IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No. 523 of 2001 Date of decision : July 11, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Kamal Singh Thakur and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents, who were tried for offences, punishable under Sections 143 and 506 (second part), read with Section 149 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case was instituted against the respondents, on a complaint submitted by one Anjali Malhotra, in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib. Complaint was sent to the police by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, in exercise of his power, under Section 156 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, case was registered. 3. Allegations, which were made in the complaint, may be summed up thus. Anjali Malhotra (PW-1) was employed as a teacher in Government High School, Purewal, where respondent Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… No.1 Kamal Singh is employed as Headmaster and other respondents are employed as teachers. On 19.5.1998, during recess time, when PW-1 Anjali Malhotra went to Headmaster’s room to pick up her tiffin carrier, all the respondents allegedly threatened her that in case she did not withdraw a criminal case filed by her against respondents Shakuntla and Ravinder Rana, two teachers in the school, she would be done to death. 4. Police investigated the case. Two persons, named Ali Sher and Sadique Mohammed, told the police, during investigation, that PW-1 Anjali Malhotra had been threatened by the respondents in Headmaster’s room, in their presence. Police challaned all the respondents. 5. On conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate acquitted all the respondents, holding that two independent witnesses, examined by the prosecution, namely Sadique Mohammed (PW-2) and Ali Sher (PW-3), did not support the version given by PW-1 Anjali Malhotra, and that otherwise also the allegations made by PW-1 Anjali Malhotra did not make out a case of unlawful assembly, punishable under Section 143 IPC. As regards charge of criminal intimidation, it was held that Panchayat alone had the jurisdiction to try the matter. 6. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. 7. PW-1 Anjali Malhotra, who appeared as PW-1, even though testified that all the respondents hurled abuses at her and threatened her, when she went to pick up tiffin carrier from Headmaster’s room and also threatened that if she did not …3… withdraw the complaint filed against two of the respondents, she would not be allowed to remain as teacher in the school and would be done to death, two other witnesses, who allegedly witnessed the incident, did not support her version. Both of them were cross-examined by the prosecution with the leave of the Court. Even in their cross-examination by the learned APP they did not say anything favourable to the prosecution. PW-1 Anjali Malhotra’s testimony is not corroborated by any evidence. Admittedly, cases had been going on between PW-1 Anjali Malhotra and the respondents prior to the incident, in question. In another criminal complaint instituted by PW-1 Anjali Malhotra, all the respondents appeared as defence witnesses. These facts are borne out from the cross-examination of PW-1 Anjali Malhotra. 8. Looking to the abovestated position, I do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. July 11, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J