High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-A/1038/2016dismissed

Sunita v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2016-12-03Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg3 pages

GAURAV ARORA 2016.12.12 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 03.12.2016 Sunita ....Applicant versus State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the applicant **** RITU BAHRI , J.

This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.03.2016 vide which respondent Nos 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Heard.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging therein that in the year 2002, she solemnized marriage with Jagsir Ram @ Jaggi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village Kharkan Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. One female child was born out of this wedlock in the year 2005. Her parents had given dowry articles to the accused in the marriage. After marriage, the husband and his family members starting harassing the complainant on account of bringing less dowry. The complainant alleged that her husband demanded motorcycle and when her parents did not fulfill the demand of the accused, the complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home so many times and panchayats were also convened at the house of accused to settle the dispute. The complainant went to her matrimonial home so many times after the assurance given by the

-2accused person in the panchayat not to harass the complainant in future but the accused person harassed and teased the complainant on petty matters. Finally she was turned out of the matrimonial home on 10.03.2012 along with minor girl by giving beatings and said that bring motorcycle from your family. The husband of the complainant even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 24.08.2012 after receiving the summons of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same was dismissed on 06.09.2012 and one complaint was also filed by accused No. 1 on 11.08.2012 on the ground that brother of the complainant had borrowed Rs.45,000/- from the accused for contesting election. The complainant further submitted that accused persons have misappropriated the ornaments of complainant i.e one gold chain of 1⁄2 tola and teeka of gold 04 gm to purchase the plot which was admitted by accused persons in application which was filed before S.P Sangrur. In her preliminary evidence, the complainant examined CWI to CW5.

Vide order dated 10.06.2016, the accused were summoned to face trial for commission of offence under Section 498-A/406/506 IPC. In her pre-charge evidence, the complainant examined C.W.1 HC Manjeet Singh who produced the record of the complaint bearing No. 6741/A dated 11.08.2012 and record of rapat No. 641/5p/DSP dated 28.08.2012 Prima facie, a case under Section 498-A/406/506 IPC was made out against the accused and charges were framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The complainant closed her evidence on 03.02.2016 and accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they pleaded false implication. No evidence was led by the accused in their defence.

-3After going through the entire evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant is placing reliance only on complaint dated 11.08.2012 placed as Ex CA, which was moved by the present complainant, her mother and brother wherein the allegations are that the jewellery articles of the present complainant was sold by accused No. 1 but this complaint was found to be false by the investigation agency and it was dismissed. The jewellery articles had been sold to which the complainant has no objection and they were living happily as husband and wife. Further the plot was purchased in the year 2007 and the complaint has been moved on 24.12.2013. Further no proof of sale of dowry articles for the purchase of plot has been produced by the complainant.

Counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any other evidence which the lower Court has misread or which can lead to conviction of the accused under Section 498-A/406/506 IPC. Thus, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused by giving them benefit of doubt, as the complainant has failed to prove that the accused misappropriated the articles of the complainant or were entrusted the dowry articles or subject the complainant to cruelty on her failure to bring the motorcycle.

Accordingly, the application seeking leave to file an appeal is hereby dismissed.

03.12.2016 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE