CRR-1468-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (216) Sarika Rakesh Kumar and Anr. CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. judgment dated reversed. 2. dated 31.10.2008, pursuant to which, vide order dated 05.02.2015, the respondent was convicted and sentenced under Sections 498 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as follows: Offences 498-A IPC 406 IPC 323 IPC 506 IPC 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus Rakesh Kumar and Anr. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Ms. Gurpeet Kaur, Legal Aid Counsel and Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2018, whereby the judgment dated 05.02.2015 was It is submitted that the petitioner had lodged FIR No. 364 dated 31.10.2008, pursuant to which, vide order dated 05.02.2015, the respondent was convicted and sentenced under Sections 498 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as follows: Sentence Awarded concurrently) Two years RI and Rs.1,000/ Two years rigorous imprisonment. One year rigorous imprisonment. One year -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1468-2018 Date of Decision:- 12.08.2025 ……petitioner ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Ms. Gurpeet Kaur, Legal Aid Counsel and Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned 28.03.2018, whereby the judgment dated 05.02.2015 was It is submitted that the petitioner had lodged FIR No. 364 dated 31.10.2008, pursuant to which, vide order dated 05.02.2015, the respondent was convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as follows: Sentence Awarded (To be run concurrently) Two years RI and Rs.1,000/- fine. Two years rigorous imprisonment. One year rigorous imprisonment. One year rigorous imprisonment. - 12.08.2025 ……petitioner ……Respondents The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned 28.03.2018, whereby the judgment dated 05.02.2015 was It is submitted that the petitioner had lodged FIR No. 364 dated 31.10.2008, pursuant to which, vide order dated 05.02.2015, the A, 406, 323, (To be run MANJU 2025.08.13 18:44 I agree to specified portions of this document CRR-1468-2018 3. conviction order acquitted of all charges. 4. the appellate Court erred in not appreciating the evidence and the cogent reasoning given by the trial Court while adjudicating the matter. 5. 6. the complainant stated that the accused ten days of marriage, although no such averment was made in the original complaint. It is further noted that the complainant admitted in cross examination that she desired to r household, however, disputes arose, ultimately leading to the lodging of the FIR. 7. establish which articles we absence of specific allegations, the A question of misappropriation of dowry articles did not arise. 8. petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. August 12, 2025 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 2018 On appeal filed by the respondent order dated 05.02.2015 were set aside, and the respondent was acquitted of all charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that e appellate Court erred in not appreciating the evidence and the cogent reasoning given by the trial Court while adjudicating the matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. A perusal of the record reveals that in her cross the complainant stated that the accused started ten days of marriage, although no such averment was made in the original complaint. It is further noted that the complainant admitted in cross examination that she desired to reside with her husband in a separate ousehold, however, since the husband was unable to afford the same, disputes arose, ultimately leading to the lodging of the FIR. As regards the dowry articles, the complainant failed to establish which articles were given and to whom they were entrusted. In the e of specific allegations, the Appellate Court rightly held that the question of misappropriation of dowry articles did not arise. Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. August 12, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No -2- On appeal filed by the respondent-husband, the judgment and dated 05.02.2015 were set aside, and the respondent was Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that e appellate Court erred in not appreciating the evidence and the cogent reasoning given by the trial Court while adjudicating the matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. A perusal of the record reveals that in her cross-examination, started demanding dowry only after ten days of marriage, although no such averment was made in the original complaint. It is further noted that the complainant admitted in cross- eside with her husband in a separate since the husband was unable to afford the same, disputes arose, ultimately leading to the lodging of the FIR. As regards the dowry articles, the complainant failed to re given and to whom they were entrusted. In the ppellate Court rightly held that the question of misappropriation of dowry articles did not arise. Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE - husband, the judgment and dated 05.02.2015 were set aside, and the respondent was Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that e appellate Court erred in not appreciating the evidence and the cogent ion, after ten days of marriage, although no such averment was made in the original - eside with her husband in a separate since the husband was unable to afford the same, As regards the dowry articles, the complainant failed to re given and to whom they were entrusted. In the ppellate Court rightly held that the Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the present MANJU 2025.08.13 18:44 I agree to specified portions of this document