JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

CRM-3944-2017

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 64 days in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 64 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.

CRM-3946-2017

This is an application moved before this Court under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. for taking additional evidence, i.e., a compact disc regarding videography evidence of the marriage, copy of the photographs of marriage as well as the copy of the order dated 14.11.2011 passed in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner and her minor son, on record for proper adjudication of the matter.

As prayed for in the said application, the same is read as a part of the accompanying revision petition for proper adjudication of the matter at hand and the same is being disposed of along with the main revision petition.

CRR-419-2017

1. This instant revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgement dated 30.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against judgement of acquittal dated 04.08.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira, was dismissed and the acquittal qua respondents no. 2 to 9 (private respondents) was upheld in FIR No.52 dated 13.04.2010 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 and 120-B IPC at Police Station-Zira.

2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner Harwinder Kaur moved an application before the concerned police upon which the FIR (supra) was registered, wherein, it was alleged that after the death of her husband Balwinder Singh in November 2002, she was forcefully remarried to the brother of the deceased husband respondent no.2-Jaswant Singh for grabbing the dowry articles and share of her husband. It was further alleged that at the time of the marriage of the petitioner with her first husband, sufficient dowry including one television, refrigerator, motorcycle and gold ornaments were given by her parents. Two male children namely Jaskaran Singh and Mankaran Singh were born out of the first wedlock. It was further alleged that more dowry articles including a motorcycle and some gold ornaments were given by the parents of the petitioner at the time of her second marriage. Then in-laws of the petitioner started demanding a car from her parents and when they refused, the in-laws started maltreating her. It was also alleged that the in-laws of the petitioner retained the dowry articles given to them during the first marriage as well as during the second marriage. Thereafter, Jaswinder Singh, i.e., the husband of the petitioner solemnized second marriage with Surjit Kaur without giving divorce to the petitioner. The said marriage was performed with active participation of the private respondents despite them being aware of the first marriage with the petitioner. When the parents of the petitioner became aware of the said marriage, they went to the private respondents to talk but were insulted by the private respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial house by the private respondents in the year 2008. Upon this application, the FIR (supra) was registered. After due procedure, charge was framed against the private respondents-accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 and 120-B of IPC but were ultimately acquitted of the said charges by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur against the said judgment of acquittal which was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the both the learned Courts below acquitted the private respondents mainly on account of the marriage