IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev.No.75 of 2010. Date of Decision:2.6.2010. _______________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Petitioner. Versus Sudershna Devi and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner. :Ms. Ruma kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. For Respondents. Mr. Devinder Chandel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Cr.M.P(M) No. 332/2010. The State has preferred this application for condonation of delay and instituting the proceedings against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla affirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla acquitting the petitioners- respondents of offences under Sections 332, 451 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision is barred by 226 days. The application has been filed on the ground that the appeal was filed on 2.5.1981 and it came to the notice of the State that no appeal was maintainable, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 therefore, the revision petition was filed. Thereafter the State took time to take corrective measures. The application under Section 5 (Cr.M.P.(M) No. 332 of 2010) is allowed. Delay in preferring the appeal is condoned in the interest of justice. Cr. Revision No. 75 of 2010. Coming to the revision, the learned trial Magistrate holds that the respondents had intimidated M.H.C.Ashok Kumar, who was taken to Deendayal Uphadhay Hospital where he was examined and the doctor found that there were simple injuries on his person. Accordingly, the respondents were charged for the offences. The case made out is that on 29.2.2002 at around 9.30 a.m. at police Station, Kaithu, the complainant M.H.C. Sh. Ashok Kumar, who was discharging his duties when the respondents came to his office abused him and one of the accused Sudershna, wife of Sh. Jagdish Chand slapped him. The complainant was examined in the hospital and the accused persons were challaned for the offence under Sections 332, 451 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The prosecution produced ten witnesses. PW-1 Dr.A.K.Pathania proved the injuries on the person of the officer and M.L.C. certificate Ext.PW1/A. Though he states that it could not be said with certainty as to whether this injury had ensued as a natural consequence of the slap given to the complainant. PW-2 Prem Chand stated that the accused had abused M.H.C. Ashok Kumar in his office and 3 Sudershna had slapped him. In his cross examination he admitted that they were complaining to the constable as to why he had beaten up respondent No.3 Vinesh Bhurra and other children. PW-4 Chuni Lal states that they threatened to kill this person. The case set up by the respondent was that they had only gone there to complaint about brutal behaviour of Ashok Kumar who had beaten up one of the respondents and some other children. PW-1 and PW-4 had also admitted this fact. The trial Court acquitted all the respondents for lack of adequate evidence. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge re- appreciated the entire evidence and holds that there was no attempt on the part of the respondents to overawe the complainant and to prevent him from discharging public duties. The learned court holds that prior to the incident, respondent No.3 Vinesh Bhurra and his friends were playing cricket, to which Ashok Kumar had objected. When the children were leaving the ground, there was a quarrel between the complainant Head Constable and Vinesh respondent. The respondents had only gone to complain to this person regarding his unlawful behaviour and did not have any intention of preventing him from discharging his public duty. In these circumstances the court held that there was no merit in the appeal which was dismissed. The same arguments have been urged before me in support of the grounds in revision. On the basis of evidence on record, I 4 have not been persuaded to take different view in this petition. I cannot reappreciate the entire evidence in revisional jurisdiction. I do not find that the ingredients of Section 332 of the Indian penal Code have been established/proved. It is not established that the respondents had entered the police station with the intent to obstruct the complainant from discharging his public duties. Mere quarrelling does not constitute obstruction. There is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 2, 2010(R)