Telangana High Court
Mohd. Shahed Akhter, Maharashtra ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., on 22 April, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.341 OF 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and
401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.02.2014 passed
in Crl.A.No.90 of 2013 on file of the learned I Additional Sessions
Judge, Nizamabad (for short 'the appellate Court').
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and
perused the record.
3. This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of
the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani
Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1", wherein it was
categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal
for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of Pw.1 was
performed with accused No.1 on 08.11.1998. At the time of
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
marriage, P.W.1's parents gave (05) tulas of gold ornaments and
Jahez articles, all worth of Rs.2,11,492/- and dowry amount of
Rs.30,000/- to accused Nos.1 and 2. As agreed, accused No.1 and
his mother, Haseena Begum/accused No.2 presented (03) tulas of
gold ornaments worth of Rs.36,000/- and 10 costly sarees worth of
Rs.10,000/- to PW.1. After six months of the marriage, accused
Nos.1 and 2 started harassing PW.1 for additional dowry of
Rs.50,000/-. PW.1's brother, Abid Hussain (PW.2) paid Rs.25,000/-
to accused No.2 for securing government job to him. Not satisfied
with that amount, accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to harass PW.1
and PW.1 bore the harassment. PW.1 has taken to her parent's
house for delivery and on 05.09.1999 she delivered a male child.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not come to see a child. After three
months, PW.1 joined the company of accused No.1. Accused Nos.1
and 2 made demand for payment of additional amount and
subjected PW.1 to ill treatment and harassment. PWs.1 and 2
moved peace committee of mosque to settle the dispute. On
12.01.2000 and 15.01.2000 meetings were held and accused No.1
was convinced to take back PW.1. After two or three weeks of
taking back PW.1, accused Nos.1 ad 2 again harassed PW.1 and
drove her out of the house by snatching away the gold ornaments
from her person. PW.1 lodged complaint with the police of
ornaments from her person. PW.1 lodged complaint with the police
of Nanded. Since then, PW.1 has been living with her brothers with
a hope that accused No.1 would take her back. But on 19.05.2006,
accused No.2 married Mahajabeen/accused No.1. Two months
prior to 08.07.2008, PW.1 came to know of the said marriage. On
15.06.2008 PW.1 and her brothers asked accused Nos.1 to 3 to
return to PW.1 that Jahez articles, the amounts paid to accused
No.1 and her gold ornaments and sarees, but accused Nos.1 to 3
did not return the same. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has
preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.90 of 2013. After considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court has also
dismissed the appeal confirming the Judgment of the trial Court.
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned Judgment, this criminal
revision case has been preferred.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State would submit that the learned appellate Court
after appreciating the material facts before it has passed the order.
Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted.
Hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal revision case.
6. Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the entire material available
on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well
reasoned order passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Revision Case.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 22.04.2024
mmr
