Criminal Revision No. 2295 of 2013

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.2295 of 2013

Date of Decision:-25.08.2014

Naseem Akhtar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

Present:-

Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate

for the petitioner.

T.P.S.MANN J.(Oral)

The petitioner, at whose instance FIR No.12 dated 17.1.2003

under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC, Police Station Division No.2,

Ludhiana, was registered, has filed the present revision under Section

401 Cr.P.C. for challenging the order dated 10.4.2013 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the accused-respondent

No.2 was acquitted of the charge under Section 420 IPC.

Initially, accused-respondent No.2 was charged for offences

under Sections 420 and 498-A IPC. At the conclusion of the trial, he was

acquitted under Section 498-A IPC. He was, however, convicted under

Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two

years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved of his

VIJAY ASIJA

2014.08.27 17:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Criminal Revision No. 2295 of 2013

-2-

conviction and sentence under Section 420 IPC, accused-respondent

preferred an appeal. Vide order dated 10.4.2013 learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ludhiana accepted the appeal and acquitted the

accused-respondent of the charge against him.

Hence, the present revision filed by the complainant.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going

through the impugned judgment passed by the Court below, this Court is

of the considered view that no case is made out for any interference in the

acquittal of accused-respondent for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

While in the witness box, the complainant had admitted that the accused-

respondent did not entice her to give him any mobile phone or other

articles, rather it was the complainant, who had helped out the accused-

respondent voluntarily due to sympathy. The evidence of the complainant

regarding demand of Rs.2,00,000/- or a plot also cannot be believed as

she did not inform the police regarding the said fact. Under these

circumstances, the lower appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion

that both the parties had developed intimacy with each other and decided

to get married. However, later on when the accused-respondent refused

to join the company of the complainant, the latter came up with a false

version of having been cheated by the accused-respondent.

The revision petition is without any merit and, therefore,

dismissed.

August 25, 2014

( T.P.S.MANN )

Vijay Asija

JUDGE

VIJAY ASIJA

2014.08.27 17:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document