MADARI SHEETHAL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order, dated 24.01.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2016 on the file of the V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, confirming the order of the XV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1061 of 2015 in C.C.No.164 of 2011, dated 14.08.2015.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/de facto complainant lodged two complaints against respondent Nos.2 to 4/ A-1 to A-3 herein, one is before Gopalapuram Police Station, Secunderabad and another before the Women Police Station, Begumpet, alleging therein that her marriage was performed with respondent No.2/A-1 on 22.10.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry and Rs.25,000/- to the elder sister of respondent No.2/A-1 towards Adapaduchu katnam, a wrist watch and five tulas of gold. After marriage, she joined her husband and they lived together for some time. Later, respondent Nos.2 to 4 started harassing her that she has no job and they also subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry. Unable to bear such harassment, she lodged the above two complaints. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the trial Court, who in turn took the case on file against respondent Nos.2 to 4/A-1 to A-3 and numbered the same as C.C.No.164 of 2011.

(3.) When the aforesaid Calendar Case was coming up for arguments, the State represented by Public Prosecutor, filed Crl.M.P.No.1061 of 2015 under section 216 of Cr.P.C., to take cognizance against respondent Nos.2 to 4/A-1 to A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the ground that the prosecution failed to take steps at the appropriate time seeking for addition of the said penal provisions and also on the ground that the learned Magistrate failed to frame charges. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate, holding that the ingredients constituting an offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, were not attracted. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2016 before the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Vide order, dated 27.10.2017, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, disposed of the matter, directing the Magistrate to add Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.2 to 4/A-1 to A-3 preferred Crl.R.C.No.2944 of 2017 before this Court. By an order, dated 07.12.2017, this Court allowed the said revision and remanded the matter to the V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, after hearing the matter afresh, dismissed the said revision. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant.