ORDER : Renuka Yara, J. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 26.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.582 of 2023 in C.C.No.9622 of 2022 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally and discharge the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 from the case. The accusations against the petitioners are under Section 4 98 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Sri P. Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. Brief facts of the case: 3. The de facto complainant was married to accused No.1 on 12.02.2013 at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh by way of arranged marriage. Her parents have given an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards marriage rituals. The defacto complainant was working at Mumbai when she got married. The accused Nos.1 to 4 i.e. husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law have agreed for the de facto complainant to continue to work at Mumbai after her marriage. However, immediately after marriage, there was pressure from the accused to quit the job at Mumbai and to take up a job at Hyderabad. Though the de facto complainant was unwilling, she succumbed to the pressure from the accused and shifted to Hyderabad. While she was working at Hyderabad, accused No.1 insisted that she shall give her entire salary to him. Also, accused No.1 pressurized her to open a joint locker in SBI to keep the gold and other documents. 4. When the de facto complainant fell ill and was hospitalized, accused No.1 and others have not paid the bills completely. The de facto complainant paid 42% of the bills and accused No.1 paid 58% of the bills. Thereafter, all the accused have constantly abused the de facto complainant alleging that they have paid her hospital bills. The de facto complainant and her husband are living at Hyderabad whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Lucknow and accused No.4 is residing at Noida, Delhi. Said accused Nos.2 to 4 have instigated accused No.1 to harass the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a house. Due to the harassment meted to her, the de facto complainant had two miscarriages. Said accused Nos.2 to 4 have instigated accused No.1 to harass the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a house. Due to the harassment meted to her, the de facto complainant had two miscarriages. Finally, the de facto complainant left her marital home on 09.03.2020. 5. Thereafter, accused No.1 filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights in Family court at Lucknow on 31.08.2020. The case of accused No.1 is that he was married to the de facto complainant and have lived peacefully until she left the marital home on 09.03.2020. The de facto complainant’s parents used to often visit the house and cause interference in their marital life. The de facto complainant and accused No.1 intended to have children but the de facto complainant’s parents pressurized her not to have children as the same would result in loss of monthly income for the de facto complainant. The accused No.1 supported the de facto complainant to take treatment for having children by way of laproscopic surgery and surgery had to be performed due to miscarriages on account of health problems of the de facto complainant i.e. not due to the harassment by accused No.1 or the remaining accused. Finally, the de facto complainant wanted her parents to stay at her home for which accused No.1 did not accept. Said situation led to misunderstandings culminating in the de facto complainant leaving the marital home on 09.03.2020. The said event was followed by accused No.1 filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court in Lucknow. The de facto complainant moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to transfer the Family court matter to Hyderabad. Initially, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered for mediation and when the mediation did not fructify, the Transfer Petition was allowed. 6. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint which was registered in FIR No.96 of 2022 for the offences under Section 4 98 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Nos.1 to 4 and upon conducting investigation, police filed charge sheet under said sections. 6. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint which was registered in FIR No.96 of 2022 for the offences under Section 4 98 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Nos.1 to 4 and upon conducting investigation, police filed charge sheet under said sections. The accused Nos.2 to 4 i.e. petitioners herein filed Criminal Petition vide Crl.P.No.2375 of 2023 for quashing the said charges against them and said quash petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2023 dispensing with appearance of accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.9622 of 2022 with liberty to move an application before the trial Court to discharge them from the offences charged. As a consequence to the said order, the accused Nos.2 to 4 filed Crl.M.P.No.582 of 2023 before the IX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. Said petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.06.2024, leading to filing of the present Criminal Revision Case. Grounds of Revision Case: 7. In the grounds of revision, the petitioners pleaded that petitioner No.1/accused No.2, mother-in-law, petitioner No.2/accused No.3, father-in-law are residents of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and petitioner No.3/accused No.4 is resident of Greater Noida living with his wife. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are taking care of petitioner No.2’s old aged father and mother aged 90 years at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. None of them are residing at Hyderabad to commit the offences alleged by the de facto complainant. Vague allegations are made against the petitioners alleging that petitioner No.3 harassed the de facto complainant through video calls whereas petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have harassed for additional dowry. 8. The petitioners have emphasized that the de facto complainant left the marital home on 09.03.2020 and lodged the FIR after two years 8 months of separation on 24.11.2022. The petitioners pleaded that the de facto complainant underwent medical procedure as there was no cardiac activity in the baby or some abnormal growth of issues because of various pre-existing health issues. At the time of both abortions, the de facto complainant’s mother was present and petitioner No.1 also took care of her at such times. There are several WhatsApp chat messages which show that petitioners are good, caring and value the life of the de facto complainant. At the time of both abortions, the de facto complainant’s mother was present and petitioner No.1 also took care of her at such times. There are several WhatsApp chat messages which show that petitioners are good, caring and value the life of the de facto complainant. During Covid pandemic, the de facto complainant lived at her sister’s house and underwent Hysterolaproscopic surgery as per doctors advise only in the presence of her parents. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 referred to the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Kashkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar {2022 SCC ONLINE SC 162} and the order of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.2375 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023, wherein, it was held that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners herein and therefore, stay was granted on all further proceedings against them in C.C.No.9622 of 2022. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, the petitioners prayed that the impugned order dated order dated 26.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.582 of 2023 in C.C.No.9622 of 2022 be set aside. Contentions of the revision petitioners /accused Nos.2 to 4: 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the charge sheet filed by the police against the accused Nos.1 to 4 with particular reference to the accusations made against the petitioners. As per the complaint given by the de facto complainant and reflected in the charge sheet, the accused Nos.1 to 4 have harassed her mentally and emotionally stunting her career growth and damaging her self-respect. The accused Nos.1 to 4 did not allow the de facto complainant to visit her mother when she was at hospital and demanded Rs.25,000/- to go to the wedding of her sister. Accused Nos.1 to 4 harassed the de facto complainant to bring Rs.15,00,000/- from her parents during the Covid-19 pandemic to construct a house. While the contents of charge sheet are vague and non- specific, several WhatsApp chats between accused Nos.1 to 4 and the de facto complainant are filed from Page Nos.128 to 146 of the material papers. Said WhatsApp chats show a very affectionate relationship between accused Nos.2 and 3 and the de facto complainant. The WhatsApp chats range from August 2018 up to March, 2020 i.e. before the de facto complainant left the house on 09.03.2020. 11. Said WhatsApp chats show a very affectionate relationship between accused Nos.2 and 3 and the de facto complainant. The WhatsApp chats range from August 2018 up to March, 2020 i.e. before the de facto complainant left the house on 09.03.2020. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the contents of the WhatsApp chats to demonstrate that absolutely no case of harassment for any count can be made out against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. While so, there was absolutely no communication point between the petitioner/accused No.3 and the de facto complainant. The photographs in the WhatsApp chats show a close and happy relationship between the parties during the entire period of marriage on social events, during daily routine and during visits to historical places. In view of the concrete evidence available through WhatsApp chats, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the de facto complainant has made false allegations with respect to harassment. 12. Similarly, with respect to miscarriage suffered, reference is made to the medical reports at Page Nos.91 to 97 wherein the contents show that the de facto complainant was suffering from various ailments and underwent medical procedures due to incomplete abortion as there was no thoracic activity in the foetus. Further, as per medical report, the de facto complainant had DM plus Hypothyroidism and threatened abortion due to hormonal imbalance. The de facto complainant underwent Hysteroscopic surgery due to recurrent miscarriage. In view of the medical reports, it is argued that the miscarriages took place on account of health condition of the de facto complainant and for not any other reason. It is also argued that during the entire treatment, accused No.1 and the petitioners have given moral support in addition to financial support to the de facto complainant. As such, it is argued that no case is made out against the petitioners herein for charges under Section 4 98 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and therefore, the petitioners herein have to be discharged. Contentions of the respondent: 13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State argued that there is prima facie case against all the accused Nos.1 to 4 for having harassed the de facto complainant subjecting her to cruelty by demanding that she shall give her entire salary, to shift her employment from Mumbai to Hyderabad and pressurizing her to have children. