* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA + Criminal Revision Case No.1773 of 2011 % Date: 04.11.2011 B e t w e e n: # Thota Sambasiva Rao s/o.Venkataramaiah Revision Petitioner A n d $ The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor Respondent ! Counsel for the Revision petitioner : Party in person ^ Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor < GIST : > HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred : Nil THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1773 OF 2011 ORDER: That the sole accused in C.C. No.376 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, aggrieved by the orders dated 10.8.2011 passed in Criminal M.P. No.1299 of 2011 and whereby his discharge petition was dismissed, has preferred this Criminal Revision Case assailing the said impugned order, inter alia, contending that the trial Court has failed to take contentions raised by him; that the defacto complainant, who is his wife, at the instigation of her parents preferred a false complaint against him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC; that the information gathered by the prosecution and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not disclose any prima facie case; that the trial Court failed to appreciate his further contention that his wife – de facto complainant left matrimonial home under her own volition by taking away their two sons and she has been residing at her parents place; that he did not harass or ill-treat his wife; that the trial Court also failed to appreciate the fact that on earlier occasion on a complaint given by his wife, a case was registered under Section 498-A IPC against him, his elder brother and mother in C.C. No. 118 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, which resulted in acquittal. 2. Heard the revision petitioner in person as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is submitted by both the sides that the trial schedule in C.C. No.376 of 2006 was fixed and summons were already dispatched to the witnesses and the trial is likely to commence shortly. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that the revision petitioner had earlier filed a petition in Criminal Petition No.2902 of 2007 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.376 of 2006 on the file of the trial Court raising similar contentions. However, this Court by an order dated 20.8.2007 dismissed the said Criminal Petition observing that if the allegations in the complaint, statements of witnesses and charge sheet do not make out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, then only question of quashing the charge sheet arises. That the allegations in the complaint is that the petitioner demanding the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry. That any unlawful demand made by husband or any relative of the husband for any property or valuable security amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. His acquittal in previous case C.C. No.118 of 2003, which was tried for the offence under Section 498-A on the complaint of his wife, is based on a different and distinct cause of action, and, as such, the question of double jeopardy does not arise. 5. So far as the impugned order in this revision is concerned, the petitioner-accused raised self same pleas as he has raised before the trial Court as well as this Court in Criminal Petition No.2902 of 2007. The trial Court, while passing the impugned order, in the discharge petition also had taken note of proceedings in C.C. No.118 of 2003, divorce petition filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.79 of 2006, G.W.O.P. No.127 of 2007 seeking guardianship of his children and M.C.No.34 of 2007 filed by his wife for maintenance as well as the Criminal Petition No. 2902 of 2007 filed by the petitioner before the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 376 of 2006. The trial Court after taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter as well as the aforesaid proceedings between the parties, pending disposal, has found that there was no material on record justifying or warranting discharge of the revision petitioner-accused and has rightly dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1299 of 2011 and the same in the opinion of this Court, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity, and, as such, it is not liable to be interfered with. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order in Criminal M.P. No1299 of 2011 in C.C. No.376 of 2006 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada. ___________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date: 04.11.2011 CHV/STP/PV Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/O. Stp