Crl.Rev.No.2260 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.2260 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.01.2009 Renu Bala ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Vide this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 4.8.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby the accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The gravamen as culled out from the story of the prosecution is that on 25.12.1997 an application moved by Renu Bala addressed to SSP, Jalandhar for taking action against Ramesh Kumar, Washerman Battalion Training Center PAP was received in police station and Crl.Rev.No.2260 of 2008 2 Jalandhar Cantt. Stating that she was got married with Ramesh Kumar Washerman s/o Ram Chander R/o Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt. on 2nd July, 1995. After five months of the marriage, they borrowed Rs. 25,000/-. But still they did not return back. Her mother-in-law Janki Devi and her husband teased her so much and they demanded Rs.50,000/- again from her. She wants to tell here that her husband is in illegal relation with another girl who lives at Bhur Mandi, Jalandhar Cantt. She told everything to her parents, however her poor father can give Rs.50,000/-, who iron the clothes in a very small shop. Everyday, her husband and her mother -in-law beat her and did not gave her good for many days. She bore everything. Her father is a Heart patient. It is alleged that during this, she gave birth to a child and her parents give every thing according to the birth traditions. But still her mother-in-law teased her regularly and demanded money. After two months of the birth of child's, her parents took her to their house. Now her in- laws threatened her that they would not keep her with them and they went to marry their boy with that girl with whom he has the illegal relations. Her mother in law threatened her that her all sons are serving in PAP and she would make a wrong case police. She, therefore, Crl.Rev.No.2260 of 2008 3 requested that necessary action be taken against them. The application was signed by Renu Bala d/o Bansi Lal. The application was handed over to SI Gurminder Kaur PS Women Cell for investigation and thereafter Inspector Simran Kaur prepared the report and obtained the opinion of the DA legal. DA legal has given the following opinion. A prima-facie offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out under the jurisdiction of PS Cantt. Jalandhar. After receipt of report of the DA legal the FIR was got registered and ASI Bant Singh started investigation. Accused Ramesh Kumar was arrested on 12.1.1998. Anticipatory bail has been obtained by Janki Devi, she was joined the investigation after the arrest. After completion of the investigation the challan against the accused was presented before the court”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case yet the accused had been acquitted by the trial Court. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that there are statements of the witnesses i.e. Renu Bala-complainant (PW-1), Veena (PW-3), Sonia (PW-5). It was evident that Rs.25,000/- had been borrowed by the accused for construction of a room in July, 1996 but the said amount had not been returned. Fake allegations were levelled by the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of dowry and cruelty. The complainant Crl.Rev.No.2260 of 2008 4 could not tell the date or year when she was given beatings by the accused. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court held that it was established from the evidence that accused had borrowed Rs.25,000/- from the family of the complainant Renu Bala but had failed to return the same. The said fact was also noticed by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 16, 2009 anita