SMT. SUMAN Vs. MUKESH
LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-304
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on February 25,2016

SUMAN Appellant
VERSUS
MUKESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) - CRM-30893 of 2015 There is delay of 72 days in filing the application for granting leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Application is allowed as per the grounds mentioned therein and delay of 72 days in filing the application is condoned. CRM-A-1582-MA of 2015
(2.) The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 03.04.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, whereby, complaint filed by the applicant under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), has been dismissed and the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charge.
(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case as per prosecution version are that marriage of applicant was solemnized with the respondent on 27.07.2007. The applicant was harassed by the respondent for giving insufficient dowry. She filed a complaint wherein notice was issued to respondent. Thereafter, preliminary evidence was recorded before the trial Court. The complainant reiterated the allegations made in the complaint while appearing as CW1. A report was also filed by local Police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The respondent was summoned in that complaint to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 498- A and 323 IPC. However, the complaint was dismissed qua the allegations levelled under Section 506 IPC vide order dated 09.06.2014. In pre-charge evidence, the complainant again reiterated the same allegations as mentioned in the complaint. She also tendered a list of dowry articles. One Inder Raj also appeared as CW2 as he was witness to the marriage between the parties. By finding a prima facie case for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC, charge was framed against the accused-respondent but he pleaded not guilty and claimed regular trial. After framing of charge, the evidence of the complainant was closed on 23.01.2015 by order of the Court as the complainant failed to lead any fresh evidence in spite of giving sufficient opportunities.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.