THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1387 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 14.7.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2009 in C.C.No.42 of 2009 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition & Excise), at Sangareddy. The petitioners herein are the accused (A-3 to A-13) in C.C.42 of 2009. The wife of the first petitioner by name Smt.Garlapalli Kavitha is the defacto complainant. She presented a complaint before the police alleging that A-1 to A-10 demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- or two plots and harassed her on that ground and drove her from out of the matrimonial home. She further stated in her report presented before the police that A-1 married one Chakali Anjamma (A-11) as second wife and A-12 and A-13 are the parents of A-11. The police after due investigation, filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition & Excise, at Sangareddy. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.42 of 2007. The accused entered appearance and moved Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2009 under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking their discharge. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that there is enough material to frame charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 read with 109 IPC and thereafter dismissed the application filed by the petitioners, by order dated 14.7.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that except an omnibus statement of the defacto complainant, there is no other material to show that the petitioners harassed her on the ground of additional dowry. The report presented by the defacto complainant reveals that petitioners 1 to 8 along with two other persons, who have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2 harassed her on the ground of additional dowry and necked her out from the matrimonial home. The statement of the defacto complainant further reveals that A-1 married the petitioner No.9 (A-11), who is daughter of A-12 and A-13. The learned Magistrate is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking discharge. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 19th August 2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1387 of 2009 DATED : 19-08-2009