In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.47496 of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2126 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:2.2.2009 Davinder Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. Misc. No.47496/2008: This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking condonation of 42 days of delay in filing the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the criminal miscellaneous application, which is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner, it is evident that the delay for filing the revision petition is not intentional, besides there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the delay of 42 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Cr. Rev. No.2126/20008: The criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant Davinder Kaur against the order dated 21.4.2008 whereby the respondents No.2 and 3 have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). Cr. Misc. No.47496/2008 and Cr. Rev. No.2126 of 2008 [2] On the complaint of the petitioner made to SP, Phagwara on 6.3.2003, an inquiry was conducted by the Police. On the basis of the allegations in the complaint, FIR for the offences under Section 406, 420, 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC was registered. According to the complainant she was married with Harjinder Singh about 11 years earlier to the complaint that was made on 6.3.2003. The parties had one son, namely, Steven who was aged ten years. Her husband had gone abroad and was resident of Greece. Her brother-in-law Kulwinder Singh had also illegally got prepared two passports. The complainant herself was residing at Village Bhakhriana due to the ill-treatment of the respondents No.2 and 3 at the matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law Naranjan Kaur (respondent No.3), her father-in-law Resham Singh (respondent No.2), her brother-in- law (Jeth), namely, Gurdial Singh and his wife Reena, who were not challaned and sister-in-law had been threatening her and also beating her. Due to the ill-treatment, she had left the matrimonial home. The accused turned out the complainant on the ground that they would allow her in the matrimonial home when her husband came back Despite the fact that her husband had returned, the accused did not permit the complainant to live in her matrimonial home. The respondents No.2 and 3, in fact, had been taunting the complainant for bringing inadequate dowry and had been asking for more dowry. Even after marriage the in-laws of the complainant had demanded more dowry. The parents of the complainant gave motorcycle and dowry articles to her in-laws but they were asking for a car. The income of the husband of the complainant was also not given to her and only meager amount was given for her maintenance. She sought legal Cr. Misc. No.47496/2008 and Cr. Rev. No.2126 of 2008 [3] action on the basis of the complaint. The complainant in order to prove her case examined herself as PW-2 besides examined ASI Nachhattar Singh (PW-1), Sewa Ram (PW-3), Sarwan Singh (PW-4), Sewa Ram son of Pritam Dass (PW-5). The incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them and they pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The learned trial Court considered the question whether or not the accused Resham Singh (father-in-law), Naranjan Kaur (mother-in-law) were entrusted dowry articles by the parents of Davinder Kaur (complainant) which were misappropriated by them for their own use and secondly, whether the accused treated the complainant with cruelty for bringing less dowry. After considering the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court found that the offence under Section 498-A IPC only to be made out against the respondents. Harjinder Singh, the husband of the complainant was declared a proclaimed offender. Aggrieved against the order of the learned trial Magistrate, the respondents No.2 and 3 filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who vide impugned order dated 21.4.2008 acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3 of the charge under Section 498-A IPC. The complainant aggrieved against the said order has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that the learned trial Court after considering the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses had recorded a finding of guilt for the offence under Section 498-A IPC against the respondents No.2 and 3 which has wrongly been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted that the Cr. Misc. No.47496/2008 and Cr. Rev. No.2126 of 2008 [4] complainant Davinder Kaur while appearing as PW-2 has specifically stated that she was harassed and maltreated for bringing inadequate dowry. The version of the complainant, it is submitted, is corroborated by the statement of Sarwan Singh (PW-4) who has deposed that the accused persons used to maltreat the complainant and also used to beat her. The evidence of Sewa Ram (PW-3) and Sewa Ram son of Pritam Dass (PW-5) does also corroborate the version of the complainant and her father that Panchayats were convened to get the matter resolved. However, the respondents refused to permit the complainant to live in her matrimonial home. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned lower appellate Court gravely erred in acquitting the respondents No.2 and 3 without appreciating the reasoning and conclusions reached at by the learned trial Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the learned counsel gone through the order passed by both the Courts below. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence and material on record acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3. It may be noticed that Davinder Kaur-complainant is the wife of Harjinder Singh who has since been declared as a proclaimed offender. The marriage between the parties was solemnized 11 years earlier to the filing of the complaint on 6.3.2003. The complainant and her husband Harjinder Singh had a son, namely, Steven, who was then aged about ten years. The husband of the complainant was away to Greece. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that there were vague and ambiguous allegations for demand of dowry and harassment as also treating her with cruelty. It was noticed that the cross-examination of the complainant showed that she was Cr. Misc. No.47496/2008 and Cr. Rev. No.2126 of 2008 [5] not aware that who had written her complaint (Ex.2/A) and at whose behest it was written. It is admitted that her husband remained in India for 3-4 years after the marriage. During the said period she did not have any fight with the accused. Therefore, it was noticed that it was the case of the complainant that it was only after her husband had gone abroad that bickering started in the family. The learned Sessions Judge considered the deposition of Sewa Ram (PW-3), who was a Member of Panchayat. He had merely stated that money was given for sending Harjinder Singh abroad. Therefore, he had not attributed any criminal act or intent to respondents No.2 and 3. Sarwan Singh (PW-4) is father of complainant-Davinder Kaur and in his deposition it was observed that he had taken much efforts to give details of the presentation of gifts to the relatives but the only allegation was of having given money for sending the son-in-law abroad. He merely stated that after Harjinder Singh had gone abroad his family used to ill-treat his daughter (complainant). No particular date or time with regard to the alleged harassment meted out to his daughter (complainant) had been alleged by Sarwan Singh (PW-4)-father of the complainant. Nachhattar Singh, ASI (PW-1) investigated the case and he could not give the date, month or the year when respondents No.2 or 3 are alleged to have raised a demand or harassed the complainant. Besides, it was noticed that it was accepted by the complainant Davinder Kaur (PW-1) that she was living separately at the house of her parents since long time. In the circumstances, it was held that the charge under Section 498-A IPC is not made out. The reasoning and conclusions reached at by the learned Session Judge are just and plausible and are not to be shown to be, in any manner, perverse which Cr. Misc. No.47496/2008 and Cr. Rev. No.2126 of 2008 [6] would warrant interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 2, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No