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State argued that there is prima facie case against all the accused Nos.1 to 4 for having harassed the de facto complainant subjecting her to cruelty by demanding that she shall give her entire salary, to shift her employment from Mumbai to Hyderabad and pressurizing her to have children. According to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, harassment from the accused is the cause for miscarriages and health issues of the de facto complainant and all the facts would be established during trial. It is emphasized that at this stage, no finding can be given about the innocence of the petitioners herein and therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the petition vide impugned order. Findings of the Court: 14. The de facto complainant firstly has made omnibus allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4 accusing them of harassing her to give up her employment at Mumbai and then to shift to Hyderabad in addition to compelling her to part with her salary to accused No.1 on monthly basis. Apart from taking salary, it is alleged that all the jewellery presented to her at the time of marriage and other valuable documents were kept in a locker by the de facto complainant and the same was forcibly made a joint locker by accused No.1. It is alleged that accused no.1 and petitioners herein have harassed the de facto complainant resulting in miscarriage twice and said expenses were also borne by her. Lastly, it is also alleged that during Covid-19 pandemic, accused Nos.1 to 4 have demanded her to bring Rs.15,00,000/- from her parents for the purpose of constructing a house. It is also alleged that certain original SBI Life Insurance copies were taken away by the accused. While all the allegations are attributed to accused No.1, being husband and a resident of the same house as the de facto complainant, there is no particulars given about when and how the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3 have harassed the de facto complainant. With respect to petitioner No.3/accused No.4, it is alleged that he has harassed the de facto complainant over video calls. 15. The allegations against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3 seem far fetched when the contents of the WhatsApp chats are perused at Page Nos.128 to 146 of the material papers. With respect to petitioner No.3/accused No.4, it is alleged that he has harassed the de facto complainant over video calls. 15. The allegations against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3 seem far fetched when the contents of the WhatsApp chats are perused at Page Nos.128 to 146 of the material papers. Over a period of two yeas from August 2018 up to March, 2020, there was a cordial and affectionate conversation between the petitioners herein and de facto complainant. The de facto complainant herself could not produce any evidence in proof of the harassment by the petitioners, whereas the petitioners herein are able to demonstrate the kind of cordial relationship that existed between the rival parties. The marriage took place in the year 2013 and from 2013 up to 2020 for almost for a period of seven years, there were no instances that compelled the de facto complainant to leave her marital house. Only in March, 2020, she left the house and after two years thereafter, got registered an FIR against the petitioners and accused No.1. Until nine years of her marriage, there was no complaint against the accused by the de facto complainant. 16. The contents of WhatsApp chats between the de facto complainant and the petitioner No.2/accused No.3 prima facie negate the accusations made by the de facto complainant about the harassment. Further, the medical reports prima facie falsify allegations about the harassment leading to miscarriages. This Court while granting interim stay on proceedings in C.C.No.9622 of 2022 vide order dated 10.03.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.P.No.2375 of 2023 has already held that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein and therefore, stay was granted. 17. While there is no case made out against petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3, the accusations levelled against petitioner No.3/ accused No.4 also seem unrealistic. It is not possible to imagine that an younger brother of the accused No.1 who is brother-in-law in relation would harass his sister- in-law over video calls. Even assuming that there is any kind of communication over video phone calls, it is always possible to disconnect the video call to prevent such harassment. Therefore, the allegations against all the three petitioners herein seems unrealistic and without support of any evidence. 18. Even assuming that there is any kind of communication over video phone calls, it is always possible to disconnect the video call to prevent such harassment. Therefore, the allegations against all the three petitioners herein seems unrealistic and without support of any evidence. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no substance in the allegations made by the de facto complainant against the petitioners herein and therefore, they are entitled to be discharged for the charges under Section 4 98 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 19. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.582 of 2023 in C.C.No.9622 of 2022 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally and the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 are discharged from the case in C.C.No.9622 of 2022. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.