KAMLESH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aron, Camp Guna, passed on 24.2.2001 in Criminal Case No. 1/99 whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charge under section 498A, IPC.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court based its findings mainly taking into consideration the oral testimony of the prosecutrix coupled with documentary evidence which was in the form of a letter, exhibit D 1 written by the prosecutrix herself to her father on 22.4.1995. The husband had filed a suit for divorce and admittedly she lodged first information report on 9.3.1996 after having been received the notices of the suit. In the first information report, she complained about the cruelty meted out to her during the period November, 1993 to February, 1996 by her in laws but it has to be noticed that in her detailed strictly personal letter dated 22.4.1995, she has expressed No grievance as against the behaviour or cruelty against in laws (husband) and immediately after receipt of the notice of the suit filed by husband, first information report has been lodged dictated by her father disclosing so many grievances. The letter, exhibit D 1, dated 22.4.1995, makes the position clear. It appears a case where the prosecutrix was married against her wishes and for that she was cursing her father. She openly confessed the ideological differences with the in laws and went to the extent expressing that she may have no option but to seek divorce. She had a very short stay in her in laws house and having stayed for a fortnight, she has been almost all the time at her father's place in the period covering more than three years. Quite, naturally, there could have been no occasion for cruel treatment by the respondents. She was voluntarily residing in her father's place for a period of about three years almost. During her long stay at father's place, she has not shown any keenness or desire to return to her in laws place as has been admitted by her. All these facts and circustances, weighed with the learned trial Court in disbelieving the casual statement of the prosecutrix that she was treated with cruelty; in the letter dated 22.4.1995, as stated earlier, no complaint about the cruelty etc., has been made by her; therefore, the view taken by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any such infirmity or perversity so as to invite interference from this Court. The revision petition is summarily dismissed.