(1.) The petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.993 of 2104 pending on the file of XX Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Cyberabad. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the accused therein among other, A.1 is her husband. The C.C. is outcome of crime No.75 of 2010 from her report dated 24.02.2010 in all against 7 accused among whom A.2 and A.3 are parents in law, the 3rd respondent to the quash petition is her husbands brothers wife and the other 2 are sisters of her husband. The crime registered is for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation police final report filed and taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the said offences. It is in the pending C.C., the defacto complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.505 of 2017 under Section 302 read with 24(8) amended Cr.P.C . to permit her to prosecute through private advocate. The accused persons opposed the same by filing counter and the learned Magistrate dismissed the same by impugned order dated 24.07.2017.
(2.) The contentions impugning the said dismissal order in the present quash petition are that the said order is contrary to law and settled proposition and provisions and learned Magistrate ought to have permitted to prosecute the case and thereby the dismissal order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/petitioner herein reiterated the said contentions in seeking to set aside the dismissal order and allow the same. Whereas the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the impugned order is within the judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court and that no way requires interference much less by exercising the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereby sought for dismissal of the quash petition. The learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent- State sought for deciding the matter on own merits to abide.
(3.) Heard both sides and perused the material on record.