The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. through S.H.O., P.S..tMiyapur, Cyberabad Respondent No.1 Kum. Atkuri Yamini Krishna, D/o. Nagaraju, aged about.25 years, Occ Private Job at Byjus, Hitech City, RJo. Flat No. 601, GBR Varalakshmi Apartments, Su6bsh Chandra Bose Nagar, Hafeezpet, Miyapur, N/o. Siikakulam Village, Gantashala Manadal, Krishna District. 1 2 RESPONDENT No.2/De-facto Complainant lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that I the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the ligh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC No.707 of ?o 2 on the file of the Hon'ble Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangzrre Jdy District, at L. B. Nagar, pending disposal of this Criminal Revision. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. YEMMIGANUR SOMA r; iINATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOF Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER I I i i i THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1214 of2024 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is lLled before this Court' praying to set aside [he order dated 04 Il 2024 passed against the petitioner/ accused No.2 in Crt'M'P'No'69 of 2023 in S.C.No.7O7 of 2022 on the hle of the Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy Distrrct, at LB'Nagar' The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ accused 2. No.2 lrled Crl.MP.No.69 of 2023 in SC No'707 of 2022 v'tder Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying to dischargc the petitioner for the oflence punishable under Sections 417,42O and 5O4 of lPC After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said pctition uide order dated 04. 11.2024. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal revision case is hled.

3. Heard Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for peLitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public respondent No.1 State. None Prosecutor, aPPearing for appeared for resPondent No'2 ' z

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submit ed that the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant al :ging oflenses under Sections 417, 42O, arld 504 IPC is bzt:;r less, ancl the allegations prima facre do not constitute the ofltr ses as alleged against the petitioner. He contended that the tria -'ourt errecl in dismissing the discharge petition without propt::l the lcgal and factual submissions, and a,,.c r 'appreciating -ed that the ingredients of Sections 42O and 4lT IpC, which re: rire dishonest induccment and delivery of proper[r, are not satisl :d. He lurther contended that there is no ma[erial on record t,r impiicatc the pctitioner, ercept for witness statements that do rr ,t support thc allegations, and even the statements under Sectir,r 161 Cr.P.C., do not disclose the essential elements of the all Thercforc, q'hile advocating that the petitioner l discharged, he prayed this Court to allow this ged offerlscs. liable to be evision case, discharging the petitioner from SC.No.7OT of 2022.

5. On the other hand, the learned Add i ional public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissi() rs made by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted thal t re trial Court has rightly dismissed the discharge petition, anc there are no illegalities in the said order. Therefore, he prayed .his Court to dismiss the criminal revision case. w 3

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made, on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the only point for consideration before this Court is khether the petitioner is entitled for discharge of allegations in SC.No.707 of 2022'. As sccn from record, the allegalions against this petitioner, who is accused No.2, are that she cheated the complainant by commenting that the complainan t is fat and I called off her marriage with accused No.1, and abused her in f-rlthy language. Even according to the stalement of LW.l, and the complaint averments, there are no othcr allegations leveled against the petitioner to show that petitioner promised to complainant that she would perform the marriage of complainant with accused No. 1. The relationship between the complainant and the petitioner is altogether different. The only allegation is that the petitioner cailed the complainant fat and such avcrrnent is not sufhcient to frame charges against thc petitioner for thc offences as alleged. Therefore, this Court is of the Iirm view that this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 7 . Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 04.17.2024 passed against petitioner/ accused No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.69 of 2023 in S.C.No.707 ot 2022 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions 4 Judge, Rangareddy District, at LB.Nagar, and ciis:harging tht: petitioner/ accused No.2 from the above case. Miscr:llaneous applications, if any pending, shall stirnci ck>scd //TRUE COPY// , ;O/. K.S.R. MURTHY ^E EHUTY REGISTRfrf{ ,'.\------- ' \{c-r,on oFFrcER / The XlllAdditronal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga lleddy District L B. Nagar. One CC to SRI YEh/MIGANUR SOIVA SRINATH REt) )Y Advocate IOPUC] One CC to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COUF- , HYD [OUT] Two CD Copies o To, 2 3 4 HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 I t ORDER CRLRC.No.1214 of 2024 - -_' JIATE ltr tt8 202[ ( -,- )): ,Y'f':,)'-)'' 01\ ;., li I I [\ ,'- \\o- \.'4l . \}. -t \ ALLOWING TIIE CRLRC c