discharged from the liability as proceedings against therr are already quashed. It is also seen that the petitioner had rr:, uested time for marriage stating that his sister marriage is sclr, cluled in six months, but later refused or marriage. There is, no physical relationship between the partics. Whatsoever allt 1 ations, they are result of failure of lovc betr,r,een [he parties anrl it cannot be said that there is cheating under the guise of ma-: iage and no offences, as alleged against the peLitioner, are t.tracted as there is no breach of trust. That being so, it can there is no sufhcient materizrl on record to lrr rc held that ne charges against the revision petitioner for the oflcnces as a l 4 - 6 In view Lhe reof, this criminal revision case is allowed' setting aside the order dated 24 lO.2024 Passed in Crl'MP No'2 of 2023 in SC No 46 o[ 2}lg and discharging the petitioner/ accused No 1 and SC.No'46 of 2Ol9 Miscellaneousapplications,ifanypending,shallstand closed SD/- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1

2. J 4 5 DL/ jiil":'"ixffi"""*i',11"liif#: jH:fl retansana, Hish court Buirdinss' :::,:.'::5,:;::';::+;3::,';j"" Xiii,i"*r s""i:"?.J'19^": r[[]I[;# " Two CCs to the Public Pros( 'J#',iq"J i'.JiH":lI:T :: !1, ff J :::[ [3 E U 3] One CC to Sri' C Sharan xe Two CD CoPies a HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1131 ot 2024 --'- .)= a-'.I .tJ t I J,ii )l't I .j:. .i t. ,. , r.7-....-2.' -1, ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE r1\