CRR No. 708 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 708 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.08.2010 Suman ........ Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 498-A, 406 of Indian Penal against the family of her in-laws was dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2008. The petitioner challenged the same by way of an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Appeal against the order dated 05.11.2008 was dismissed vide judgement dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Aggrieved, the present petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 05.11.2008 passed by the ACJM, Hisar and judgement dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar,dismissing the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments. CRR No. 708 of 2010 2 Firstly, that the Courts below have wrongly held that the present complaint had been filed after the filing of divorce petition filed by respondent No. 1 while failing to see that the petitioner had no knowledge of the divorce petition. Secondly, both the Courts below have also wrongly concluded that no witnesses or person from the Panchayat has been examined as a witness by the complainant as this fact is evident from para 6 of the judgement of the learned Trial Court that persons from the Panchayat had been summoned but the same were given up as unnecessary by the learned PP for the State and for this the wrong act of the learned PP for the State, petitioner has been deprived of her legal right. Heard. Taking up the first argument of the learned counsel, it is not denied that the petitioner has taken no steps till date for getting the ex-parte decree of divorce set aside. Thus, the Court was not wrong in coming to the conclusion that the complaint is after the divorce. It is also not denied that no witness has been examined except the father and the brother of the complainant. There is a specific allegation in the complaint that the dispute was even referred to the Panchayat. Still, no member of the Panchayat was brought forward to record their evidence. In case, the members of the Panchayat are dropped by the prosecution, then the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce some of the members, who had attended the Panchayat to substantiate the allegations. The present case is a case of literally no evidence at all. The present petition is a revision. The Court has very limited CRR No. 708 of 2010 3 jurisdiction in revision. Nothing has been pointed which may enable this Court to set aside the well reasoned order and judgement passed by both the Courts below. No merit. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 26, 2010 mohan