IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 259 of 2010
SHOBHNABEN CHELSHANKAR SHUKLA – Applicant
Versus
SHEKHAR SHARAD PRABHAKAR VYAS & 4 – Respondents
Appearance :
MR
MIHIR H PATHAK for a Applicant.
NONE for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
MR K.P.RAWAL, APP for a Respondent No.5.
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date: 16/11/2010
ORAL ORDER
1. At a ask of Mr.Pathak, schooled disciple appearing on interest of a applicant, respondent No.2 is systematic to be deleted as she is already expired.
2. The benefaction Criminal Revision Application underneath Section 397 of a Code of Criminal Procedure has been elite by a applicant – Revisionist – strange complainant opposite a impugned settlement and sequence 26/02/2010 upheld by schooled Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2009 as good as settlement and sequence antiquated 19/01/2009 upheld by schooled Trial Court in Criminal Case No.1416 of 2004, by which, both a Courts next have clear respondent Nos.1 to 4 for a purported offences punishable underneath Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506(2) & 114 of a Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Having listened Mr.Pathak, schooled disciple appearing on interest of a applicant – strange complainant and deliberation a impugned settlement and orders upheld by both a Courts below, it appears that there are point commentary of contribution given by both a Courts next and it is hold that charge has unsuccessful to infer a box opposite respondent Nos.1 to 4- strange indicted for a offences punishable underneath Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506(2) & 114 of a Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Having listened Mr.Pathak, schooled disciple appearing on interest of a applicant and deliberation a impugned settlement and orders upheld by both a Authorities below, it appears that it was specific box on interest of a applicant in support of her box that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have demanded Rs.10,000/-, that was paid to them by borrowing a same from relatives. However conjunction any name of kin were given by a complainant, from whom, she has borrowed Rs.10,000/- to compensate to a indicted persons nor any of a kin were examined. It is also compulsory to be examined that solely a strange complainant, her hermit and dual panchas (who incited Hostile), no eccentric witnesses were examined. Not a singular neighbour was examined to infer that cruelty has been caused by respondent Nos.1 to 4 – strange accused. Considering a aforesaid aspects, Trial Court has clear a accused, that came to be reliable by Appellate Court, a same are not compulsory to be interfered with by this Court by sportive revisional jurisdiction. The range in revisional office is really singular and this Court is not compulsory to reappreciate a evidence.
5. Under a resources and for a reasons settled hereinabove, a benefaction Criminal Revision Application deserves to be discharged and is accordingly dismissed.
