Dimple v. State of Haryana and Anr

IN THE HIGH

Dimple

State of Harya

CORAM: HO

Present: -Mr. V

NIDHI GUPT

C

04.09.2017 pa Appeal No. 2 learned Judici 2015 arising o 406/498-A IP acquitting resp him benefit of

L submits that in failed to appr contentions. accused/ respo and his family sufficient dow 17 (O&M) -1 - COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR

CRR-37 Date of Dec

Versus ana and another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate f *** TA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petiti assed by learned Additional Sess 22 of 2017 whereby judgmen al Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal i out of FIR No. 257 dated 20.11 PC at Police Station Civil L pondent No.2 from the charges f doubt, has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petition n passing the impugned orders, reciate the evidence led by th It is submitted that the petition ondent No.2. It is further subm y have ceaselessly harassed the wry. The petitioner has also spe

RYANA AT CHANDIGARH 705-2017 (O&M) ision: 19.07.2024

.… Petitioner

.... Respondents I GUPTA for the petitioner. ion is to the judgment dated sions Judge, Kaithal in Criminal nt dated 02.02.2017 passed by in Criminal Case No. RBT60 of

1.2013 registered under Section Line Kaithal, District Kaithal levelled against him by giving ner/complainant/wife inter alia the learned Courts below have he petitioner in support of her ner has borne the torture of the mitted that the respondent No.2 e petitioner for not bringing the ecifically stated in her testimony

d l y f n l g a e r e e y

that she had p and she had b said evidence would accept beatings by th stated in para mother regard petitioner cam for her, but the

L examined and Cr.P.C. was re doubt.

T mother as PW handed over to been stated in amount to resp considered by

N

I case file in gre

T petitioner was 17 (O&M) -2 - purchased the entire dowry artic brought entire bills to her matrim had been wrongly discarded by o.2 had asked the petitioner to sl her as his wife. The petitio he respondent No.2 due to whic a 7 of the present revision petit ding the entire incident on teleph me and took the petitioner for the e respondent No.2 did not take th Learned counsel submits that d even the statement of respon ecorded. However, he has been The petitioner herself appeared W3 and she specifically stated tha o respondent No.2 by the moth n the FIR that the mother of th pondent No.2. However, the sa the learned Courts below in pas No other argument has been raise have heard learned counsel for t eat detail. The brief facts of the case as evid s married to the accused/ respon

cles from the market of Kaithal monial home, however even the y the learned Courts below. The lap her mother and only then he oner was also given merciless ch she became ill. It has been tion that the petitioner told her hone. On this, the mother of the e purposes of getting medical aid he petitioner back. 6 prosecution witnesses were ndent No.2 under Section 313 n acquitted by giving benefit of as PW2 and had examined her at an amount of Rs.50,000/- was er of the petitioner. It had also he petitioner had given the said aid facts and evidence were not sing the impugned judgments. ed on behalf of the petitioner. the petitioner as also perused the dent from the record are that the ndent No.2 on 11.12.2010. No l e e e s n r e d e f r s o d t e e o

child was born petitioner, the Sections 406/ Kaithal.In the marriage, mot marriage, accu convened whe the act. It has house of petiti alleging that mother keepin money. It has not bringing d mother only t mercilessly an regarding the complainant f not take com against the ac registered in w by the learned judgment, pet Judge, Kaitha

04.09.2017. H 17 (O&M) -3 - n out of their wedlock. On a com e present FIR No. 257 dated 20 /498-A IPC at Police Station e complaint, the petitioner had ther of the petitioner gave dowry used husband used to beat th ere the family of accused gave as s been further alleged that accus ioner and demanded from the co the amount has to be given to ng in view that her daughter wou been further alleged that the ac dowry and in one instance, he hen he will accept her as his w nd petitioner became ill. Compla entire event on telephone and for the purposes of getting medi mplainant back and complainant ccused. On the basis of the com which the respondent No.2-accus d trial Court vide judgment date titioner filed an appeal before t al which has also been dis Hence, the present revision petitio

mplaint (Ex.PW1/E) filed by the

0.11.2013 was registered under n Civil Line Kaithal, District d alleged that at the time of y as per her capacity. Yet, after e petitioner. A panchayat was ssurance that they will not repeat sed no. 1 Ram Lal came to the omplainant's mother Rs.50,000/- o some one and complainant's uld be kept nicely gave away the cused tortured the petitioner for asked the petitioner to slap her wife and also gave her beatings ainant/petitioner told her mother her mother came and took the ical aid for her but accused did t has prayed for taking action mplaint, the above said FIR was sed faced trial and was acquitted ed 02.02.2017. Against the said the learned Additional Sessions smissed vide judgment dated on. e r t f r s t e - s e r r s r e d n s d d s d

In examined 6 w PW3. Upon l Court found n In her compla expired; but d alive but livin had stated th said amount w petitioner had from the mark matrimonial h petitioner has during marriag said dowry art no.2 was wo of her ill health the convenienc soon after the not inspire the was unable to beaten up by r harassment or 17 (O&M) -4 - n order to prove the above sa witnesses including the petition leading documentary as well as numerous discrepancies in the ca aint (Ex.PW1/E), the petitioner during her cross-examination, s ng separately. In her statement hat an amount of Rs.50,000/- o.2; however, in her cross-exam was paid by her brother to re d previously stated that she had ket in Kaithal and had carried home; however, contradictorily, admitted that there is no pro ge and she cannot produce any b ticles.It has been admitted by th orking in Gujarat. As such, a o.2 to Gujarat and stayed there f h, the respondent No.2 gave up h ce of the petitioner. As such, the marriage itself, the respondent e confidence of this Court. More o give specific information rega respondent No.2. Even no date, demand of dowry is given. Nee

aid allegations, the prosecution ner as PW2 and her mother as oral evidence, the learned trial ase set forth by the prosecution. has alleged that her father has he has stated that her father is before the police, the petitioner was given by her mother to mination, she has stated that the spondent No.2. Although, the d bought all her dowry articles the entire bills with her to her , in her cross-examination, the of of the dowry articles given bills to prove the purchase of the he petitioner that the respondent after marriage, she went with for 1 ½ to 2 months and because his job and moved to Kaithal for e allegation of the petitioner that No.2 gave beatings to her, does eover, in her evidence, petitioner arding when and where she was time, place or month of alleged edless to say, there is no medical n s l . s s r o e e s r e n e t h e r t s r s d l

evidence to co returned by bo and section 40

L these concurre

B pertains to the yet been issued of learned cou petitioner.

In the same is her

P

19.07.2024 Divyanshi

17 (O&M) -5 - orroborate the allegation of bea o.2. I am, therefore, in agreeme oth the courts below and hold th 06 IPC is not made out against th Learned counsel for the petitione ent findings of facts returned by b Before parting, it may be pointe e year 2017. Perusal of the order d in this case and the matter has unsel for the petitioner or none n view of the above, I find no m reby dismissed. ending application, if any, stand

Whether speaking/reasoned Y

atings given to the petitioner by ent with the concurrent findings hat offence under section 498–A he accused. er has been unable to controvert both the learned Courts below. ed out that the present petition sheets shows that notice has not either been adjourned at request e has appeared on behalf of the merit in the present petition and ds disposed of.

(NIDHI GUPTA)

JUDGE y s A t n t t e d