Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48422 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS No. - 75 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Saheedun Nisha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Complainant-Applicant has filed this application under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment dated 30.1.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 411 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C., Police Station Railbazar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused- respondent nos.2 to 7 for the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the complainant-applicant has argued that on 11.11.2013, she sold her immovable property in favour of Aysha Bano by executing a sale deed, however, the possession of the said property was not delivered to the buyer. Learned counsel submits that on 6.9.2014 she left her place to attend a wedding and when she returned back, it was found that her household articles were stolen by breaking the lock. The allegations were levelled against the brother-in-law and other close family members of the applicant. Learned counsel submits that during trial, the applicant had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the accused persons, but the trial court has wrongly acquitted them of the charges through the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.1.2025, which calls for interference by this Court. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant-applicant that at the time of alleged occurrence, the applicant-complainant was not present in the house and in support of her case only her brother was examined as P.W.- 3, who admittedly is not a resident of that place. That apart, there is no evidence that after sale of the immovable property on 11.11.2013, the possession remained with the applicant as in this regard, purchaser-Aysha Bano was not examined as a witness. Further, a perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.1.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the prosecution evidence while holding that not only the medical evidence has not been adduced, but otherwise also no convincing evidence has been adduced to prove the charges. The reasoning given by the trial court is based upon the proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. No other argument has been raised. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings returned on acquittal of the accused-opposite party nos.2 to 7. Dismissed. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad