SUGASHINI Vs. VIJAYABABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are husband and parents in-law of the petitioner respectively and respondents 4 to 8 are relatives of first respondent. Respondents herein allegedly demanded dowry from the petitioner as also cruelly treated her. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the ninth respondent. A case was registered in Crime No. 3 of 2008. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed informing commission of offences u/s. 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was tried in C.C. No. 72 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tirupattur, Vellore District. Respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 were charged for offences u/s. 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and respondents 4 to 8/A4 to A8 were charged for offence u/s. 498-A IPC. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked four exhibits. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and four exhibits were marked. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of acquittal. Against such finding, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(2.) M.P. No. 1 of 2013 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in filing a revision against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tirupattur, Vellore District, in case tried in C.C. No. 72 of 2008 on 16.07.2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 submitted that the petitioner wife/de facto complainant's allegations of commission of offences u/s. 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, have not found acceptance at the hands of the trial Court. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 8 submits that the very revision would not be maintainable in the light of the amended provision to Section 372 Cr.P.C.