JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 23.04.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari upholding the order dated 24.07.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, whereby respondent No.1 (herein) was acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC.

2. For clarity and simplicity, the revisionist-petitioner, who has filed the impugned FIR, will be referred to as the 'complainant' while respondent No.1, 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 for adjudication are that the FIR No.40 dated 20.02.2013 was lodged against the accused-respondent No. 1, a resident of village Sedpur, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Rajasthan), under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity the 'IPC') at Police Station City, Rewari. The matter proceeded to trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rewari, which concluded its proceedings and, vide judgment dated 24.07.2017, acquitted the accused (respondent No. 1 herein) of all the charges. Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the complainant preferred an appeal against the said judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide judgment dated 23.04.2018, upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the acquittal of the accused. The appellate Court held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence in accordance with the legal principles and had reached the appropriate conclusion based on the material facts presented during the trial and hence does not require any interference.

4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the consistent findings of both the trial Court and 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 FIR, is that the complainant namely Prem Lata had married the accused (respondent No.1 herein) on 24.02.2012, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the complainant resided with the accused (respondent No.1 herein) at her matrimonial home. The father of the complainant allegedly spent approximately Rs.10.00 lacs on the wedding, including Rs.2.00 lacs in cash and various dowry articles, which were given to the family of the accused (respondent No.1 herein). However, the accused and his family were dis-satisfied with the dowry and began harassing the complainant, demanding additional dowry. Despite the complainant becoming pregnant, the accused and his family allegedly continued their abusive behavior, demanding a car worth Rs.8.00 lacs. They allegedly beat her, forced her to take harmful medication which caused stomach infection and ultimately left her at the Rewari bus-stand on 24.05.2012. The complainant was treated at hospital where she gave birth to a son, with all medical expenses borne by her parents. A Panchayat was held to reconcile the matter, but the accused maintained their demand for a car as a condition for her return. They allegedly threatened to harm her if she approached the Police. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Sections 323, 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC. The complainant later provided a supplementary statement detailing further harassment related to her appearance and the confiscation of her jewellery. Investigation ensued, resulted in the arrest of the accused (respondent No.1 herein) and a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction.