IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMPM No.185 of 2007 Decided on: March 26, 2007 State of H.P. ......Petitioner. VERSUS Jagdish Singh ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Nemo. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Complainant in this case, the alleged victim, had borrowed some utensils from the respondent in connection with a social function (Yagya). When the utensils were not retuned, the respondent went to the house of the complainant to collect the same. The complainant told him that it will take some time for her to return the utensils. Upon this, the respondent allegedly pushed the complainant. She fell down, but did not sustain any injury. She reported the matter to the Police. Police registered a case, under Sections 451 and 323 IPC, against the respondent. The respondent was challaned and tried for the aforesaid offence. Finally, he was acquitted. 3. The reason recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate to acquit the respondent is that no injury was found on the person of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... the complainant. Learned Additional Advocate General says that this was not a valid ground for acquitting the respondent for offence under Section 451 IPC. 4. From the facts of the case, it is borne out that this was too trivial a matter to be taken cognizance of. Hence, leave to appeal is declined. Application is dismissed. March 26, 2007(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.