IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 496 of 2005 Between: Smt. V.Bhagyalaxmi … Petitioner-Defacto complainant V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & 5-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. Ramani Jonna Counsel for the Respondents : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 496 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is filed by the defacto complainant against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar {FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Karimnagar} in CC.No. 52 of 2003, dated 10-12-2004, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found the respondents 2 to 6 (A-1 to A-5) not guilty of the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The respondents 2 to 6 (A-1 to A5) were tried for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the respondents 2 to 6 (A-1 to A-5) not guilty for the offences referred to hereinabove and acquitted them under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner-defacto complainant. 3. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 (A-1 to A-5) submitted that against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate, the State represented through Public Prosecutor has also preferred Criminal Appeal No.1051 of 2010 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 31-8-2010. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 also produced a copy of the order dated 31-8-2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2010. The order in Criminal Appeal No.1051 of 2010, dated 31-8-2010, reads as hereunder: The Public Prosecutor seeks to file this appeal questioning order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar in C.C. No.52 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. A-1 is husband of the victim/P.W.1. P.W.2 is father of P.W.1. A-2 and A-3 are parents, A-4 and A-5 are brothers of A-1. According to the prosecution, an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- besides household articles worth Rs.15,000/- were given at the time of P.W.1’s marriage with A-1 towards dowry and that after 10 months of peaceful living, A-1 used to harass P.W.1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and that A-2 to A-5 were joining with A-1 to harass P.W.1. In the evidence during trial P.W.1 stated that it was A-1 who was harassing her and that whenever she was going to her in-laws’ house for holidays and festivals, A-2 to A-5 used to instigate A-1 for harassing her for additional dowry. 3. Except the alleged instigation, there was no direct harassment of P.W.1 by A-2 to A-5. P.W.2 is not a witness for the alleged harassment. According to P.W.2, he presented Rs.1,30,000/- as dowry besides other household articles worth Rs.15,000/- and promised to pay remaining dowry of Rs.20,000/- after marriage. Thus, it is not a case of demanding additional dowry, but at best it can be said it was a case of asking for payment of balance of agreed dowry. P.W.3 who is stated to be an elder in mediation between the parties did not speak anything about the alleged harassment of the victim for the sake of additional dowry. 4. Simple household or family disputes between wife and husband cannot be equated with harassment for the sake of dowry. The lower court considered the entire prosecution evidence and came to a right conclusion holding that A-1 to A-5 are not guilty of the offences. I see no infirmity in the order of acquittal recorded by the lower court. 5. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 4. Hence, this Court is of the view that when once there is already an adjudication passed by this Court against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the view that there is no need for this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 21-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 496 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 122 Date: 21-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L