Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 28, 2009 Bimla .... Petitioner Vs. Anil and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 2844 of 2009 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 130 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Main Case : Bimla has filed this revision petition assailing judgment dated 09.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari thereby accepting revision petition filed by respondents no.1 to 4 assailing order dated 19.10.2007 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli whereby respondent no.1 had been summoned for offences under Sections 354, 452 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and all respondents no.1 to 4 along with Rati Devi had been summoned for offence under Section Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M) 2 323 read with Section 149 IPC in criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that on 28.07.2002, respondent no.1 Anil trespassed into her house and caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty. Alarm raised by the petitioner attracted her children and their uncle. The petitioner narrated the incident to her husband. The petitioner and her husband went to the house of respondent no.1 to lodge protest and also told that they would lodge report with the police. While they were returning, they were assaulted by respondents no.2 to 4 and Rati Devi. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Respondent no.1 Anil Kumar got registered FIR No. 92 dated 29.07.2002 under Sections 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, in which the petitioner and her husband Ram Kishan and others are facing trial. It would show that respondent no.1 reported the matter to the police on the very next day of the occurrence. It was thereafter that the petitioner made report to the police on 30.07.2002 vide Report No.33 in Daily Diary. The allegations made in the said report were also found to be false. Moreover, the petitioner got herself admitted in hospital on 29.07.2002 with complaint of heart beat. She did not get herself medico legally examined on 29.07.2002. Even on 30.07.2002, when she was medico legally examined, no external mark of injury was found on her person and she only complained of pain. Report recorded in Daily Diary at the instance of the petitioner did not make out case under Section 354 IPC against respondent no.1. The petitioner lodged first criminal complaint on 25.11.2003 i.e. after delay of 16 months, for which there is no explanation. The said complaint was dismissed in default on 03.02.2006 and the second complaint, which has given rise to this revision petition, was instituted on 08.02.2006. In view of the circumstances noticed in the preceding Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M) 3 paragraph, the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari cannot be said to be suffering from perversity or illegality or such grave error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. July 28, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE