JESLINA GHEI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is filed seeking to assail the order dated 13-12-2004 in Crl. R. P. No. 252 of 2004, on the file of the IV-Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 05-10-2004 in crl. M. P. No. 3619 of 2004 in C. C. No. 197 of 1997, on the file of the XXII metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr. P. C. , for recall of P. W. 1, was allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and wife of respondent No. 2 herein. She gave a complaint against respondents 2 and 3 herein accusing them of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. After investigation, police filed the charge sheet against respondents 2 and 3. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A and section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C. C. No. 197 of 1997. After a chequered career, the trial of the accused ultimately commenced. P. W. 2 was originally examined-in-chief, but her evidence was eschewed on 03-12-2003 as she did not appear for cross-examination. The prosecution filed Crl. M. P. No. 225 of 2004 under section 311 Cr. P. C. , for recall of P. W. 2. The learned XXII Metropolitan magistrate by order dated 22-01-2004 allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl. R. P. No. 48 of 2004, on the file of the VII-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 22-01-2004. The evidence of p. W. 2 thus remained off the record. Subsequently, the prosecution filed a fresh application Crl. M. P. No. 3619 of 2004 under Section 311 Cr. P. C. , for recall of p. W. 2 for fresh examination. The said petition was allowed by the learned XXII metropolitan Magistrate exercising the power under Section 311 Cr. P. C. , and observed that the evidence of P. W. 2, being the mother of the de facto complainant, is essential for the purpose of prosecution case. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred revision in Crl. R. P. No. 252 of 2004 and the learned iv-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by order dated 13-12-2004 allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 05-10-2004 of the learned XXII metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that the earlier order in Crl. R. P. No. 48 of 2004 remained unchallenged. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Sessions judge, the present revision case is filed by the de facto complainant.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Records are perused.