IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 750/2002. Date of Decision: 9.7.2009. ______________________________________________ State of H. P. Appellant. Versus Ranjeev Sharma and others. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,j(ORAL) Heard and gone through the record. Respondents were tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.111-II/2000/98 decided on 26.6.2002 of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Precisely, the respondents were put on trial on the allegations that the complainant-Smt.Mahima Sharma was treated with cruelty by her husband respondent- Ranjeev Sharma. In fact, the complainant Smt.Mahima Sharma was married to respondent-Ranjeev Sharma on 24th May, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 1995. He was already employed in Alwar (Rajasthan). After the 3-4 days of the marriage he went to Alwar to join his duties leaving behind the complainant in village Chachian in the house of her in-laws. It is alleged that during her marriage, her parents had given some articles in dowry according to their capacity and a Fixed Deposit Receipt to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was also in the name of the complainant which was given to her. According to the case of the prosecution, her-in-laws had been taunting her that she had brought a very meagre dowry in her marriage. They started pressurizing her to bring more money. Whenever her husband used to come on leave she complained to him about such remarks but he too supported the version of his parents and pressurized her to transfer the F.D.R. aforesaid in his name. It is an admitted case that the complainant delivered a male child in Pushpa Clinic, Alwar and on 20.11.1996 after the delivery of the child according to the respondent her parents took the complainant along with her child to their house and since then she did not join the marital company of the respondent. At the time of her marriage she was the student of Post Graduation. Some of the papers were cleared before the marriage and in the remaining papers she appeared at Dharamsala after her marriage to clear 3 her post graduation. Later, in the year 1997 she got the job as Lecturer in English. On the re-appraisal of the evidence on record, it transpires that till August, 1997 neither the complainant nor her parents made any complaint to the police, panchayat or to any public authority with respect to the alleged maltreatment or demand of dowry. For the first time the complaint against the respondents was made on 13.8.1997 on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered under the aforesaid sections, that too after when the respondent No.1 had filed the petition for seeking divorce and summons were received by her on 20th July, 1997 as stated and proved by DW1 Sh.Rattan Lal, Process Server. The defence of the respondents have been that the present case against them was filed on the legal advice to make an ultimate defence in the divorce petition. Although complainant Smt.Mahima Sharma in her statement made before the Court that she was given the F.D.R. amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- by her parents at the time of her marriage to which the respondents insisted upon her to transfer the same in the name of her husband and for that she was being pressurized. But it is not understandable as to why the particulars of the F.D.R. were not obtained from the concerned Bank by the Investigating Officer to lend assurance to the case of the prosecution. 4 Further her father PW2 Sh.Bal Krishan has stated that when they had gone to the house of the accused at Alwar, in their presence, she was pushed away and given slaps by her husband. But surprisingly this allegation was not imputed by the complainant either in her complaint or when examined in the Court as PW1 and PW2 also did not report this matter to the police. PW3 Vinay Kumar stated that he met the complainant at Gagar and she disclosed that the accused persons had locked her in a bath room and also threatened her and finally she was turned out from her matrimonial house. Significantly, this part of the statement was also not found mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police. On the top of it, the complainant too did not make even a fleeting reference to this effect in her statement. Further PW4 Gaya Parshad is stated to have met her in village Nareti in the marriage of his relatives and it was then she allegedly disclosed about maltreatment. The complainant did not make any such allegation either in the F.I.R. or in her statement. Thus on the overall assessment of the evidence on record, it transpires that by lodging the instant complaint against the respondents was not bonafide. It could be a counter-blast to the divorce petition to exert pressure 5 Legally, it is not every maltreatment or harassment which comes within the purview of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 498-A that the “cruelty” means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. The allegations made in the F.I.R. and spoken by the complainant and her witnesses during the trial of the case does not meet the warp and woof of the prosecution case to hold the respondents guilty for the offence charged. Therefore, the grounds of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. As such, no interference in the impugned judgment is warranted. The appeal is dismissed. The respondents are discharged their bail bonds entered upon by them at any point during the proceeding of the case. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 9,2009(R) 6