IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 CRR-4407-2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 SARABJIT KAUR ...Petitioner Versus JASPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:- Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. A.P.S. Rehan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

*****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 15.09.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal against acquittal of respondent vide judgment dated 20.08.2015, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala in FIR No.114 dated 03.09.2008, registered under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC at Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, was dismissed.

2. Shorn of details, the facts of the case are that the instant FIR was lodged on the statement of the petitioner/complainant, stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 21.06.2006 and at the time of marriage, substantial dowry articles, including jewellery, and household items etc., were given. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to harassment by her husband and in-laws, who raised unlawful demands for additional dowry. Respondent No. 1 demanded a sum of ₹

2,00,000 for the purpose of going abroad, which was paid by the parents of the petitioner. During her pregnancy, the petitioner was further coerced to bring additional money from her parental home, and her dowry articles, including her stridhan, were misappropriated by the respondents. Despite this, the respondents continued to make persistent and escalating demands for money. The petitioner was repeatedly turned out of her matrimonial home on the condition that such demands be fulfilled. The petitioner gave birth to a male child at her parental home, yet neither her husband nor her in- laws visited or extended any support. The husband subsequently left for abroad without informing the petitioner. The respondents refused to allow the petitioner to reside in her matrimonial home on the pretext that the dowry provided was insufficient and not commensurate with their status. It was thereafter that the instant FIR was lodged. Trial was conducted, whereupon the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed due to delay in filing of the appeal vide order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had given a detailed account of the cruelty and harassment suffered by her at the hands of the respondent No.1, duly supported by cogent and credible evidence, which has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. The appeal against the said order was also wrongly dismissed solely on the ground of delay in filing of the same, without assessing the judgment of acquittal on its merits.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contends that allegations made against him in the FIR as well as statements brought on the record were vague and general, and the same not being proved, respondent No.1 was duly acquitted by the learned trial Court after thorough appreciation of facts. The appeal was also filed after a considerable delay, extending beyond the period of limitation, for the sole of harassing the private respondent, and thus, the same was also rightly dismissed by way of the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2016.

5. Learned state Counsel submits that the respondent No.1 was acquitted by the trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, and the appeal against the same was also dismissed, albeit, on the basis of delay in filing of the same.