HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CriminaS Revision No. 833 of 2000 Single Bench Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J. ^ Aoplicant Complalnant Respondents Smt. Saroj Bai Versys Bikui Singh and others Post for order on 1f March, 2008 Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 70-3-2008 HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CriminaS RevlsSon No. 833 of 2000 SingSe Bench : Hon'bte IVIr. T.P. Sharma, J. Aoplicant Complainant Respondents Smt. Saroj Bai Wife of Prahlad Verma, aged about 23 years, R/o Vlilage Ninwa, P.S. Bemetara, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (M.P. (Now C.G.) Versus 1. Bikul Singh S/o Ratan Singh, aged about 55 years, R,/o ViISage Karchuwa, P.S. Khandsara, Distt. Durg (M.P.) (NowC.G.) 2. Prahiad S/o Biku! Singh; aged about 27 years, R/o Village Karchuwa, P.S. Khandsara, Distt. Durg (M.P.) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Through Police Station Bemetara, Distt. Durg (M.P.) CRIiVSINAL REVSSION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WJTH SECTiON 401 OF CRJMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Present : Shri Vishnu Koshta, Advocate for the Appiicant. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Pane! iawyer for the State/respondent No.4 ORDER (Passed on H March. 2008) 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of acquittai dated 14.3.2000 passed by the Judiclal Magistrate First Class, Bemetara in Criminal Case No. 427/95, whereby the iearned Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Bemetara has acquitted the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 from the charge of Section 498-A of the indian Penal Code. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of the case are, the applicant is a Wife of the non-applicant No. 2 and daughter-in-iaw of the non-appiicants No. 1 and 3. Written report Ex.P/1 was sent by the appiicantto the Superintendent of Poiice, Durg and after enquiry, F.l.R. against the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 was registered. After k <?- ; investigation, charge-sheet against the non-appiicants No. 1 to 3 for the offence punishabie under Section 4S8-A of the indian Penai Code was fiied. After conciusion of triai, the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 were acquitted from the charge of8ection498-Aofthe indian Penai Code. 3. The judgment of acquitta! is challenged on the ground that the trial court has faiied to appreciate the material available on record and committed iliegality by acquitting the accused/non-appiicants No. 1 to 3. 4. Counsel for the appiicant and non-applicant No. 4 heard. 5. Order impugned and record of the triai court perused. 6. This is a revislon petition fiied by a private party against the judgment of acquittai. in the matter of Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others v. Jagannath reported In A!R 1994 SC 2S, the Hon'bie Supreme Court has heid that revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquitta! by a private complainant shouid not b®iightty exercised. 7. In .the matter of Kaptan Singh and others v. State of IV1.P. and another reported in (1997) 6 SCC 185, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has he!d that High Court shouid not interfere with order of acquittal uniess there is rnanifest iiiegaiity or grave miscamage of justice. Triai Judge piacing undue reiiance cn result of inyestlgation to base his finding ofacqusttai. 8. In the matter of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 2907, the Hon'bie Supreme Court has held that the High Court wiii ordinarily not interfere in revision wlth an order of acquittai except in exceptional cases where the Interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention ofgross miscarriage ofjustice. 9. in the light of the above propositions of law, tho judgment impugned and material available on record reveals that the search warrant was issued on the instance of the non-applicants for the appearance of the applicant where she appeared and deposed that she wiii notlive with herhusband. She has also deposed that she is subjected to crueity by the non-applicants. After search warrant proceeding, the alleged written compiaint Ex.P/1 was sent to the Superintendent of Poiice, Durg. The applicant was iiving wjth her parents from 1993 ti!i 1995 when search proceeding was initiated and after search proceeding, written complalnt Ex.P/1 was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Durg. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence in the light of inaction on behalf of the applicant for two years, had arrived at a finding that the appiicant does not want to live with her husband in matrimonial house and she has made a complaint after the search warrant proceeding to justify her living with parents. The finding of the trial court is based on material avaiiable on record. The prosecution Is required to prove his case beyond ali reasonable doubt. Prosecution has faiied to prove the case against the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 beyond ai! reasonabie doubt. View taken by the triai court on the basis of materiai available on record does not appear unjust and Improper. 1 do not find any substance in the instant revision petition. 10. Consequently, the revision being devoid of merit is iiabie to be dismissed and herebydismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge B/-