IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1141 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JULY 7, 2011 ASHA RANI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. AS Syan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 5.9.2008, rendered by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa, whereby respondents No.2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 406 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. 2 The State of Haryana filed an appeal against acquittal, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. 3 The reasons assigned for upholding the judgment of acquittal are contained in para-12 of the judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. It has been held that in the complaint, date or month of the demand made by the accused has not been given. It has not been specified as to when Criminal Revision No.1141 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home. The date or month of other alleged atrocities is also not reflected. The allegations of cruelty contained in the complaint are vague, indefinite and sweeping in time. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the contents of the complaint, however, has not been able to show specific allegations or averments in the complaint that would spell out, even prima facie, commission of offences, for which the respondents were charged. 5 In view of the above, no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 6 The petition is dismissed. July 7, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?