1 2025:CGHC:53967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 596 of 2019 1 - Smt. Mamta Dhurve W/o Shri Prashant Dhurve Aged About 34 Years R/o L.I.G. 15, Harkeshar Colony, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. , City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Preeti Dhurve D/o Late Sumeriram Dhurve Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bhoynapara, Police Station Latabod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chitrarekha Bai Dhurve W/o Late Sumeriram Dhurve Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bhoynapara, Police Station Latabod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Prashant Dhurve S/o Late Sumeriram Dhurve Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhoynapara, Police Station Latabod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer None present. 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/victim challenging the judgment dated 27th April, 2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 1160/2017 whereby respondents No. 2 to 4/accused have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant / victim is that the marriage of appellant / victim – Smt. Mamta Dhurve was solemnized with respondent No. 4- Prashant Dhurve on 06.12.2014 as per their rites & rituals. They have been blessed with a son. She further submits that prior to birth of child, respondents accused Nos. 2 to 4 used to harass the victim by doubting her character and demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- and also expressed their dissatisfaction with the dowry items received. Social meeting was also held in this regard, in which victim party were penalized. Thereafter, written report was lodged by victim herself on 02.05.2017. It is further contended that victim examined herself alongwith her father, mother & brother, sisters and neighbours, who have categorically stated that victim has been frequently harrassed physically & mentally by respondents No. 2 to 4 /accused persons in connection with demand of dowry, despite that learned trial Court without considering the evidence in its true perspective has acquitted the accused persons, which is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record, hence, it is prayed that appeal may be admitted for hearing. 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the State has not filed any appeal. However, she submits that appropriate order may be passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. As per record of learned trial Court, FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the victim alleging therein that prior to birth of her child, respondent Nos. 2 to 4/accused persons started harassing her doubting her character. She further alleged that accused persons were not satisfied to the articles given at the time of marriage. They also demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- and on the above issue, the accused persons abused and assaulted her and harassed her. 6. Victim & her husband – Prashant Dhurve were posted as Teacher in different places prior to their marriage. Victim used to visit her matrimonial place time to time. As per her cross-examination, she resided at her matrimonial place only for a few days, i.e., in parts, because she was posted at different places, whereas, her matrimonial place is about 18 kms. far from her parental place. Victim has admitted in paragraph 12 of her cross-examination that till one year from her marriage, her husband and is his family members kept her well. In this period, they did not demand any dowry, but mother of victim namely, Geeta Netam (PW-2) has stated in her cross-examination that after 2-3 months of marriage, respondents/accused started making demand of Rs.2,00,000/- from victim. Allegations levelled against accused persons by victim in her deposition is omnibus type allegations and no specific date and act of the respondents/accused has been mentioned so as to ascertain what harassment was meted out to her by which accused. 4 7. Social meeting in respect of issue of victim and her husband was held on 16.04.2012, which is evident from deposition of victim (PW-1), her sister Neelam Dhruv (PW-5) and Deepak Kumar Netam (PW-6). As per their deposition, penalty was imposed upon the victim and her father in social meeting and not against the respondents/accused persons. This fact also proves the allegations false, because if any overt act of cruelty towards the victim was found on the part of the accused persons, they could have been penalized in that meeting. 8. Victim – Smt. Mamta dhurve (PW-1), her sister – Neelam Dhurv (PW-5) and her father – Deepak Kumar Netam (PW-5) have admitted in their deposition that if respondent No. 4 – Prashant Dhurve (husband of victim) would not have called social meeting and no divorce would be granted in that meeting, rather if he would be ready to keep her, then she would not have lodged FIR. Aforesaid fact also creates serious doubt to the version of victim that she was subjected to cruelty on demand of money or any other ground, as has been stated in preceding paragraphs. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, which is a plausible one therefore, no interference is required to be made with the findings recorded by the said Court. 10. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Record of the Courts below be returned forthwith along with a copy of this order. Sd/- amit (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 18:15:18 +0530 5