IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-1894-MA-2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Vaneet Kaur ...Applicant(s)

Versus Harmeet Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Ms. Shazia K. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. K.K. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

The instant application has been filed for challenging the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2014, passed by the learned JMIC, Batala, whereby the accused respondents No.2 and 3 were acquitted and respondent No.1 was acquitted under Section 406 IPC and convicted under Section 498- A IPC in a complaint filed under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City Batala.

2. Shorn of details, the facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant/complainant was solemnised with accused-respondent No.1 on 25.11.2001. A huge amount was spent on the same by her family and many valuables, including, gold jewellery and household articles, were given to the accused. However, after some time of marriage, the respondents, i.e., the husband and in-laws of the complainant, started harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry and started pressuring her to bring more dowry and when she expressed her helplessness, all the accused assaulted her and gave beating and further a demand of Rs.50,000/-was raised. The petitioner was turned away from her matrimonial home, however, later in the presence of respectable family members the accused undertook not to maltreat the complainant, despite which on 20.08.2006 the petitioner was given beatings and a further demand of Rs.2 lacs was raised. The respondent No.1 even tried to kill the complainant with the electric shock. Upon these allegations, A complaint was moved by the father of the petitioner against her husband and in-laws. Challan was presented in the case and after conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court acquitted respondents No.2 and 3 under Sections 406 and 498-A and respondent No.1 under Section 406 but convicted respondent No.1 under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court had wrongly acquitted respondents No.2 and 3. It is submitted that the applicant had given the detailed account of the cruelty suffered by her at the hands of respondents, and also of the numerous instances where she had been ousted from her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws. The ordeals stated by her in the complaint were also reiterated by her on oath, and the same were also corroborated in her testimony. Yet the learned Trial Court overlooked the same and acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3 resulting in travesty of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial court proceeded to acquit the respondents citing lack of evidence against them.

5. After having heard the case and perused the record, it comes out that during the trial, besides the complainant, other witnesses were also duly examined. However, upon finding lack of specific allegations against the respondents No.2 and 3 and in absence of any corroborative evidence, they were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2014. It was the contention of the appellant that she had been ousted from her matrimonial home and even the compromise was also effected between the parties to settle the dispute. However, no evidence to corroborate this submission was advanced by the applicant. Moreover, it was alleged that the applicant was subjected to physical cruelty, but no medical evidence, though not sine qua non, was put forth. Further, no evidence in support of the contention regarding the dowry articles purportedly given in the marriage, including bills of purchase, were no