High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-A/1697/2014dismissed

Santosh Rani @ Hinna v. Subhash Chand And ORS

2017-01-16Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

Crl. Misc. No. A-1697-MA of 2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. A-1697-MA of 2014 Date of decision : 16.01.2017 Santosh Rani @ Hinna ....Applicant versus Subhash Chand and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Ms. Amandip Kaur, Advocate for Mr. J.B.S Gill, Advocate for the applicant **** RITU BAHRI , J.

The present appeal is against the judgment dated 01.08.2014 vide which the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed and the private respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Heard.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging therein that she was married with Subhash Chand on 07.05.2001 and her parents gave sufficient dowry to the private respondents but they were not happy with the dowry. Further accused No. 1 registered one F.I.R No. 16 dated 17.03.2004 against father and brothers of the complainant, which after enquiry, was ordered to be cancelled. The complainant has also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C which is still pending and filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC wherein in reply of which the accused levelled allegations that the complainant has some affairs with some Pardeep Singh. Thus, the accused has defamed the complainant.

The Court below after going through the entire evidence led by the GAURAV ARORA 2017.02.02 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. A-1697-MA of 2014 -2parties came to a conclusion that there are major contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of both the witnesses which renders the entire story of the complainant not only doubtful but also false. Further there is no medical report of the complainant to show that she was ever assaulted or maltreated by the accused nor there is any receipt or bill to show that any article, as alleged by the complainant in her complaint was ever purchased by her. There is not even a single instance mentioned in the complaint which shows the commission of offence as defined under Section 406/498-A of IPC. So The judgment passed by the Court below has been passed by appreciating the evidence in the correct prospective and does not require any interference by this Court.

The appeal stands dismissed.

16.01.2017 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE GAURAV ARORA 2017.02.02 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh