THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1885 OF 2004 DATED: 08-07-2010 Between Pedda Subbannagari Punyavathi …Petitioner-complainant And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another. …Respondents-Complainant and accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1885 OF 2004 ORDER: This revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order, dated 02-08-2004, in C.F.R.No.1560 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur, whereunder and whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the 2nd respondent herein under Section 200 and 190 (c) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage of the complainant with the accused was performed on 16-08-1989 before the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Madanapalli. Without giving divorce to her, he married Reddikumari on 01-01-1996. On a complaint given by the complainant, police registered a case and the said case was ended in acquittal. On 07-12-2002, the accused came to the house of the complainant and demanded amount towards dowry alleging that he incurred heavy expenditure and threatened the complainant and her mother with dire consequences. Again on 14-04-2004, at 10.30 A.M. the accused reached Primary Health Centre, Kandur where the complainant is working as A.N.M. and demanded the amount and threatened her. The waterman of the health centre intervened and sent the accused away. Again on 21-05-2004 the accused came to the health centre with rowdies and caught hold of tuft of the complainant, dragged her for a distance, threatened her with dire consequences and demanded the amount. When she questioned his acts, the accused slapped her. Therefore, she lodged a complaint with the police. When the police did not take any action, she filed the private complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the complaint allegations coupled with the sworn statement of P.W.1 would go to show that the 2nd respondent herein came to the place where the petitioner was working on 14-04-2004 and on 21-05-2004 and made unlawful demand, which is an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent herein contended that on the same allegations, the earlier case got filed by the complainant was acquitted and that order has become final, that therefore, it amounts to double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C., and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 5. There cannot be any dispute that no person can be prosecuted twice for the same offence. As seen from the record, the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in respect of the offence of cruelty prior to 2002 has become final. The complaint allegation is that on 14-04-2004 at about 10.30 A.M. while the complainant was present at Primary Health Centre, Kandur, where she was working as A.N.M., the accused came to her and demanded the amount stating that he incurred heavy expenditure. Again on 21-05-2004, the accused went to the complainant and demanded the amount. There is no dispute that the marriage of the accused with the complainant took place in the year 1989 and the marriage is still subsisting because marriage was not dissolved by the competent court of law. 6. Under Section 498-A I.P.C., whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty, he shall be punishable. Explanation: For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means- “(a) any willful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” So, any unlawful demand made by a husband is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. At the stage of issuing process, it is not necessary to test whether the allegations in the complaint and the sworn statement are true and correct. If the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint and the sworn statement of P.W.1, if taken as true and correct, at this stage, made out a prima facie offence under Section 498-A IPC. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not given any report to the police. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order, dated 02-08-2004, in C.F.R.No.1560 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur. The trial Court is directed to take further evidence, if any, on behalf of the complainant and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:08-07-2010 Hsd