IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.534 of 2003 Date of decision: 22.06.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Kishori Lal and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. K.D.Batish, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,Dehra dated 9.6.2003 vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a written complaint was lodged with the police by the complainant Vijay Kumari alleging that she has married with one Kishori Lal and the marriage was performed about four years ago. She further alleged that her husband has been giving beatings to her for the last about three years and also giving threats in case she demanded maintenance from him. On this report, that she was being given Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 beatings by her husband and was being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law, a case was registered against the respondents under the sections mentioned above and the respondents were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the complainant Vijay Kumari was not the wife of the respondent No.1. The complainant Vijay Kumari, while appearing as PW-1 has stated that she married respondent No.1 on 17.8.1996 and he kept her nicely for two years. In cross-examination, she stated that her marriage was performed in Court and no band etc. was played at that time nor any Pandit was called to perform the ceremony nor any Saptpadhi was performed. She stated that the marriage was performed in Court but has stated that she cannot produce any marriage certificate nor any affidavit in this regard. She admitted in cross-examination that the accused was having two small children and she was brought to look after them and respondent had promised to perform marriage thereafter. In is, therefore, clear from the statement of the complainant herself that neither any marriage was performed according to Hindu rites or ceremony nor it was performed in Court nor she could produce any affidavit in Court in this regard, and as such, the Court had come to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties was not performed. PW-3 Sheela Devi had simply stated that she had heard only that the marriage was performed four years ago. She further stated that she was requested to make settlement in between the parties. PW-4 3 Jagdish Chand has stated that he was Ward Panch and he does not know as to who was harassing and whom and the complaint was filed before him. He was declared as hostile. 5. A perusal of Section 498-A clearly shows that the complaint has to be made about the harassment by the wife or any relative of the wife against the husband or any relative of the husband. Admittedly, the complainant was proved to be not the wife of the respondent No.1 and therefore, respondent No.2 was not the relative of the complainant. Therefore, the provisions of Section 498-A IPC are not attracted in the present case. 6. In view of the above discussion, the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above that there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. 22nd June, 2010 (V.K.Ahuja),J (SD S)