Telangana High Court
Panthegolla Manikyappa vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.222 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner,
aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.863 of 2024 in S.C.No.18 of 2023, on the file of I
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The petitioner is questioning the dismissal of the
discharge application filed by him before the District and
Sessions Judge. The offences under Sections 307 and 498-A
of IPC were taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate
and committed to the Court of Sessions, and in the Sessions
Court, a discharge application was filed, which was
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.
4. The case of the defacto complainant, who is the wife of
the petitioner, is that the petitioner was her husband, who is
harassing her for additional dowry, and on the date of
incident, i.e., 09.08.2021, the petitioner beat her, sat on her,
and poured sainik pesticide into her mouth. On the basis of
the said complaint, the crime was registered under Sections
307 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
5. Learned Magistrate committed the case, having found
that the offence under Section 307 is made out.
6. The petitioner then approached the Sessions Judge by
filing a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
7. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the
Police have deleted the offence under Section 307 of IPC and
filed a charge sheet only for the offences under Sections 498-
A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Once the
investigation of the Police revealed that the petitioner did not
commit any act falling within the ingredients of Section 307
of IPC, learned Sessions Judge ought to have relied upon the
final report of the Police to discharge the petitioner from the
offence under Section 307 of IPC.
8. Having gone through the record, it appears that there
were two persons in the room, one is the petitioner and the
other is the defacto complainant, who are husband and wife.
At the earliest point of time, it is alleged that the petitioner
beat the defacto complainant, sat on her, and forcibly poured
sainik pesticide into her mouth.
9. The Police filed a charge sheet stating that the defacto
complainant tried to commit suicide. No reasons are given in
the charge sheet/final report for the Police to arrive at such a
conclusion. Unless there is evidence that was collected
during the course of investigation by the Police, the question
of deleting the provision under Section 307 of IPC does not
arise. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the
application seeking discharge. There are absolutely no
grounds to entertain the revision.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.04.2025
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.222 OF 2025
Dt. 04.04.2025
dv
