P SURENDERNATH REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 27.06.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2886 of 2017 in Crime No.97 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the protest petition filed by the petitioner/complainant against the final report in Crime No.97 of 2016 of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad, was dismissed.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein filed a private complaint against his father-in-law (A1), wife (A2) and four other police officials (A3 to A6) for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 220, 344, 346, 120-B of IPC and Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act before the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who referred the same to the police, Saifabad, Hyderabad for investigation and report. The police registered the same as a case in Crime No.97 of 2016 against the accused under the aforesaid Sections of law. After due investigation, the police opined that it is a 'mistake of fact and accordingly a final report was filed before the I-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. After receipt of notice, the revision petitioner filed the aforesaid protest petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.2886 of 2017 seeking to take up the complaint on file and to conduct enquiry and punish the accused according law. Along with the protest petition, the revision petitioner produced 23 documents to establish the incident. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the revision petitioner/complainant and one A.Venkateshwar Rao. However, the learned Magistrate, by an order dated 27.06.2018, dismissed the said protest petition. Questioning the said order, the revision petitioner/complainant filed the present revision.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the revision petitioner/complainant with accused No.2 took place on 11.03.2012 as per Hindu Rights and Customs. Both the petitioner and accused No.2 are well educated and settled as Medical Practitioners and that there was no demand of dowry. It is stated that there was an Income Tax raid in the house of accused No.1, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner, and his family members on 26.12.2012. At that time accused No.1 and his family members distributed huge amounts to their relatives and friends. During the said process, accused No.1 got transferred an amount of RS.25,00,000/- from the account of his son to the account of the mother of the petitioner and subsequently, the said amount was taken by accused No.1 on different dates, whenever he needed. Taking advantage of the said transactions, accused No.1 insisted accused No.2 to pressurize the petitioner to stay back in their house as Illatam son-in-law and that A-2 demanded the petitioner to stay with them in their house, otherwise they are going to involve the petitioner and his family in a false dowry harassment case, but the petitioner refused to oblige the demand of accused Nos.1 and 2. Keeping the same in mind and bore grudge against the petitioner, accused Nos.1 and 3 conspired together and with the assistance of other accused, brought the petitioner from Kakinada to Hyderabad without there being any complaint and illegally confined him for about 12 days in Women Police Station, Hyderabad. During the said period, the petitioner was harassed by the police officials without providing food and water and he was also manhandled to accept the demand of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also stated that accused Nos.3 to 6 at the instance of accused No.1 violated legal provisions and committed the aforesaid offences.