JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, challenging the judgment dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari wherein the accused-respondent No.2 (herein) was acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A of the IPC and the judgment of conviction dated 29.05.2015 and order of sentence dated 01.06.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kosli was set-aside

2. For clarity and simplicity, the revisionist-petitioner, who has filed the impugned FIR, will be referred to as the 'complainant' while respondent No.2, the accused in the impugned FIR, will be referred to as the 'accused' throughout this judgment.

3. In the present revision petition, the pertinent facts necessary for adjudication are that the complainant had approached the SDJM, Kosli who directed for registration of a case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 and consequently the instant FIR bearing No.06 dated 28.01.2011 was lodged against the accused-respondent No. 2, a resident of village Mukundpura, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity the 'IPC') at Police Station Jatusana. The matter proceeded to trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kosli, which concluded its proceedings and, vide judgment dated 29.05.2015, held the accused (respondent No.2 herein) guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused (respondent No.2 herein) preferred an appeal against the said judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kosli. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide judgment dated 16.08.2017, set-aside the trial court's decision and acquitted the accused of the charges. The appellate Court held that the trial court had not correctly appreciated the evidence in accordance with the relevant legal principles, and thus had not reached the appropriate conclusion based on the material facts presented during the trial, and hence require interference.

4. The petitioner (complainant herein), aggrieved by the findings of the appellate Court, has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking re-examination of the findings as the same are based on alleged mis-appreciation of evidence and procedural irregularities. However, it is well-settled law that the scope of revision is limited and does not entail a re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.

5. In brief, the case of the prosecution, as detailed in the present petition, is that on 28.01.2011, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Kosli, directed the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based on a complaint made by the complainant. It was alleged therein by the complainant that she was married to accused Kamlesh (respondent No.2 herein) on 12.05.2009 in village Fatehpuri, as per Hindu rites. Immediately, after a short span of her marriage, the complainant alleged that she was subjected to dowry harassment and maltreatment by the accused. It was further alleged that at the time of lagan ceremony on 10.05.2009, accused Shiv Kumar (accused no. 2) expressed dissatisfaction with the gold ornaments gifted by the family of the complainant and also demanded Rs.1,50,000/-. After the solemnization of the marriage, the accused, Kamlesh, allegedly started harassing the complainant, claiming that he had better marital options and began treating the complainant as a maid. It was further alleged that on 09.06.2009, when the complainant went to her matrimonial home, the accused Kamlesh and Shiv Kumar raised a demand of cash of Rs.2,00,000 while accused Sanjay intervened and suggested raising the demand to Rs.5,00,000/-. After much persuasion, the accused did not mend their ways and remained adamant on their demand of cas