Crl.M.No.32776-78 of 2009 in Crl.R.No.1667 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.32776-78 of 2009 in Crl.R.No.1667 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 23, 2010 Chhinderpal Kaur .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G. Punjab. Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.32776 of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.32777 of 2009 Requests for placing on record compromise, Annexure P1. Application is allowed. Annexure P1 is taken on record. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.32778 of 2009 Heard. It has been stated that initially the revision petition was filed within limitation alongwith another Criminal Revision, bearing No.1422 of 2008, which has already been disposed of vide order dated 4.8.2008. Further argues that however, due to technical objection being raised by the Registry, this revision petition was withdrawn and filed again alongwith certificate of Advocate General, Punjab, that there was no proposal for filing appeal against acquittal in this case. Crl.M.No.32776-78 of 2009 in Crl.R.No.1667 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Counsel for the respondents, in view of these facts, have not contested the application and stated that they have no objection if delay in filing the revision is condoned. Hence, in view of these facts, application is allowed. Delay of 214 days in filing the revision is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.R.No.1667 of 2009 Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that respondents were acquitted as the dispute being between husband and wife. It was settled due to intervention of Panchyat and hence she had not supported the case of prosecution. However, later on respondent-husband did not fulfill his part of the compromise and did not make any payment to the petitioner. On the other hand, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as counsel for the respondents-accused that it is a case of no evidence and that all the witnesses including complainant, i.e., the present revision petitioner have not supported the prosecution story and hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition. A perusal of impugned judgment shows that it is a case of no evidence and hence, learned trial Court was having no other option but to acquit the respondents-accused. There is no merit in the present revision petition. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. 23.7.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge