Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 28 (PNJ)

Lakhwinder Kaur v. Piare Lal

2004-01-09

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2004
ORDER Mehtab S. Gill, J. - The petitioner-complainant has filed a revision under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure of Code against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathankot dated 12.3.2003. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Piare Lal and Savin Kumari were charged under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that she was married on 23.2.1993 to Manjit Pal Sarota. Dowry articles were given in the marriage. She stayed for 6-1/2 years with her husband and during this period she was harassed and mal-treated. Demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made from the complainant. 3. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Lakhwinder Kaur as PW-1, Gurpinder Singh as PW-2, Harbans Singh, ASI as PW-3, Ashok Kumar, Ahlmed as PW-4, Jagir Singh, ASI as PW-5 and PWs Sarabjit Singh and Kuldip Singh were given up by the prosecution as unnecessary. 4. The trial Court after adducing the evidence and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties acquitted the accused. 5. Against this order of acquittal, revision was filed before this Court by complainant-Lakhwinder Kaur. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the case of the prosecution has been proved. PW-2 Gurpinder Singh and PW-3 Harbans Singh, ASI have corroborated the statements and the guilt of the accused is clear from the statements that a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made. The illegal conduct of the husband of the complainant Manjit Pal Sarota and other family members has also been proved by the statements. Complainant was beaten up and taunted for bringing insufficient dowry. 8. The learned Court has held that the prosecution could not lead any evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Complainant-Lakhwinder Kaur has come into the witness box as PW-1 and one Gurpinder Singh has comes into the witness box as PW-2. Apart from these two statements, there is no other independent evidence from the side of the complainant. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Prakash v. Managing Director, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3419 wherein the Honble Court had remanded the case back, as the High Court had dismissed that revision in a summary manner. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Prakash v. Managing Director, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3419 wherein the Honble Court had remanded the case back, as the High Court had dismissed that revision in a summary manner. 10. The Honble Supreme Court in Kishan Swaroop v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 1998(3) RCR(Crl.) 137 has held in para 3 of the judgment that it was the primary responsibility of the State to file appeal/revision and, therefore, no criminal revision in respect of an order which is appealable at the instance of the State could/should be entertained. Revisional jurisdiction of the Court on a Revision filed by the complainant be exercised only in exceptional cases, where there is some glaring defect in the procedure, or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there is a flagrant mis-carriage of justice. 11. In the case in hand, there is no mis-carriage of justice and there is no error in law. 12. Revision does not lie and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed.