THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.826 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner herein, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the order, dated 17-11-2000, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2000 in C.C.No.198 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad, Chittoor District, whereby the respondents herein-accused were discharged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein-de facto complainant is the wife of the 1st respondent-A1 and subsequent to the marriage, all the respondents herein harassed her for not getting dowry. Thereafter, as the 1st respondent herein-A1 pronounced ‘talaq’ as per their law, petitioner herein- de facto complainant filed M.C.No.17 of 1992 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madanapalle, seeking maintenance and the same was dismissed. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.36 of 1995 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle for declaration that the talaq given by him is valid and pending the same, both the petitioner herein and the 1st respondent joined together and led family life. During that period also, respondents harassed the petitioner herein and therefore she filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad, who in turn forwarded the same to the police, and the police filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.198 of 1999. Pending the same, respondents-accused filed Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2002 under Section 227 Cr.P.C., requesting the Court to discharge them and the Court below, having considered the material on record, allowed the said petition and discharged the respondents herein. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner herein-de facto complainant filed the present revision. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. Having gone through the order passed by the Court below and having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner this court is of the considered opinion that the court below is perfectly justified in discharging the respondents 1 to 5 for the alleged offences since there is no prima facie evidence available on record to proceed against them. Further, inasmuch as the notices on the respondents are not served even after eight years, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in this revision needs no interference at this length of time. Further, this is a revision preferred under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. under which the jurisdiction of this court is very limited. Even if any material irregularity is found in the impugned order, at best, this court can remand the matter to the Court below for fresh adjudication, but cannot give an altogether different finding. 5. For all the above, this court finds no merits in this Criminal Revision Case and hence the same is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy