Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Kaur vs Devinder Kaur Etc on 21 November, 2025

                    1.          The present revision petition has been preferred against the

                    judgment dated 10.10.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,

                    Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment dated

                    13.03.2013 passed by JMIC, Amritsar, whereby the accused
                                                                     accused-respondents

were acquitted.

2. Learned counsel submits that the Cour Courts below have

committed grave error in acquitting the accused accused-respondents by

disbelieving the testimony of the complainant and that of CW 2 Dr.

Sanjeev Kumar, Medical Officer, who proved the injuries on his person.

There was no delay in reporting the matter to the police, the finding has

been given otherwise for which there was no basis.

3. Heard.

4. Before proceeding to consider the present case, it is

necessary to make a reference to the judgement of the trial Court, dated

13.03.2013, wherein while acquitting the petitioners, it has been observed

thus:

"13. It is not the case of the complainant that she had left blank cheque book carrying her signatures in the house of accused no.l and 2.Ex D lis a copy of an order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Court of Sh. Harjit Singh, JMIC, Amritsar on a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act filed by accused no.3 against present complainant on account of dishonour of a cheque dated 1.11.2005 issued by the complainant to her for a sum of Rs.4 Lac. Said cheque was returned unpaid not on account of the signature of complainant on the said cheque being different from that of her standard signatures. But due to factum of Account of the complainant lying closed in the bank. In the said complaint accused has taken the similar defence that she never issued the said cheque as her purse containing the impugned cheque was left in the house of accused no.l. Davinder Kaur and same has been misused and nothing is due against her. However the said contention of the complainant was rejected and she was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Complainant preferred the appeal against the said order which was dismissed. Now it is stated that second appeal is pending against the said order before the Hon'ble High Court.

14. Complaint under section 138 of N.I .Act leading to the conviction of present complainant for the said offence has been instituted on 24.4.2006. Which must have been the motive for inventing the impugned occurrence on 26,4.2006. For this reason there had been no medical evidence of the complainant regarding the injuries being suffered by her on 26.4.2006 at the hand of five accused persons being armed with deadly weapons. Conviction of the accused for the offence u/s 138 of N.I.Act regarding the cheque being left inadvertently in the house of accused by the complainant shows that her version of leaving the cheque book in the house of accused persons is also palpably false.

15. CWI is doctor who has proved medical evidence, CW3 is complainant and CW4 Salwinder Singh is her husband. Except for these witnesses complainant had examined CW2 Amrik Kaur in support of her case.

However said Amrik Kaur admittedly had already filed a complaint under section 3(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 323/379/506/34 IPC against accused no.l Davinder Kaur. Thus CW2 Amrik Kaur has reason to depose against the accused persons. Thus she is not an independent witness of the impugned occurrence.

16. Occurrence has taken place in the house of complainant which is situated in residential area CW3 complainant Narinder Kaur in her cross examination has admitted to this fact. She has also deposed that while Amrik kaur is residing in her mohalla and near her house. Deepak, Kulwant Singh and Joginder Singh are residing. In her neigbour Complaint had stated that impugned occurrence has been witness by said Kulwant Singh. Her name also find mention in the list of witnesses appended with the present complaint. But for the reason unknown complainant has not examined said Kulwant Singh. Who was only independent witness to the said occurrence being the neighbourer of complainant. Admittedly complainant has lodged multifarious criminal litigation against the accused persons. which is also apparent from the copy of complaint Mark-X lodged inter-alia against the accused persons for an offence under section 323,380,452,427, 148,149,506 IPC dated 17.11.2007 with regard to occurrence dated 11.11.2007 to the that accused persons had forcibly entered into her house and inter-alia caused injuries on her person. There is another complaint dated 5.6.2006 filed against the accused persons for an offence under section 323,506, 427,452,420,34, 120-B IPC. Said litigation shows that there is every reason for the complainant to settle the score with the accused persons. As discussed the complainant has failed to prove the taking place of impugned occurrence on 20.4.2006 and 26.4.2006. Abovesaid discussion also shows that the present complaint is actuated with an illegal motive and the same is accordingly not maintainable.

17. It is settled principle of law under the criminal jurisprudence that to succeed the case against the accused persons has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. As discussed complainant has miserably failed to discharge the said onerous burden casted upon her. Accordingly all the accused stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. Personal and surety bonds stands discharged. File be consigned to record room and is again put up as and when accused Harpreet Singh is produced before the Court."

5. The lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed

by the complainant-petitioner, had recorded the following findings:

"16. So far as question as to not believing the testimony adduced by the complainant by the learned Lower court, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the respondents have proved on record that the complaint filed against them is a counter blast to a complaint filed by Narinder Kaur wife of Hira Singh, one of the respondent/accused against appellant/complainant Narinder Kaur wife of Salwinder Singh, in which Narinder Kaur, appellant has been convicted to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months vide judgment Ex.D1.

17. The learned Lower court after examining the evidence adduced by the complainant, has disbelieved the complainant's case that no such occurrence took place on 20.4.2006 and 26.4.2006 as alleged. The complainant has also not examined Kulwant Singh, her neighbour cited as a witness, to prove the alleged occurrence, which further makes her case doubtful.

18. Not only this, there is a delay of 15 days in filing the present complaint, which is ordinarily not fatal in such like case, but when delay of 15 days is examined in the light of the fact that the complainant alleged to have moved applications to the higher authorities regarding the occurrence, but has not brought on record copies of any such applications and when this fact is further examined in the light of the fact that even medico legal examination of the complainant has not been proved on file, it is difficult to believe the complainant's case. So, the learned Lower Court has rightly acquitted the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt.

19. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment of acquittal under appeal passed by the learned Lower Court calling for any interference, hence, the appeal in question is hereby dismissed. Lower Court record be returned and the appeal file be consigned to the Record Room."

6. This Court in Ram Partap vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2014 SCC

OnLine P&H 8659 relied upon the dictum of Jagannath Choudhary vs.

Ramayan Singh, (2002) 5 SCC 659, wherein while while expounding on

the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, Hon'ble The

Supreme Court had held that, "Incidentally object of revisional

jurisdiction of the High Court as envisaged under Section 401 CrPC, is to

confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory

jurisdiction, aimed at correcting miscarriage of justice arising from

misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper

precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which result, on the one

hand, in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or, on the

other, in some undeserved hardship to individuals."