IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY. THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.769 of 2006 Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17-3-2006 made in C.C.No.343/2002 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District. Between: Gudimella Sandhya, W/o. G.L.N.V.Raghavan, aged about 29 years, R/o. D.No.31-16-33/1 Machavaram Down, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/P.W.1 AND rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati, Through sub-inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police 1. State of A.P. Station, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. Gudimella Lakshmi Narasimha Venkata Raghavan Avadanandan, aged about 34 years Panchayat Office, Gowravaram, Sanivarapu Peta Godavari District. (A-1) S/o. Late Junior assistant. District Eluru, West 3. Smt. Gudimella Yathirajavali, W/o. Late Avadanandan, aged about 56 years, C/o. Gudimella Venkatacharyulu, R.R.Pet Eluru, West Godavari District. (A-2) ...Respondents/Accused / Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1 Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri Turaga Sai Surya The Court made the following: : Public Prosecutor f APHC010124402006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO^ 769/2006 Between: Gudimella Sandhya ...PETITIONER AND State Of A P Rep By Its Public Prosecutor And 2 Another ...RESPONDENT{S) and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PPRABHAKARRAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.TURAGA SAI SURYA THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the order dated 17.03.2006 passed in C.C.No.343 of 2002 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District (in short ‘the trial Court’) in acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (A1 and A2) for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ the I.P.C.’) under Section 248 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. \ 2 Dr.YLR, Crl.R.CNo.769 of2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 2. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned Ms.Akhila Naidu counsel for the petitioner. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor respondent No. 1-State and Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned appearing for counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Sri P.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is the wife/defacto complainant before reiterating the grounds of Revision, he argued that that the the trial Court. While even though P.Ws1 to 5 categoncally supported the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3; the observations of the Civil understood in the limited on the outcome of criminal case as the evidence in the criminal case alone, is to be considered- if Court in the matrimonial proceedings have to be context of disposal of the case and it is not decisive the evidence of P.Ws1 to 3 defined under Section 498(A) of I.P.C.; are examined, it would constitute cruelty as P.W.1 deposed about the cruelty no cross examination to impeach the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, it was sufficient to find the guilt of the meted out to her and there was respondent Nos.2 and 3 and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Per Contra, Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for Nos.2 and 3 argued that the learned trial Court having evidence of the prosecution witnesses, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyon^asonable doubt the respondent examined in the /r 3 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.769 of 2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 and therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly found the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not guilty for the offence under Section 498(A) of the I.P.C. He further submits that the Judgment of the learned Trial Court doesn’t require any interference on whatsoever grounds and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on both sides. Perused the record. 6. 7. Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the judgment in C.C.No.343 of 2002, dated 17.03.2006, passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 9. The marriage between P.W.1 and A1 was performed on 19.05.1996 in Rice Millers Convent School, Palakol, as per Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. At the time of marriage P.Ws2 and 3 gave Rs.46,000/- to A1 towards Dowry, subsequently, P.W.1 joined with the A1 to lead marital life at Eluru. After three months the A1 was transferred to Narsapur. A2 and sister- 8. the 4 Dr.YLR,^ Crl.R.C.No.769 of2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 during their wed lock, they in-law of P.W.1 has been residing with them and blessed with a son. From the date of marriage, the accused P.W.1 saying that the dowry amount which demanded to bring additional dowry amount from her started harassing was given was not sufficient and parents houses and they used to harass P.W.1. They used to say that they would perform another marriage to A1, if P.W.1 fails to bring additional amount and they necked out P.W.1 from the house. Thereupon, she had qi Vijayawada, the police pacified the matter and given a complaint to police in sent her to A1 to lead marital life. A1 addicted to vices and used to come late in the night in a drunken Stage. When P.W.1 questioned the behavior A1 used to say that he developed illegal intimacy with one Mythili, who is his colleague. When P.W.1 questioned the same, A1 used to say that he will live with Mythili and asked her to go away. While that being so, A1 beat her and necked her out from the house. She sent P.Ws.2 and 3 to the accused with but the accused refused. Accordingly to P.Ws. a request to take her back, 2 and 3 also, the accused harassed P.W.1 and demanded dowry. She had gone to Police Station gave complaint, but the police refused to receive the complaint. Then, P.W.1 filed a private complaint before the Court this Court referred the S.H.O., for investigation and as in Ex.P1 and upon receiving the same. report. P.W.5 registered the same and issued Ex.P3 F.I.R. after completion of investigation, P.W.5 laid charge sheet against the accused. Therefore the prosecution contends that 498(A) of I.P.C. as they the accused are liable for the offences under Section harassed P.W.1. // 5 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.769 of2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 On perusal, this Court finds that to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and Ex.DI is marked for the accused; the learned Trial Court by threadbare analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not believe the version of the prosecution and acquitted the respondent Nos.2 and 3, there were no misreading of evidence and there were no material irregularities . In this connection, it is apposite to refer the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at 10. 11. Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. ...We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re- appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled bv a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional Jurisdiction may be Justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional Jurisdiction ^2002) 6 see 650 6 Dr.YLR,0^ Crl.R.C.No.769 of2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. of Criminal 13. . ■■■ — absence of any legal infirmity nithe^r in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, therfi ^ the High Court to interfere in was no iustificafinn fnr . ^ ^ gxerc/se of its revisional iurisdinfinn it has repeatedly been held that the High Court ahouM nnt ^ a findincj rliff^rent fmm th^ tri^i Court. In the absence ot manifest illedMv resulting in mscamaqe of justice, exem^e of revisinnol jurisdiction in ^ cases IS not warranted ” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ at Paragraph No. 10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt, has no right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public Justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage ofJustice. This Jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AF^, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: 13. '7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought ift to appeal; but this Jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage ofJustice. Sub section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ^AIR1951SC 196 ^AIR1962SC 1788 / / / / 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.769 of 2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover air contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal In revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no Jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court vi/as doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 14. From the authoritative pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that this Court being a Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in the Revision filed by the defacto complainant. 15. There was no misreading of the evidence in finding the revisionist guilty by the trial court and the Appellate Court. There are no perverse findings. The learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and found the revisionist guilty for the offences charged. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction. 8 Dr.YLR, Crl.R.C.No.769 of2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 respondent 16. It is not out of place to mention that,here that P.W.1 and No.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.83 of 2017, on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, and the competent Civil Court granted decree of divorce mutual consent. The petitioner filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.745 of 2018 on the file of this Court. on 17. The relevant paras of the Judgment in C.M.A.No.745 of 2018 i extracted hereunder: 6. The order records in para-10, that the appellant received an amount of Rs.22,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- from the respondent/husband in the presence of elders and she also reported that she had no objection to give divorce. The respondent/husban d also reported to the Court that he had no objection for divorce, as per the settlement between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that conditions of the agreement at page-28 of the appeal compiled with. 8 By the orders passed previously, the respondent was asked to file the affidavit. IS terms and memo, are not 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that an affidavit has been filed, inter-alia submitting that the condition Nos 2 5 & 6 of the ■ agreement, dated 18.04.2017 said to have been not complied, because those conditions were dependent on the compliance of certain conditions by the wife, which she did not comply The wife/appellant had to withdraw the cases filed by her against the husband/respondent, but those cases are still pending, respondent has also remarried after the decree of divorce 26.11.2018. The on 10. The appellant has filed the reply affidavit, inter-alia denyinq the contents of the affidavit of the respondent. 11. On consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that the petition for divorce i/i/as filed by the appellant/wife. The same ivas decreed, based on the submissions advanced before the learned Court. Some compromise i/zas entered between the parties out of the Court. However, the compromise' was ,' // 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.769 of2006 Dated: 17.03.2025 not filed before the Court in the proceedings. Any verification of the compromise did not take place. The wife however, received some benefit of Rs.23,00,000/-. Consequently we are of the view that filing of the appeal to set aside the divorce decree alleging the violation of some of the terms and conditions of the agreement/compromise cannot be maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any argument so as to challenging the decree on merits. The entire effort of the wife is to get compliance of the said agreement/compromise, out of Court, of the allegedly violated conditions. In other words, the appeal appears to have been filed for implementation of the compromise, not even brought before the learned Court. It is not so permissible in this appeal. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, however, leaving it open for the appellant to seek such other relief, as may be open, before the appropriate forum of law. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court opines that there are no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the case is liable to be dismissed. 18. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavari District, (with records if any) 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police Station Godavari District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati [OUT] 4. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate [OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Three CD Copies Eluru, West Eluru, West TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.769 of 2006 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE