Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Sunita vs Mohanlal on 2 May, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                              1
                          IN       THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                   ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11749 of 2016

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SMT. SUNITA W/O SHRI MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 35
                         YEARS, PURVA BHANPUR PS.. NISHATPURA (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPLICANT
                         (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA DEV PANDEY - ADVOCATE )

                         AND
                         MOHANLAL S/O SHRI RAMLAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 36
                         YEARS, VILLAGE SEMRA SAIYA TAH- HUZUR (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                         (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT )

                                  This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                         following:
                                                               ORDER

Heard on IA No.16630/2016, which is an application for condonation of

delay.

2. It is contended by the counsel that there is a delay of 118 days, which has occasioned on account of bonafide and inadvertent error.

3. On due consideration, the application is allowed.

4. Also heard on an application for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.

5. It is contended by the counsel that a complaint under Section 494 of

IPC against the respondent was filed by the present applicant before the trial

Court. However, the trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent of the charges. It is contended by the counsel that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the complaint instead of acquitting the respondent. It is the further contention of the counsel that there is no proper appreciation of the evidence and the applicant is now in possession of some more documents and if the matter is remitted, the applicant would be able to put-forth his case effectively before the trial Court. Hence, counsel submits that the judgment be set aside.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, upon perusal of the record it reflects that the trial Court while

considering the complaint as well as evidence brought on record, exhaustively dealt with the testimony of Shankar Singh (PW-2) and the trial Court, in paragraph 12 of the judgment also considered the fact that the Shankar Singh (PW-2) in paragraph 5 of the his testimony admitted that he did not have any photographs of marriage. The trial Court further discussed the testimony of the same witness as mentioned in paragraphs 8, 11, 12 and 13 and ultimately concluded that there was complete failure on the part of the complainant to prove that the respondent therein was guilty of an offence under Section 494 of IPC.

7. Considering the due analysis of the evidence as carried out in paragraph 11 to 14 of the judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court did not commit any error in delivering the judgment dated 31.12.2015.

8. Therefore, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of leave in terms of Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C.

9. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn