JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the victim complainant Mrs. Savitri seeking to assail the judgment dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act Cases), Churu in Sessions Case No.19/2013, whereby while convicting the respondent Lichhman was acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 341, 354, 427 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. 2. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant-complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. 3. The alleged incident of beating and abusing the appellant/complainant on count of caste is said to have taken place on 05.12.2007. The complainant initiated the prosecution through a complaint filed in the court concerned as late as on 10.12.2007. While concluding the proceedings, the learned trial court took note of the fact that the accused is 75 years old retired army man, who is on inmicial terms with his brother Hanumanram. The independent prosecution witnesses Sumitra (P.W.4) and Kamlesh (P.W.5), who gave evidence against the accused are close relatives of Hanumanram (Sumitra being his wife and Kamlesh being his sister-in-law). The trial court discarded the allegation of the prosecution that the complainant tried to report the matter at the Police Station Hameerwas on the very day of the incident after considering the fact that no such written report was exhibited by the prosecution in evidence. 4. The defence documents EX.D/1 to Ex.D/20 indicated that on the application of the accused, the police had initiated proceedings under Section 107-116 CrPC against the Mahipal, Savitri (complainant), Mamta and Hanumanram on 07.12.2007 and these persons including the complainant had been bound down by the police. The proceedings were registered four days before the complaint came to be lodged against the accusedrespondent. 5. After taking into account all these facts, the trial court considered the delay in lodging of the report to be significant and fatal to the prosecution and rightly so in my opinion. As the accused had already initiated proceedings under Section 107-116 CrPC against his brother and the complainant herein on 07.12.2007, manifestly, the complaint herein appears to have been filed as a counter-blast. 6. As the accused had already initiated proceedings under Section 107-116 CrPC against his brother and the complainant herein on 07.12.2007, manifestly, the complaint herein appears to have been filed as a counter-blast. 6. Thus, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 31.08.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality whatsoever warranting interference therein. Accordingly, the instant victim's appeal against acquittal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 7. The record be returned to the trial court.