Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 94 (CHH)

SAVITA @ BUDUL v. RAMMU CHAUDHARY

2013-03-08

RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The Complainant (Victim) has filed this revision against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.01.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49/2010, whereby, the Respondents were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. 3. A complaint case was initiated against the Respondents on a criminal complaint made by the Applicant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In view of the provisions of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (2013) 2 SCC 17 , this Criminal Revision would not be maintainable and the Applicant/Complainant shall have to file a leave petition under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Mr. Sinha has argued that earlier an Acquittal Appeal was filed, in which, the Division Bench observed that the Applicant can file a criminal revision against the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. We note that it was not brought to the notice of Division Bench that initially the prosecution has began on the criminal complainant and the acquittal was recorded in the complainant case. 7. In the matter when cognizance is taken in a complaint case, the position of law has been clarified by the Supreme Court in para 19 of Subhash Chand (Supra) which reads as under:- "19. Sub-section (4) of Section 378 makes provision for appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon complaint. It states that in such case if the complainant makes an application to the High Court and the High Court grants special leave to appeal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. This sub-section speaks of "special leave" as against sub-section (3) relating to other appeals which speaks of 'leave'. Thus, the complainant's appeal against an order of acquittal is a category by itself. The complainant could be a private person or a public servant. This is evident from sub-section (5) which refers to application filed for "special leave" by the complainant. It grants six months' period of limitation to a complainant who is a public servant and sixty days in every other case for filing application. Sub-section (6) is important. The complainant could be a private person or a public servant. This is evident from sub-section (5) which refers to application filed for "special leave" by the complainant. It grants six months' period of limitation to a complainant who is a public servant and sixty days in every other case for filing application. Sub-section (6) is important. It states that if in any case the complainant's application for "special leave" under sub-section (4) is refused no appeal from the order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2). Thus, if "Special Leave" is not granted to the complainant to appeal against an order of acquittal the matter must end there. Neither the District Magistrate nor the State Government can appeal against that order of acquittal. The idea appears to be to accord quietus to the case in such a situation." 8. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the Applicant is granted liberty that if so advised, she may file a petition for grant of special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The certified copy of the impugned order shall be returned to the counsel for the Applicant after detaining a photocopy of the same. Revision Dismissed.