1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. M.M.O.No. 105 of 2003. Date of Decision: 4.7.2008. _______________________________________________________ Rukmani Devi and others. Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioners: Naveen Bhardwaj vice counsel for the petitioners. For respondents : Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer for Respondent No.1. For respondents 2 to 5: Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J . (oral) Challenge in this petition is to the judgment of Judicial Magistrate, Amb, which was affirmed in revision petition by the learned Sessions Judge, Una. In brief, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Shankar Dass, the father of the petitioners had filed a suit in respect of khasra number 975, 985, 986, 987, 988, 990, 999, 1141 and 1154/1 situated in village Bhaira against Shri Shingara Singh, Ved Parkash and Kishore Chand restraining them from cutting and removing the trees from the land aforesaid. Stay order was issued by the Civil Court in favour of Shankar Dass aforesaid. It is alleged that on 6.12.1995, said Shingara Singh, with the help of his laboures started cutting and removing the khair trees from the land in question. Seeing the defiance of the stay order passed by the Civil Court, the petitioners went to the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 spot and snatched their implements. On 8.12.1995, the aforesaid private respondents are alleged to have attacked the petitioners in their house with deadly weapons. Consequently, Rukmani Devi and Parmeshwari Devi sustained injuries. They were medically examined. Doctor found the fracture on right fore-arm of Parmeshwari Devi. The Doctor issued the Medico Legal Certificate of the injured persons which were taken into possession by the Police. After completing the investigation, the Police presented the challan against the respondents No.2 to 5. The said respondents were charge-sheeted under Section 323 and 325 read with Section 34, I.P.C to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the end of trial, the respondents were acquitted by the trial Court. The State did not assail the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. However, the petitioners herein had challenged the acquittal of the respondents by filing the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. After perusing the record, Sessions Judge did not find illegality or impropriety committed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Against the aforesaid judgment of the courts below, the petitioners herein filed the present petition for quashing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and ordered passed by the learned Sessions Judge in their revision petition on the ground that the infirmities and the discrepancies which occurred in collecting the evidence and in the statements of the witnesses, were owing to the Police investigation without any fault on the part of the petitioners and their testimonies were wrongly ignored. On the perusal of the evidence on record and findings of fact and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court, there appears to 3 be no scope for its inference by this Court, when there is no illegality committed by the revisional court in passing the order impugned. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out as to how the findings arrived at by the courts below were perverse. The infirmities and discrepancies highlighted by the trial Court in the statements of the petitioners are otherwise also born out from the record. The powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are only to be exercised if there is an abuse of process of law or the findings arrived at by the courts below are perverse. Since the petitioners failed to make out their case in their favour within the scope of the aforesaid provision of law, hence the petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 4, 2008. (bm)