1 CGHC010358362019 2026:CGHC:34617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1388 of 2019 Smt. Vijyeta Swarnkar W/o Shri Pradip Soni Aged About 37 Years Presently Working As Shiksha Karmi Grade-1, At Govt. Boys Hr. Secondary School, Sarsiva, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Pradip Kumar S/o Late Manharan Lal Soni Aged About 34 Years R/o Tenda Nawapara Thana Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Damrudhar Swarnkar S/o B. L. Swarwlar Aged About 47 Years R/o Basant Vihar, Jaspur Nagar, Chhattisgarh 3 - Miss Maduri Swarnkar W/o Damrudhar Swarnkar Aged About 39 Years R/o Basant Vihar, Jaspur Nagar, District Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ms. Rohini Soni W/o Late Manharanlal Soni Aged About 60 Years R/o Tenda Nawapara Thana Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Durgesh Soni S/o Late Manharanlal Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o Tenda Nawapara Thana Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh By The District Collector, Raigarh Taluka Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Deepti Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 to 5 : Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Vijay Laxmi Soni, Advocate. For Respondent No.6/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Deepti Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Vijay Laxmi Soni, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents No. 1 to 5, as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.6/State. 2. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2019; whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant has been dismissed and affirmed the impugned order dated 14.02.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raigarh (C.G.), in Cr. Case No. 787/2015, by which the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 12.05.2015 on the complaint of applicant to the Superintendent of Police alleging therein that marriage was solemnized with the respondent No. 1 on 02.05.2014 after which the husband and his relatives have started harassing her physically and mentally in respect of demand of Gold, Cash and some other articles. Crime No. 136/2015 was registered at the Police Station Gharghoda, District – Raigarh. The prosecution case in brief was that on 02.05.2014 after the marriage of applicant/complainant and respondent No.1 was solemnized the husband and his relatives started 3 harassing the applicant with respect of demand of dowery. Demand of certain amount was also made from the applicant and she was physically harassed in connection with the demand many a times. Upon finding cognizable offence being committed by them prima facie the respondents were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed by the police before the learned trail Court. Charges were framed against the accused persons and 8 witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court. After the final arguments the learned trial Court passed the order dated 14/02/2019 and acquitted the respondents/accused. 4. Being aggrieved by the above judgment of the trial Court the present applicant/complainant filed an appeal under Section 372 of CrPC on the various grounds including that the learned trial Court has committed an error in law by holding few of the witnesses to be interested witnesses just for the reason that they are relatives. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and respondents were liable to be convicted. The respondents/accused persons opposed the appeal on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a legal and reasoned order in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. After hearing arguments of both the sides the appellate Court passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2019 and dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby respondents/accused were acquitted. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court as well as the trial 4 Court being illegal, erroneous and contrary to law deserves to be set- aside. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact that despite there being sufficient material to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt the learned trial Court has erred in law by acquitting the respondents/accused. It is further submitted that the applicant and her father were of the view that the things will change but she was repeatedly and consistently subjected to cruelty and ultimately the complaint was made by her so there was no delay in lodging the FIR. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court as well as the trial Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2019; whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/complainant has been dismissed and affirmed the impugned order dated 14.02.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raigarh (C.G.), in Cr. Case No. 787/2015, by which the respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, and he further submits that the respondents have rightly been acquitted and there is no illegality while passing the impugned orders, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents No. 1 to 5 also opposed the prayer contained in the instant revision petition, and 5 endorsed the submissions raised by the learned State counsel. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the First Information Report was lodged after considerable delay without any satisfactory explanation. Though delay by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case, it necessitates a careful scrutiny of the evidence. It has also been found that the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry were not supported by reliable and cogent evidence. The allegation of repeated physical assault remained uncorroborated by any independent witness or medical evidence. Further, no material was brought on record to establish any willful conduct on the part of the respondents of such a nature as was likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, as contemplated under Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the IPC. The defence put forth by the respondents that the complainant wanted respondent No.1 to reside in her native village also finds support from the evidence on record, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Court for disbelieving the testimony of the complainant are founded upon proper appreciation of the evidence and cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. The learned Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire material on record, has rightly affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated 14.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District–Raigarh (C.G.), in Criminal Case No.787/2015 by dismissing Criminal Appeal No.52/2019 vide impugned judgment dated 30.08.2019, and this Court 6 does not find any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. A copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar