1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1950 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 *** Kamla Devi .. Petitioner Vs. Harish Kumar & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The instant revision petition is preferred by the complainant against the judgments of acquittal rendered by the Courts below in respect of the private respondents. The private respondents are brothers-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant-petitioner, who got registered the FIR No. 324 dated 2.8.1996, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, Police Station Kaithal, against the private respondents and others, the trial whereof ended with the conviction of husband Munish Kumar and acquittal in respect of the private respondents. The husband, however, has been acquitted by the learned revisional court against which the complainant has preferred a separate revision. The revision preferred by the complainant against the acquittal of private respondents has been dismissed by the Court below, leading to the institution of present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper book carefully and of the view that no ground to interfere with the findings of acquittal in respect of private respondents is made out. It emerges out from the impugned judgments that though the complainant and her witnesses attempted to rope the private respondents in the commission of offence, but it stood prove on record that the complainant was residing with her husband at Delhi while the private respondents were 2 having their separate mess and residence. Even no detail of dowry was given by the complainant, which allegedly were entrusted to the private respondents. Although the complainant alleged that the accused once attempted to set her on fire by putting kerosene oil, but no overt act was attributed to the private respondents, apart from not giving any date or time of the incident, which allegation was found suspicious. The evidence of prosecution, to the extent of complicity of the private respondents in the commission of offence, was discarded by both the Courts below, keeping in view the fact that there were strained relations between the married couple and there is general tendency prevalent to implicate each and every member of the family in the cases of matrimonial dispute and resultantly they were acquitted by the learned trial Court, which order was upheld by the learned revisional Court below. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, the instant revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 17,2009 Jiten