← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/77/2019dismissed

Pushpa Malhotra v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2023-08-09Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain7 pages

2023:PHHC:114540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 09.08.2023 Pushpa Malhotra ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.





    



 

     !"    # 

$

%&  !" 



'&( #)  *  





 

!  +  $, &- -!

   

) ) ./

    ! 

-  % / 0- % !

1



 

 ) 3 

! 4

*

"  

#)$$ 





! ! )

4

!





4  ,   * ,)



! 



)







 

'&()

+



 9



!"



$) 

   / 

1

-4)

0

6

-4+

-4:$)

 

!

  

 ;

'&( !   

  



/ !" 



<)





/

/ 

-4 -4+

  !





 



/ 

-4$)



/ 

  )  

!   !  )

 

!

1 

! 5 !

 ;)



     !



/ 

!



!



-4  &

!





 !

!5

/ 

 

 ) & !    

 



-4$ /

 / 

 

/

)

 

 

!!



/ 

!

 )

)

&



  

 '&(



 1 





 !





  =1)>$ =1)>,

  



 



!

 

/ 

) 



!

,);)) =1)>4?

!



 ) ,

$)*);

 !  

) 

!

 





 '&( ! 

1

 



/





 

! 

 )@

,) .)

 

 





:

! 





) 2  



 

!  

 "

5 - .





-/ -  %  





 -/+  ) =

  !

!



! ) & 

!



! -/?



-/ -  %  

!  !!

 

  

! "

!

!)

+) '



!



3 

! 

  4

!

 

  0 - 5



 !



 ! 





!  !

  )*);



 ! 

 !

,));) 

 

 -  ( 6 ( #

   

5



 ! 

 







! ) '

 

 ,) ) =1)>$





! =1)-/?

 





  





0 - 5

  4  ,)+)* ,





  =1)>$ 0 - 5

 ( ),?:

!

 

!

!

 









>/+ > &

  /   

1

) & !

 

 

;) ./ /) ) )

!

 ! 



   

 

 

    

!

"6. In a revision application filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal order, the court's jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is limited. The law on the subject is well settled. Instead of referring to various judgments, we would only refer to few decisions rendered by this Court. In Akalu Ahir and Others v. Ramdeo Ram,(1973) 2 SCC 583 this Court has (in SCC pp.587-88, para 8) observed thus: A2

/



  ! / 

/ 

/  !" 

7 BC

4

! 

 !"

D BC

4



 

!  / !

BC

4









 BC

4



5 

 

 BC

4

!" 



!



/)



/



 

!   



 

1!

   



/ 

!" )A





7 B ),

C A#   





/

  

/ 

!! 



/

 ! 

  







! 

) &

 







 

!  !

 %5

  

 



! 

/ /

!

B=

 C@

& "# $



%& '

())*+

<;) ,-  

- . $

.,")*/  



)+

! 5 ! 



1

 !

!!

/

A2 "



 

 

!

  

"



 

! 

4 %

 





!!

 

!

 

 



:

!







!

!!

  

!

 

 



! +



)A

,

%0



   0

.,")*  



++



/  !!



!

 ! 

/



 &   



'

$, 1

$  ))"" $((!) 2/

 ! 



! 

!

!  

 !



 /

!

" /  /

 

!  ! )  

/ 

:

!

!

/ !!





  

  !

/  

/

 



 !

*) 

( 



 ! !!  



!!

 9

2



 /

!

 ! )@ *) '

"

34 - ,

7$ ))+*

,)))))))))))))))))4

!!

/



/ 

!

 ! )

 ! 



 ! )

/ 

/  !!

!  



/



/

 )

%



'

$ , 1

$  )2/  

/ 

!

!

/ !!



!

%



) 4

/

!!

!  

/

 in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and the impugned order cannot be sustained.

) 2



 

! 



 ! ) ) 

 

 5 

/ 

  



/) (

  

 



. 5

 '..11., -

18-9 Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No