Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2010 Date of decision 14.10.2010. Smt. Neelam ...... Petitioner. versus Subhash Kwatra and others ...... Respondents. CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.L.Malhtora, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. This is a revision petition preferred by the complainant against the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by Shri C.L.Mohal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment dated 14.12.2006 passed by Ms. Rajni Yadav, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat was dismissed. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that complainant was married to Subhash on 19.07.1999. After the marriage, she started residing with her-in-laws at Delhi but from the very beginning the accused were unhappy with the dowry given in the marriage and they started Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2010 2 harassing her for bringing lesser dowry and raised further demand of dowry. It was just after two months of the marriage that accused demanded refrigerator, scooter, washing machine and other household articles and misbehaved with her in order to satisfy the demands. At one time, brother of the complainant handed over a cash amount of Rs.5000/- and further in September, 1997 another amount of Rs.10,000/- were given to the accused to fulfill their dowry demand but nothing changed and ill-treatment continued at the behest of the accused towards the complainant. Thereafter, on 16.01.1998 fresh demand of scooter, washing machine, refrigerator etc. was made by accused from the complainant and she was sent back to her parental house. Several Panchayats took place between the parties but nothing could be changed. The complainant had written letters on 28.08.1997, 29.08.1997, 11.09.1997 and 26.12.1997 to her brother wherein she has admitted the factum of ill-treatment given by the accused to her. In July, 1998, complainant along with other respectable persons went to the house of the accused to take the 'Istridhan` which was again denied. Therefore, the present FIR was recorded. After completion of the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as relied up-on by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs. The accused were charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 120-B of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined PW-1, Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2010 3 Mahender Singh PW-2, Inspector Bhulan Singh PW-3, HC Daya Nand, PW-4 Neelam and PW-5 Pardeep. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded their innocence. They did not opt to lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for both the sides acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 14.12.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat. The State of Haryana preferred the appeal against the judgment dated 14.12.2006, which was entrusted to Shri C.L.Mohal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, who after hearing both the sides dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.11.2009. Still feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by Shri C.L.Mohal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat and judgment dated 14.12.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat referred to above, the present revision petition has been filed. I have considered the said submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the reasoning given for acquittal by the trial Court is only in respect of letters Ex.DA, DB and DC. It is submitted that these letters have been got written by the accused. So, both the Courts below have committed illegality. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any merit in the said submission. I have examined the letters Ex.DA, DB and DC and it cannot be said that these letters have been got written by the Criminal Revision No.1469 of 2010 4 accused forcibly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 'Istridhan' the complainant has been misappropriated by the accused. The learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence on the file in this regard. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the complainant has failed to prove the ingredient of offence for which the accused have been charged. The scope of revision is limited. There is nothing on the file to show that the trial Court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence. The entire evidence has been meticulously appreciated and re-appreciated by both the Courts below. There is no illegality in the order passed by both the Courts below. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE October 14, 2010 sv