Criminal Revision No.548 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.548 of 2010 Date of decision:- 26.4.2011 Neelam ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 02.9.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat and judgment dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the order of the trial Court dated 2.9.2009 whereby all the accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 406,498-A,323 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 17.11.2009 is liable to be set aside as there was sufficient evidence to prove that the respondents had forced the complainant to undergo abortion on 12.2.2001. After the marriage took place in January 2000 Sahil and Anju demanded a motor-cycle, Shyam Kishore demanded an air conditioner and accused Rajni demanded golden ear rings. Her husband Devender Kumar had demanded Rs.50,000/- in cash. Both the courts have ignored the statement of Criminal Revision No.548 of 2010 -2- the witnesses examined by thr prosecution which corroborated the statement made by the complainant. After going through the judgment of the trial Court and the District Judge, the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations against the accused. The complainant had alleged that she was constantly harassed by the respondents for bringing insufficient dowry since January 2000. Subsequently, she was forced to undergo abortion on 12.2.2001. Interestingly she has not made any complaint till 2001. As regards the demand of bringing insufficient dowry is concerned, no specific dates, year and month has been given. As regards the allegation of forced abortion, the Doctor Pushpa Gupta (PW4) has admitted in her cross-examination that it was a missed abortion in normal course. There is no evidence to prove that the respondents have forced the petitioner to undergo abortion. The above allegations are not proved by any cogent evidence and cannot be held against the accused. The complainant has miserably failed to prove that the respondents have beaten her up on 15.10.2001. Dr. Singhmar (PW5) who medically examined the complainant on 16.10.2001 admits that the injuries could be self suffered. There is no proof that the injuries were caused by the respondents. The finding of the Court that all the allegations have not been proved, do not require any interference at this stage. Lastly, the finding given that the complainant and Devender had strained relations due to serious temperament have been acknowledged by Bishamber Kumar (PW13) and by the panchayati compromise Ex.DC. There is no allegation of demand of dowry in the award of Panchayat Ex. DC. No other point was argued by Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate. The criminal revision petition is dismissed. April 26, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE