IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.173 OF 2005 Smt. Rakhi Sharma W/o Naveen Sharma, D/o Brijesh Dutt, R/o Vill. & Post Balawala, Distt. Dehradun … Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & three others … Respondents Dated: July 11, 2008 Sri Gopal Dutt Joshi holding brief of Sri D.S. Mehta, ld. counsel for revisionist Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State None appears for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1601/2003, State Vs. Naveen Sharma & others, where by the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents Nos.2 to 4 namely Naveen Sharma, Devraj Sharma & Smt. Sulochana Sharma, for the offences punishable u/s 498-A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and one punishable u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Rakhi Sharma-revisionist moved an application on 17.7.2002 before S.O. Clementown, Dehradun, with the averments that she got married with respondent no.2-Naveen Sharma on 23.11.1999 and after marriage, she started living at her in-laws house. Her husband Naveen Sharma-Respondent No.2 was doing work of manufacturing plastic boxes and her father in law Devraj Sharma-Respondent No.3 was a retired Major and mother in law Smt. Sulochna-Respondent No.4 was a Teacher. It was stated that soon after three months of marriage, respondent nos.2 to 4 started demanding Rs.50,000/- in dowry from the revisionist for the purpose of business. They also started harassing the revisionist mentally and physically for demand of dowry. It was also averted in the application that mother in law of revisionist started harassing her on the ground that she could not give birth to a child and she also asked the revisionist to get money for her treatment. It was also averted that her mother in law also committed Marpit with her but she continued to bear the same in order to save her married life. On 27.10.2001, when the revisionist gave birth a daughter, then her father in law, instead of taking her at her in-laws house, left her along with her daughter at her parental house. Thereafter, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and on 17.12.2001, her father in law brought her at her in-laws house. However, even then they continued to demand Rs.50,000/- in dowry from her and also used to commit Marpit with her. On 3.1.2002, the revisionist was again sent at her parental house. Thereafter, on 15.4.2002, revisionist along with her brother came at her in-laws house, but her husband and father in law did not allow her to get inside by stating that she would not be allowed to get inside until she would get Rs.50,000/- in dowry. With all these averments, the application was moved by the revisionist before S.O. Clementown, Dehradun on 17.7.2002 at 11:00 A.M., i.e. Ex.Ka-1. The investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W.3 S.I. J.P. Naithani. The I.O. during the course of investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet in the court against the respondent Nos.2 to 4, the charge sheet is Ex.Ka-2. On 8.4.2003, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun framed the charge against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 namely Naveen Sharma, Devraj Sharma & Smt. Sulochna Sharma u/s 498-A IPC and one punishable u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge was read over and explained to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined P.W.1 Rakhi Sharma, victim and complainant, P.W.2 Bhagwati Prasad, brother of complainant Rakhi Sharma, P.W.3 S.I. J.P. Naithani, I.O. of the case and P.W.4 Basanti Devi, mother of Rakhi Sharma. After that the statements of the accused/ respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The oral and documentary evidence was put to them in question form. They have denied the allegations made against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated. In support of their case, they produced as many as five documents which are Ex.1 to Ex.5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the entire material available on record, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 22.9.2004 has acquitted the respondents Nos.2 to 4-Naveen Sharma, Devraj Sharma & Smt. Sulochana Sharma, for the offences punishable u/s 498-A of IPC and one punishable u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.9.2004, the present revision has been preferred. Sri Gopal Dutt Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he does not want to press his revision and submitted that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Even otherwise, I have carefully examined the judgment and order dated 22.9.2004 passed by learned Special J.M.-I, Dehradun and also perused the record of the trial court. There is no illegality or incorrectness in the said judgment and order and the findings recorded in the said judgment are correct as per the evidence available before the court. The learned court below was also correct and justified in acquitting the respondent nos.2 to 4 for the offences for which they were charged. As such, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said judgment and order dated 22.9.2004 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun. For the reasons as recorded above, the criminal revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 11, 2008 Rajeev Dang