CRR No.710 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR No.710 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 26.08.2011 Asha Rani ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, acquitting the accused under Sections 406, 498-A IPC. The trial Court vide judgment dated 19.10.2007 had convicted the accused, whereas in appeal the judgment was reversed. The factual matrix of the case is that Asha Rani wife of Om Parkash lodged a case against accused Om Parkash (her husband), his father Laxman and his mother Jassa Bai, so also against his three sisters namely Vidhiya, Soma Devi and Kulwinder, levelling allegations of demand of dowry and CRR No.710 of 2010 (O&M) 2 maltreatment against them. During investigation, police found three sisters of Om Parkash (named above) to be innocent and presented the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against accused Om Parkash, his father and mother-respondent Nos.2 to 4. The charge framed against the respondents was contested by them. The trial resulted into conviction, but the conviction could not be sustained before the Appellate Court. State has not filed any revision or appeal against the impugned judgment. However, the complainant has come up in revision. The first information report contains direct allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 4, so also against Vidhiya, Soma Devi and Kulwinder that the complainant was maltreated at their hands and all the six accused have been beating her and had confined her in a room. But, the story set up by the complainant failed at the very threshold, as the three sisters were found to be innocent during investigation. That apart, the allegations as levelled against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are vague in nature. The marriage was solemnized on 20.02.1992. The complainant has alleged that she was beaten by the respondents thereafter, and the Panchayats were convened in the years 1993, 1995 and 1998. The allegations of maltreatment during the aforesaid period remains unsubstantiated by any plausible evidence. Similarly, no Member of Panchayat was also examined in order to establish that any such Panchayats, as alleged, were held in those years. The complainant while appearing as PW-1, has stated that a live insulated wire was used by the accused to threaten her, which is highly improbable. She has also levelled allegations that she was maltreated during the period from 21.07.1999 to 30.07.1999, but CRR No.710 of 2010 (O&M) 3 no record of treatment has been proved on the record. Asha Rani (PW-1) admitted in her cross-examination that Om Parkash was quarreling with her on account of not conceiving. Though, it has come during cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that the Panchayat was convened consisting of the Members namely Nanak Chand, Beerabati, Sacha Singh and Satnam Singh, but none of them has been examined. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention towards copy of the judgment Ex.D1, passed by the Additional District Judge, wherein, it was observed that the complainant-Asha Rani had failed to prove the fact that there was any cruelty or demand of dowry on the part of the accused. Though the findings given in the divorce proceedings may not be conclusive and binding on the criminal Court, yet the same have probative value for the judgment being inter parties. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that the scope of interference in the judgment of acquittal is very restricted and also that where two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused should be accepted. In case of appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Hydru Vs. State of Kerala, (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 374, observed as under:- “3........It is well settled that in revision against acquittal by a private party, the powers of the Revisional Court are very limited. It can interfere only if there is any procedural irregularity or material evidence has been overlooked or misread by the subordinate Court. If upon reappraisal of evidence, two views are possible, it is not permissible even CRR No.710 of 2010 (O&M) 4 for the appellate court in appeal against acquittal to interfere with the same, much less in revision where the powers are much narrower.” In the instant case also, no procedural irregularity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment. Rather, same appears to be well reasoned and well founded. Therefore, there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the same. No merits. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 26th August, 2011 JUDGE ajp