C.R.R. No.2004 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.R. No.2004 of 2003 Date of Decision: 29.06.2010 Gurmeet Kaur .……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: None for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Respondent Nos.2 to 8 were tried in FIR No.2 dated 02.01.1995 for offences under Sections 447, 452, 435, 342, 427, 357 and 148 IPC. The FIR was lodged by Gurmeet Kaur, who has filed the instant criminal revision petition. Learned Sub-Divisional, Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura vide impugned judgment dated 21.08.2002 acquitted the respondents No.2 to 8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant criminal revision petition has been preferred. None is appearing for the petitioner. I have perused the case file. In civil litigation, complainant-petitioner and her husband were found to be not in possession of the suit property. On the other hand, respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 were found to be owners in possession of the suit property. Consequently, this criminal revision petition was ordered to be heard along with Regular Second Appeal preferred in civil litigation by Gurmeet Kaur-petitioner and her husband Santokh Singh. Vide separate common judgment of even date passed in RSA No.5497 of 2003 and RSA No.5753 of 2003, C.R.R. No.2004 of 2003 -2- both second appeals i.e one preferred by Gurmeet Kaur-petitioner and her husband and the other preferred by petitioner's husband only have been dismissed, holding respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 to be in possession of the suit property and holding that the petitioner and her husband are not in possession thereof. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal does not warrant interference because the complainant party is not even proved to be in possession of the suit property. In addition thereto, there are other reasons recorded by the trial Magistrate for acquitting the accused i.e respondent Nos.2 to 8. There is presumption of innocence in favour of every accused. The said presumption gets strengthened and reinforced by judgment of acquittal. Consequently, a very strong case has to be made out for interfering with judgment of acquittal, even in appeal preferred against acquittal. In revision petition, scope for interference is further limited. In the instant case, the trial Magistrate has recorded sound reasons for acquitting respondent Nos.2 to 8. Moreover, in view of finding in civil litigation that complainant party is not in possession of the suit property and that respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 are in possession thereof, the instant revision petition has no merit. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 29.06.2010 A. Kaundal