UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/491/2019 Gita Joshi …….Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another …….Respondents Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, learned legal aid counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.05.2019 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2018 and judgment and order date 08.05.2018 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani Nainital in Criminal Case NO.1004/2016, whereby the respondent no.2 has been acquitted from charges under Section 498-A, 504 I.P.C. 5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the revisionist would submit that the marriage between the revisionist and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 07.03.2014 according to Hindu rites and customs; that, due to some matrimonial disputes, the revisionist lodged an F.I.R. alleging demand of dowry and cruelty; that, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge- sheet and the learned trial court framed charges against respondent no. 2 under Sections 498-A and 504 I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide judgment and order dated 08.05.2018, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, acquitted respondent no. 2 of all charges; that, the State preferred UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 criminal appeal against the said judgment, but the appeal was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on 22.05.2019. Hence, the present criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned judgments are contrary to the facts and evidence on record; that, both the courts below failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence adduced during trial; that, the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, yet the courts below discarded the evidence in a cursory manner and wrongly acquitted respondent no. 2; that, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the revisionist was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty by respondent no. 2, as reflected from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 7. Learned legal aid counsel would further submit that the revisionist (PW-1) specifically deposed that respondent no. 2 and his parents used to demand dowry and subject her to physical and mental harassment; that, her testimony was duly corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses; that, there were no material contradictions in the prosecution case which could justify the acquittal of respondent no. 2; that, both the courts below erred in observing that, in the absence of medical evidence, the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was not proved; that, mental cruelty itself is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498-A I.P.C., and therefore, the impugned judgments and orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that the revisionist failed to prove either cruelty or any unlawful demand of dowry on the part of respondent no. 2. He submits that the appellate court has rightly observed that the entire prosecution case is primarily based upon the testimony of PW-1, namely the revisionist herself, and her evidence does not UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 establish any demand of dowry or any act of physical or mental cruelty. It is further submitted that PW-2, the father of the revisionist, also failed to prove any unlawful demand of property or valuable security or any harassment in connection therewith, which is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C.; that, the appellate court further noted that any money allegedly given by the father of the revisionist was voluntarily given and not pursuant to any demand made by respondent no. 2 or his family members. 9. Learned counsel would refers to paragraph 8 of the appellate judgment, wherein it has been observed that the testimony of PW-1 reveals that she returned to her parental home within one month of her marriage; that, her evidence further indicates that she was unable to adjust in her matrimonial home and, therefore, started residing with her parents; that, in her cross- examination, she admitted that she had lived in her matrimonial home for only about one month and that she was unwilling to reside with her husband either at Bageshwar or at Bhimtal. She further stated in her cross- examination that even if her husband came to reside at her parental house, she was not willing to live with him and she did not wish to obtain a divorce from her husband; that, significantly, she admitted that, to her knowledge, no dowry had been given by her parents and no demand for dowry had ever been made by respondent no. 2. 10. It is, therefore, submitted that in the absence of any evidence regarding demand of dowry or cruelty, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and 504 I.P.C. are not made out; that, both the courts below have passed well-reasoned and speaking judgments after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, thus, the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. Perusal of the testimony of PW- 1/revisionist would reveal that revisionist made general and omnibus allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment by the respondent no.2 and his family members. However, during her cross- examination, she admitted that she resided in her matrimonial home only for about one month and thereafter started residing with her parents. She further admitted that she was not willing to reside either at Bageshwar or Bhimtal with her husband and that she was also unwilling to reside with him even if respondent no.2 shifted to her parental home. Considerably, she also stated that, to her knowledge, no dowry had been given by her parents and no specific demand of dowry had been made by the respondent no.2. 12. It is apt to reproduce Section 498-A of the I.P.C. "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 13. A plain reading of Section 498-A I.P.C. makes it evident that, to bring home the charge, the prosecution is required to UKHC010135162019 2026:UHC:5010 establish either wilful conduct of such gravity as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health, or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 14. In the present case, except for bald and general allegations, no specific instance of demand of dowry or acts constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. has been proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The testimony of PW-2, the father of the revisionist, also does not substantiate any unlawful demand of dowry or harassment on account thereof. 15. So far as the charge under Section 504 I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution has also failed to prove intentional insult with intent or knowledge that such provocation would cause a breach of peace. The findings recorded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court are based upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or suffering from any manifest error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment and order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, Nainital, as affirmed by the judgment and order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2018. Consequently, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.06.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24 4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a 6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.19 16:55:13 +05'30'