CF0000087953 1&7T‘HE HI§I CGURT OF JUDICATUREAT JABALPUR. MP. Crithinal Revisicn 'Na. €33 [2000. APPLICANT. ———-—-—-— CGMPLAINANT‘ : Kunj wt. {Poo Bih2 i, Soni aged W/o. about a mi 20 ~? _ ' years, Occupation House hold, R/o. Bilmlga, Ps— ahprpur. District— argujayyw. -'Ver Sas- i ‘ /‘ ‘ 1 N5“ APPLICANTS“ 1. 14:1 Kunj Binari s/o. Ram Pra‘sad Sam” aged about 29 Years. 2. 33m Prasad @ Kangal. S/o. 7Halkor1, aged abaut 60 years. 3. Uday Kuar S/o. Ram Prasad, Semi aged abeut 22 years. 1 < 4. gsxaanti new; w/o. Ram prasad /Soni, aged about 49 years. u K # l 5. Kum ri 3abita, @ chanda § o. éxprasad 0 years. Soni. ‘ ageé about —A11 R/o; Nawapara Surajpur Psj- Surajpur’District- sargu ja g ‘ CRIMINAL RE‘fISIéN U’ZS‘. 397(491 OF m CODE OF t q CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. F . u «Ta M él‘wra's'‘ ‘ \’L \ 1 % ' a A Cr. Rev. —Hea;d‘ on the quesiii The ampla iha’gie is : dated 31/3/2000 passed: 1n-Cr ame‘ learfied J0diéiél Vii-[agristr (Sargujé) '. ’aéquitt‘ing'the re p§nishable under‘seéiion 498¥Afiof*the IPCV reaE with bi éion Act. ‘ tearhedfcoufxsel 'fo'r’tihe: applicants submits that the 'Cbut't be'l'dw was eBSdlu'tely utijuetified int not = plating relianceon' the testimony of PW-i - Poonam Soni, who‘had clearly stated befor' the rcourt that the demand was made and she was ill-tre ted by the accused persons. He‘aleo eubmits-that the Co t belowtwas'unjustified in throwing away the charges 51 ply on the ground that the complaint came to be lodged ”ft’er 1—’1/2'year of the alleged incident. He‘ has ta en me through the statements of the witnesses. 0n perusal of the j dgment oithe court belw - it clearly appeass‘thatrit h s not rejected the pro’see cution case only on the grou d that the complaint ~was lodged after i ahout 1 ‘1/2 ye r \ on‘ of admissiona aggrieved by the judgment 1mina'; Case N‘o.669/95' by ate. 'Firsi: Class, Surajpur epondents ofx'lthe charges L Section 4 ’of the Dowry Prohi of the alleged incident. r/\ 7‘5 1y ‘ W 200 I ma .. m - r ‘ ammmw Wm@0@m aqmaw‘ K 11/7/2001 Shri‘sunil Sirilia,' learned couriéél for mamaxm wwwfiWQW amf‘mmw o- The Court below after ap th‘e findings that the wi un&er Section 125 Cr.P.c;M while the husband had filed a suit seeking dissolution‘ The it' would not be possib trgxe findi n‘gst i f I fing no reas dismissed. Records of \ ‘ \ ‘ rsnr 7 _ \ ‘ § \ GRPkJ—FES/m 3’ ~1/2001‘-50,000. doixailment of wife. A preciating the evidence had recorded fe had submitted an application of marriage o’nthe ground of mental Court has also found that the wife was required to appear before a Psychotherapist and the sagid Psychotherapist has. certified that the/wife wa g idence‘ in tits true spirit, “the learned inmview of the circumstances float-:3; t record it would be unsafe to rely e -Poonam Soni. - After going that the findings shown evidence ore the s'aid f tq record. in an appe re‘qixired to interfere Court if the findings is‘ possible, then in e} { derailed. Taking the ev cdmrc below has found ing on the siurfaoe,_of. uponvg testimony of PWv t R.S. Garg mm(W) ugh therecords. I am unable to hold erversity in appreciation of the ings are bad, illegal or contrary against acquittalg; the Court is not , th the findingsrecorded by the trial reasonable and even if another view vision where the scope is very limited, forthis Court to alter to interfere. The petition’is he Courts below be sent backo t ~ l i a w a l o o p d e e