V RANGANAYAKI AND Vs. V J SRINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law has arisen in these three Revision Cases, they can be disposed of together. A short, but an important question of maintainability of a revision at the instance of a private party against an Order passed by the trial Court in a police case pending trial of the main case has arisen at the threshold of the filing of these cases.

(2.) In Criminal Revision Case No. 1126 of 2000, when on a memo filed by the prosecution praying the Court to frame additional charges under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that petition was dismissed under the impugned Order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 3211 of 2000 in C. C. No. 861 of 1995 dated 22-9-2000 by the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, the de facto complainant has sought to assail the same.

(3.) In Criminal Revision Case No. 1318 of 2000 when the prosecution filed a petition under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for brevity) to summon the records pertaining to C.C. No. 41 of 1999 and when that application was dismissed under the impugned Order dated 27-10-2000 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl. M. P. No. 2520 of 2000 in C. C. No. 234 of 1999, the de facto complainant sought to assail the same.