Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : July 28, 2009
Bimla .... Petitioner
Vs.
Anil and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 2844 of 2009 :
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is
accompanied by affidavit, delay of 130 days in filing the revision petition
is condoned.
Main Case :
Bimla has filed this revision petition assailing judgment dated
09.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari thereby
accepting revision petition filed by respondents no.1 to 4 assailing order
dated 19.10.2007 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli
whereby respondent no.1 had been summoned for offences under Sections
354, 452 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) and all respondents no.1
to 4 along with Rati Devi had been summoned for offence under Section
Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M) 2
323 read with Section 149 IPC in criminal complaint instituted by the
petitioner.
The petitioner’s case is that on 28.07.2002, respondent no.1
Anil trespassed into her house and caught hold of her and tried to outrage
her modesty. Alarm raised by the petitioner attracted her children and their
uncle. The petitioner narrated the incident to her husband. The petitioner
and her husband went to the house of respondent no.1 to lodge protest and
also told that they would lodge report with the police. While they were
returning, they were assaulted by respondents no.2 to 4 and Rati Devi.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
case file.
Respondent no.1 Anil Kumar got registered FIR No. 92 dated
29.07.2002 under Sections 323, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, in
which the petitioner and her husband Ram Kishan and others are facing
trial. It would show that respondent no.1 reported the matter to the police
on the very next day of the occurrence. It was thereafter that the petitioner
made report to the police on 30.07.2002 vide Report No.33 in Daily Diary.
The allegations made in the said report were also found to be false.
Moreover, the petitioner got herself admitted in hospital on 29.07.2002 with
complaint of heart beat. She did not get herself medico legally examined on
29.07.2002. Even on 30.07.2002, when she was medico legally examined,
no external mark of injury was found on her person and she only
complained of pain. Report recorded in Daily Diary at the instance of the
petitioner did not make out case under Section 354 IPC against respondent
no.1. The petitioner lodged first criminal complaint on 25.11.2003 i.e. after
delay of 16 months, for which there is no explanation. The said complaint
was dismissed in default on 03.02.2006 and the second complaint, which
has given rise to this revision petition, was instituted on 08.02.2006.
In view of the circumstances noticed in the preceding
Crl. Revn. No. 140 of 2009 (O&M) 3
paragraph, the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Rewari cannot be said to be suffering from perversity or illegality or such
grave error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
July 28, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE