HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7099 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-defacto complainant in C.C.No.251 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Mahila Court). The petitioner filed a case against respondents 2 and 3 herein and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Totally four persons were arrayed as accused, among them accused Nos.2 and 3 are respondents 2 and 3 herein. The 1st accused, who is husband of the defacto complainant, and 4th accused are not present before this Court. The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to set side the docket order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate. The said order runs as follows: “A1 – NBW pending. A.2 to A.4 present. It is represented that health condition of A.2 is not good. Request early disposal. A.1 is somewhere in foreign. Request to split up. Split up case against A.1 and issue separate number. Call on 17.08.2009.” The petitioner raised the following grounds challenging the said order: 1) The trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction which is not permissible in Cr.P.C. of either recalling or reviewing its earlier order dated 06.11.2007 when no changed circumstances are reported. 2) The trial Court ought to have noticed that A.2 is acting as an agent of A.1 and has been prosecuting number of cases on behalf of A.1 and he cannot urge that A.1 is not apprehended. As far as the first ground is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate refused to accede to the request of respondents 2 and 3 herein and accordingly dismissed the application filed by them seeking to split up the case against A.1 and to proceed with the case against them, on the ground that there is no necessity to split the case against A.1 in view of the fact that the Investigating Agency were taking steps to apprehend A.1. The learned counsel further submitted that when the order passed on 06.11.2007 dismissing the application of respondents 2 and 3, the learned Magistrate ought not have passed the present order which amounts to review his earlier order. The contention of the learned counsel is totally erroneous since the order passed on 06.11.2007 is in the nature of interlocutory order which can be modified or altered subsequently in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Earlier order was passed on 06.11.2007 taking into consideration that there is possibility of securing A.1. The order impugned in this petition was passed on 29.07.2009 considering the fact that even after lapse of two years, the other accused (A.1) was not secured by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, the first ground raised by the learned counsel is not accepted. The 2nd ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally irrelevant to decide the present issue before this Court. Further on perusal of the record, it is seen that neither the order passed on 06.11.2007 nor the order passed on 29.07.2009 has been given effect to. After passing of the impugned order on 29.07.2009 the case proceeded further. However, till date the said order is not given effect to. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that nothing survives to pass any order, as prayed for by the petitioner. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 20TH July, 2010 CBS/MSNR HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7099 OF 2010 (Dismissed) 20th July, 2010 Cbs/Msnr