Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 600 (MP)

Pinki Rajak (Smt. ) v. State of M. P.

2025-09-26

ANIL VERMA

body2025
ORDER 1. Today nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This criminal revision is pending since 2014, therefore, in the interest of justice, Shri Prashant Chauhan, Advocate, who is present in the Court and his name is in the panel of Legal Aid Committee, Gwalior, is appointed as counsel for the petitioner. 2. Both the parties are heard. 3. Petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under section 397/401 o f Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 27.3.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.62/2014, whereby order dated 27.1.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.17819/2009 has been upheld whereby the accused persons have been acquitted for the offence under section 498A of IPC and accordingly, appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that marriage of the petitioner Pinki Rajak was solemnized with respondent No.2 Jasrath Singh on 4.3.2003 but after marriage for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, respondent No.1 started ill-treating the petitioner and tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil upon her and also harassed her minor children. Respondent No.3 had threatened them for life and ousted the petitioner from her matrimonial house. Petitioner lodged an FIR at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior. Accordingly, offence has been registered. 5. Trial Court has framed the charges under sections 498 A, 506-B of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. After completion of trial, trial Court has acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 from all the charges. Being aggrieved by aforesaid, petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal before Sessions Judge, Gwalior which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.3.2014 upholding that it is not maintainable in the light of amendments under section 372 of Cr.P.C. effective from 31.12.2009. Being aggrieved by aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that statement of Pinki Rajak (PW-1) is well supported by statements of Bhagwandas, Ramprakash Singh, Ramnarayan, S.I. Aradhana and Patiran and well supported by documentary evidence but the Trial Court has ignored the cogent evidence available on record and acquitted the accused persons. Respondent No.2 has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but same has also been withdrawn by him. Respondent No.2 has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but same has also been withdrawn by him. Amendment in Section 372 of Cr.P.C. has come into effect from 31.12.2009, therefore, petitioner has a right to appeal against order of acquittal. Appellate Court has ignored the same and, therefore, the order has been passed against law and facts, hence he prays that impugned order be set aside and respondents No.2 to 4 be adequately punished. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State submits that Court may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. 9. From perusal of record, it appears that provision of section 372 of Cr.P.C. provides as under: “No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided -"No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. 10. Thus, it is evident that above proviso to section 372 (Act 5 of 2009) which inserted with effect from 31.12.2009, gives limited right to the victim to file an appeal against any order of a criminal Court to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. 11. In the instant matter, date of incident was 4.3.2009 to 2.12.2009 and the Trial Court has taken cognizance on 30.12.2009. Considering the date of institution of charge sheet and date of cognizance taken i.e. 30.12.2009, it appears that just one day before amendment done in section 372 of Cr.P.C. became effective, therefore, acquittal appeal on behalf of the complainant is not maintainable. 12. In view of amended provisions of section 372 of Cr.P.C., impugned order passed by the Appellate Court appears to be just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision being meritless is dismissed. 13. 12. In view of amended provisions of section 372 of Cr.P.C., impugned order passed by the Appellate Court appears to be just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision being meritless is dismissed. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid Committee, Gwalior to pass formal order regarding appointment and payment of counsel fee to the concerned Advocate through Legal Aid in accordance with Rules. 14. Let a copy of this order along with record of both the Courts below be sent ack to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance. 15. Certified copy as per rules.