Criminal Revision No. 466 of 2007 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 466 of 2007 Date of decision: January 14, 2008 Jasbir Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P.S.Hundel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent no. 4. RAJESH BINDAL, J. This is a revision petition challenging the order dated October 24, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby in revision filed by the accused in FIR No. 277 dated September 28, 2004 got registered by the petitioner against them under Sections 452, 506, 34 IPC, the order framing charge against respondents no. 2 to 4 has been set aside and they have been discharged. Petitioner filed a complaint against the private respondents that private respondents entered into her house and abused her besides threatening to kill her. She was also given beating. Though the alleged occurrence took place on September 3, 2004, however, the complaint was made to the police only on September 28, 2004 after a period of 25 days. On the basis of complaint FIR was registered. After presentation of challan, learned Magistrate framed charges against the private respondents under Sections 452, 506, 34 IPC vide order dated December 17, 2005. Revision filed by Private respondents against the order imposing charge was accepted. It is this order against which the petitioner/complainant is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order Criminal Revision No. 466 of 2007 -2- *** passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is totally perverse as material evidence on record to show that offence was committed by the private respondents has been ignored and as a result thereof the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge against the private respondents has been set aside. The submission is that the charges against the accused are made out in the present case. On the other hand learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that complaint against the private respondents in the present case was nothing else but an abuse of process of law as no offence of the kind as claimed by the petitioner was ever committed by them and infact nothing of this sort happened and it was a case of sheer harassment by the petitioner of the private respondents. It was further submitted that the mere fact that there was a delay of 25 days in lodging of FIR shows that nothing happened otherwise nothing prevented the petitioner to lodge FIR immediately when the alleged occurrence took place. Even otherwise if the allegations of the petitioner are examined on the face of it, the same does not constitute an offence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I find no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay in lodging the FIR for the occurrence which took place allegedly on September 3, 2004, the complaint thereof was made for the first time on September 28, 2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has further found that even the allegations regarding threat to the petitioner did not constitute an offence as contemplated under Sections 452 and 506 IPC. There is no evidence on record to show that petitioner was ever given any beating. Once there is no credibility in the statement of the petitioner/complainant and other evidence on record, in my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in accepting the revision filed by the private respondents setting aside the order framing charge against them. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. January 14, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge