Dr. Abha Rani vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2156 Jhar

                                                1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Cr. Revision No. 265 of 2012

                     Dr. Abha Rani                             ...     ...      Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     State of Jharkhand and Ors.          ...      ...        Opp. Parties
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

                For the Petitioner                  : Mr. B. M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
                                                    : Ms. Nutan Sharma, Advocate
                For the O. P. Nos. 2 to 6           : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra,
                                                      Advocate
                For the State                       : Md. Hatim, Advocate
                                       ---
                             Through: Video Conferencing
07/01.07.2021

1. Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Nutan Sharma, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 6.

3. Heard Mr. Md. Hatim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, at the outset, have submitted that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the maintainability of the present revision application is required to be decided.

5. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 while advancing their arguments has submitted that the case arises out of an F.I.R. and the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial court. Against the order of acquittal, the State had filed an appeal before the learned appellate court, but the so- called victim who is petitioner before this case, never filed any appeal against the order of acquittal. He submits that there is a provision for filing an appeal by the victim against the order of acquittal and the appeal lies before the same court before whom

the appeal against conviction lies. He further submits that in view of this position, the appeal of the petitioner could lie before the learned appellate court and not before this Court. He has further submitted that as the petitioner did not file appeal against the order of acquittal and therefore she has no locus to challenge the impugned order confirming the acquittal of the accused in an appeal filed by the State. However, he has also addressed on the merits of the case as well.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while advancing his arguments has submitted that merely because the petitioner, being the victim, did not file her independent appeal before the appellate court, the same will not preclude this Court from exercising the powers of revision. He submits that the victim was pursuing her case through the State and did not file her independent appeal. He has also submitted that in case, this Court finds that the present petition is not maintainable, then it may be observed by this Court regarding appropriate remedy which may be available to the petitioner against the order of acquittal of the accused. He has also submitted that the petitioner should be in a position to challenge the appellate order passed by the learned court below in the appeal filed by the State as well as the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court.

7. On the merits of the case, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court is perverse and fit to be interfered with. He submits that the petitioner was subjected to a acute mental cruelty. He submits that the petitioner came back from her matrimonial house after a period of one week from the date of her marriage and had undertaken further study at the instance of her in-laws and when she finished her further study, she was not permitted to enter her matrimonial house. He submits that

the petitioner as well as the husband of the petitioner are medical doctors and the behaviour of the opposite party No.-2 has subjected the petitioner to mental cruelty falling under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He has made specific reference to explanation (a) to Section 498-A of IPC. The learned counsel submits that the judgements passed by the learned courts below are perverse and fit to be set-aside .

8. At this, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 has also referred to sub-Section 4 of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. Both the counsels have referred to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2018 SC 5206 as well as the judgment passed in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1281/2016 disposed of on 19.09.2018 and reported in (2018) 4 JBCJ 327 on the point of maintainability of the present revision application.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 has also referred to the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal in the judgment reported in (2003) (1) Est. India Criminal Cases 201 (SC).

10. Arguments of the parties are concluded on the point of maintainability as well as on merits.

11. Judgment is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul