RAMA KOTESHWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the orders dated 05.10.2009 passed in Crl.M.P. No.395 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2009 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) The petitioners herein who are A2, A4 and A5 filed a petition under Section 391 Cr.P.C to summon P.Ws.1 and 8 for further cross-examination to elicit certain omissions and contradictions as additional evidence. Since the said petition was dismissed, the petitioners herein filed the present revision challenging the said order.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows. The de facto complainant P. Madhavi who is examined as P.W.I is the wife of A1. A2 is the father-in-law, A3 is the mother-in-law, A4 is the brother-in-law and A5 is the sister-in-law of P.W.1. PW.1 lodged a complaint to the police stating that she is working as Senior Accountant in Government Central Press, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, and that her marriage was performed with Al in the year 1993 and that at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/- dowry and Rs.50,000/- towards other expenses and that after marriage she joined her husband. It is further alleged that Al started harassing her demanding additional dowry and that at that time he was unemployee. It is also her case that in 1994 she gave birth to a female child and that in 1995 her husband secured a job as Accounts Assistant in GAIL and joined in his job at Uttar Pradesh. It is also the case of P.W.I that Al never bothered to look after her and her daughter and that Al had not taken her with him. It is also alleged that Al demanded Rs.3,00,000/- dowry and that with great difficulty her parents arranged the said amount. It is also her case that subsequently she applied leave and joined her husband in U.P. It is also her case that even in U.P. her husband harassed her mentally and physically demanding additional dowry. It is also her case that her father expired and her elder sister and younger brother were unable to fulfill the demand of Al. It is also her case that in the year 2000 Al was transferred to Hyderabad and that he had obtained loan of Rs.10,00,000/ - as House Building Advance and constructed first floor on the existing building of his father at Miyapur. It is also the case of PW.l that Al left her in her parents house. It is also her case that on the instigation of his parents and sister, Al harassed her for additional dowry and due to financial constraints she could not fulfill his demand. Basing on the above complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.854 of 2002 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On the representation of PW.1, the case was transferred to CID for further investigation.