Kaluvala Sudhakar v. The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1636 OF 2016 ORDER:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the order dated 27.10.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1476 of 2015 in C.C.No.114 of 2015 by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the classmate of the de facto-complainant during her school education in Navodaya School, Choppadandi, from 1999 to 2004. After completion of the school education, she went to Hyderabad for further education. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused started teasing the de facto-complainant over phone and forced her to marry him and he threatened her with dire consequences. On coming to know that the de facto-complainant's marriage was fixed with one Kasa Praveen Kumar, the accused started threatening her through phone. On the complaint lodged by the de facto-complainant, a case was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.No.114 of 2015. The petitioner filed the above Crl.M.P. seeking to discharge him for the alleged offences. The trial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this revision.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not commit any offence and there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and the witnesses, who are examined, are planted witnesses.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this revision.

5. It is pertinent to note that the Court at the stage of framing of charges exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. The trial Court after perusing the statements of the witnesses, gave a finding that prima facie case is made out for framing charges against the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.

7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for dispensing with the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court.

8. In view of the above submission, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates when his presence is specifically insisted by the trial Court. The petitioner is directed to be represented through a Counsel before the trial Court on all hearing dates.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date : 27.6.2016 Nn

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1636 OF 2016 DATED 27.6.2016 Nn