IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2907 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 18, 2011 Sat Pal Rathee & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Anil Kumar & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition is directed against judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, vide judgment dated 2.8.2008. Appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Magistrate which has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Sonipat, vide judgment dated 7.7.2009. Crl. Revision No.2907 of 2009 [2] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to deny the fact that although daughter of the complainant, namely Sudesh, left matrimonial home on 1.1.1999, yet the complaint was made, for the first time, on 14.12.2000 i.e. after approximately two years. There is a possibility that complaint has been lodged in counter blast to a complaint under Sections 380/ 506 IPC against daughter of the complainant, filed by her mother-in-law, Indra Wati. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further has not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any piece of evidence that has been perversely read so as to cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. Learned counsel has also not been able to draw attention of the Court towards any piece of evidence that has not been considered by the Trial Court. 4. No ground for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 18, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?