Telangana High Court
Mohd. Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 22 January, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Revision Case No.764 OF 2023
Between:
Mohd. Khan and others ... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana
Through Public Prosecutor and another. ..Respondents/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :22.01.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.R.C. No.764 of 2023
% Dated 22.01.2024
# Mohd. Khan and others ... Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana
through Public Prosecutor and another Respondents/Complainants
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Khaja Moinuddin
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.764 of 2023
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioners are A3 to A12 charged for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 409, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The defacto complainant lodged complaint alleging that her
marriage with A1 was performed on 08.03.2021 in accordance with
the Muslim rights and customs. At the time of marriage, Rs.5.00
lakhs cash, ten tulas of gold were given as dowry and huge
amounts were spent on marriage and dinner. After joining A1, the
defacto complainant was ill-treated. Accused demanded Rs.5.00
lakhs as additional dowry and also Rado watch. Since the
additional dowry was not given, harassment increased and mother-
in-law forced her to eat stale food. She was accommodated in a
room which was filthy and not fit for human habitation.
3. Further, the case of the defacto complainant is that she
became pregnant and A1 asked her to abort for the reason of
suspecting that she was pregnant having relation with someone
else. The said demand for additional dowry was informed to the
mother. Mother arranged for Rado watch. However, accused started
demanding Rs.5.00 lakhs. Unable to bear the harassment and also
for the said reason of incurring Rs.16.00 lakhs towards dowry and
expenditure in the marriage, complaint was filed. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed against these petitioners, who
are arrayed as A3 to A12 and A1 to A3.
4. These petitioners filed petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C
before trial Court seeking discharge from the case on the ground
that nothing is alleged specifically any of these petitioners.
5. Learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad passed order dated 08.09.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2632 of
2023 in C.C.No.2489 of 2022 refusing to discharge the petitioners.
Reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is that the statements of
the prosecution witnesses prima facie make out a case against
these petitioners. Further, since the case is at initial stage without
conducting full-fledged trial, the Court cannot discharge the
petitioners. Moreover, it is not necessary for the Court to look into
the facts and circumstances of the case only for the reason of the
accused belonging to the respectable families and some of them are
ladies who were living separately.
6. Having gone through the complaint and the statements of the
witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, none of the
witnesses have stated anything against these petitioners leave
alone naming them. Not a single incident or instance is narrated
showing involvement of any of these petitioners. It is not known as
to what formed the basis for the police to include the names of
these petitioners as accused, when there are no allegations made
against them by any of the witnesses who are examined during
investigation.
7. Learned Magistrate erred in finding that it is not necessary for
the Court to look into the facts and circumstances of the case. The
very intention of the legislature in introducing Section 239 and 227
of Cr.P.C for discharging the accused is to see to that prosecution
shall not continue against persons against whom there is no prima
facie case that is made out. Leave alone a prima facie case, the
petitioners are not even named anywhere either in the complaint or
in the statements made by the witnesses. Learned Magistrate
ought to have invoked power under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to
discharge the petitioners. Such frivolous prosecution has to be
nipped at the bid. The trial Courts should unhesitatingly discharge
the accused, when there is no case and shall not subject accused
to the rigmarole of a criminal trial, only for the reason of being
named in the charge sheet.
8. Since there are no allegations against any of these petitioners
much less any specific allegation, the continuance of criminal
proceedings against petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of
the Court. Trial Courts time is precious and there is a long
pendency of cases. Trial Courts cannot waste time on such cases,
where the chance of finding accused guilty is almost nil. When
there is no evidence on record, which even creates an element of
suspicion of guilt, the accused shall be discharged without waiting
for the trial to conclude.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed
discharging the petitioners/A3 to A12 in C.C.No.2489 of 2022.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 in
Crl.M.P.No.2632 of 2023 in C.C.No.2489 of 2022 is set aside.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.01.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
Bo.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.764 OF 2023
Dt. 22.01.2024
kvs
