IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 235-MA of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.11.2008 *** Seeta Rani .. Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The complainant, Seeta Rani, has sought permission to file an appeal against the judgment dated 21.1.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad(West), District Ferozepur, by dint of which the respondent-accused No.1 Gurdev Singh has been acquitted in a complaint case under Sections 406/498-A IPC. Complaint qua the other accused, namely, accused Nos. 2 to 8, was ordered to be dismissed after recording of preliminary evidence. The facts relevant are that complainant Seeta Rani was married with accused-respondent Gurdev Singh on 15.1.1997 and all articles of dowry were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. It is alleged that some time after the marriage, accused Gurdev Singh started taunting the complainant on one pretext or the other in regard to demand of dowry. A daughter was born out of the wedlock. Later, a demand for motor-cycle is alleged to have been made. A Panchayat was also convened in which the respondents-accused allegedly repeated the said demand of motor-cycle. They on demand refused to give the dowry articles to the complainant and have misappropriated the same. This led to filing of the present complaint by complainant Seeta Rani. After recording of preliminary evidence of the complainant, the trial Court only summoned accused No.1-respondent Gurdev Singh while dismissing the complainant against accused Nos. 2 to 8. After framing of charges against the respondent-accused,the witnesses were cross-examined by his counsel. Thereafter, on closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating material was put to the accused when his Crl. Misc. No. 235-MA of 2008 -2- statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all of them and pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined DW-1 Raj Kumar, Clerk, Judicial Record Room, Ferozepur. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned defence counsel, the trial court came to the conclusion that the material produced on the record by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and connecting the accused with the alleged commission of crime and accordingly acquitted the respondent. Now, the complainant has filed the present application, seeking leave to file an appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and have also gone through the paper-book carefully. The learned trial Court while acquitting the respondent-accused of the charges, observed that there is no independent corroboration to the version of the complaint. The complaint was filed by her against 8 persons out of which, only one, i.e. respondent-accused, had been summoned and complaint qua remaining seven was dismissed and the complainant was not aggrieved against the said order since she did not prefer any revision. The trial Court held that no specific instances have been given as to when alleged payment of Rs.35,000/- was made or when alleged beatings were given or when the complainant was thrown out of the house. The trial Court has held the allegations to be vague and not specific. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad(West), District Ferozepur, is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant leave asked for and the application is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 28, 2008 JS