IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.153 of 2010 Between: Ch. Sridevi … Petitioner And: The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.153 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 03.11.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.44 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, wherein the learned Sessions Judge modified the order dated 04.08.2009 in CC No.88 of 2005 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner-de-facto complainant is the wife of 2nd respondent-accused. On a complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.55 of 2003 was registered by Kushaiguda Police for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the 2nd respondent. After framing of the charges, the trial was commenced and PWs.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the prosecution. At that stage, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.3835 of 2009 under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for adding of additional charges under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 324, 325 or 326 of IPC. The 2nd respondent-accused filed a counter opposing the said application. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 04.08.2009 allowed the said petition and directed framing of additional charges under Sections 324 and 325 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.R.P.No.44 of 2009. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by order dated 03.11.2009 allowed the said revision petition and set aside the additional charges under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 324 of IPC and directed to frame charges under Section 323 in addition to Section 325 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-de-facto complainant filed the present petition. 4. Section 216 Cr.P.C. enables the Court to alter or to add charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Basing on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the contents of the complaint-Ex.P.1, the learned Magistrate held that the ingredients of additional charges proposed are prima-facie attracted. The learned Sessions Judge up held framing of additional charge for the offence under Section 325 IPC and directed deletion of proposed charges under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge also rightly upheld the power of the trial Court to add new charges basing on the evidence available on record. 5. According to PW.1 her parents gave cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and also Ac.6.00 of agricultural land towards dowry. In the cross- examination, she however stated that the said land was sold and her mother executed agreement of sale in her favour for the said extent of Ac.6.00 and the said version was corroborated by PWs.2 and 3. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, held that there was no sufficient material to frame a charge under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, because, the agricultural land was given to the daughter at the time of the marriage. According to the petitioner, it is specifically alleged in the complaint and also statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PWs.1 to 3 that the accused demanded additional dowry and asked her to sell away the land standing in her name and she gave away the sale proceeds to him and therefore, section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is attracted. 6. The sale of agricultural land by the complainant belonging to her does not attract the provisions of the section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The vague allegation that the accused demanded additional dowry without there being any supporting material to substantiate the same does not also warrant framing of any charge under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is not disputed that the 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.P.No.10725 of 2009 questioning the very same impugned order dated 03.11.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.44 of 2009 and this Court by order dated 23.12.2009 dismissed the said petition and confirmed the additional charges as modified by the learned Sessions Judge. In the said order, it is further directed that almost all the witnesses have already been examined, except the Investigating Officer, the trial Court was directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order duly considering the question of limitation at the time of pronouncing the judgment. The impugned order dated 03.11.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.44 of 2009 was assailed in Crl.P.No.10725 of 2009 and the same was considered and the impugned order was confirmed. 7. Even otherwise, the material on record does not afford sufficient basis for further modification of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The de-facto complainant would do well to cooperate with the prosecution and see that the matter is disposed of early as directed by this Court in the earlier order in Crl.P.No.10725 of 2009 instead of trying to prolong the proceedings of the trial. There are no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that too in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.12.2010 bss