Criminal Revision No. 405 of 2009(O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 405 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision : 20.11.2009 Sanju Midha ....Petitioner Versus Rajesh Kumar and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. Criminal Misc. No.8134-2009 For the affidavit-supported reasons indicated in the application, the Criminal Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 369 days in fling the revision petition is condoned. Criminal Revision No.405 of 2009 The petitioner has applied for the invalidation of the order of acquittal. In obtaining the view for exoneration of respondents-accused, the learned Trial Court drew sustenance from the fact that the allegations levelled by the petitioner herein against respondents-accused in Ex. PW5/1(an application addressed to the SSP), in FIR Ex.PW9/C and statements of PW3 Madan Lal PW5 Sanju and PW 7 Munish Midha under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) were “vague and general in nature.” The learned Trial Court further observed that “at the cost of repetition it is once again observed that the other allegations qua these Criminal Revision No. 405 of 2009(O&M) -2- **** accused are vague. It is not safe to rely upon such type of vague allegations. Infact when the marriage of spouse goes in rough weather the complainant party is used to exaggerated the facts in order to rope in all the relatives of the party in false litigation.” Learned counsel is not in a position to raise a plea that there is any factual inaccuracy in those observations. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am clear in my mind that the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Trial Judge and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. I have examined the impugned finding on the touch stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Vs. State of Gurarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like controversy. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and it is so ordered accordingly. November 20, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE