R/CR.RA/1921/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1921 of 2025 ========================================================== SHEIKH IRFANABEN W/O ABDUL RAZAK SHEIKH D/O GULABKHAN UMEDKHAN SHEIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MS RAKSHA S KHATED(12987) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 04/05/2026 ORDER 1. Learned advocate Ms. Raksha S.Khated for the applicant stated that she has no instruction in the matter. 2. In the present matter, the original complainant of the proceedings, under sections 498A, 323, 294A and 506(2) of the IPC in Criminal Case No.5882 of 2023 on the judgment of acquittal dated 12.08.2024 passed by the 5th Additional Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, had challenged the correctness of acquittal before the appellate Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2024 under section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereby the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banskantha-Palanpur vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2025 affirmed the acquittal. Page 1 of 4 R/CR.RA/1921/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 2.1 Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the present revisionist as a complainant has preferred the present revision application making following prayer as under: “6(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Revision Application; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned 5th Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Palanpur, in Criminal Case No.5882 of 2023, which was confirmed by the Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banskatha- Planpur in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2024 dated 29.07.2025 in the interest of justice. (C) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. It is required to be mentioned that under sub-section (3) of section 401 of the Cr.P.C., this Court in revision jurisdiction would have no power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Sub-section (3) of section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below: “401(3) )Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.” 4. The appeal under section 397 by a private party could be maintainable, as has been observed in the case of Sheetala Prasad & Ors. v. Sri Kant & Anr., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 190, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the revisional power and the proper mode to be exercised by the High Court and the scope of interference, where the revision preferred is by the private complainant R/CR.RA/1921/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 (State or accused have not preferred any appeal). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorized the cases, where revision preferred by the private complainant would become maintainable. It has been held in Paragraph 12 as under:- “Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of a private complainant- (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law.” 5. The ground raised is that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the facts and record of the matter. The Sessions Judge has not considered the fact that extra marital affairs has caused grave mental trauma and also mental health issues leading to serious consequences in the marriage, which would be amounting to mental cruelty, and because of illicit affairs of the respondent No.2, serious domestic discord has arisen between the parties. 6. Both the courts as 5th Additional Judicial Magistrate and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge had dealt with the evidence R/CR.RA/1921/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026 on record, which had been considered by analysing the evidence. The applicant is governed by Muslim Personal Law. The evidence of extra marital affairs resulting into cruelty, has been dealt with while recording that there has been ‘Talak’ between the parties, and that the fact of extra marital affairs on that basis has not been believed. 7. This Court does not find any reason to entertain the present application, since the ground raised has been dealt with, hence, the present application stands rejected. (GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/44 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/05/2026 18:36:39