Cr. Revision No. 227 of 2016. Case: Ashok Visht Vs Chander Kala. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCr. Revision No. 227 of 2016
Party NameAshok Visht Vs Chander Kala
CounselFor Appellant: Mr.Atul Mahajan, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr.Varun Rana, Advocate
JudgesMr. Sandeep Sharma, J
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure - Sections 397, 401
Judgement DateApril 18, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral)

  1. Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P, in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2014, partly modifying the order dated 30.10.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P., in Criminal case No. 49-III of 2013, whereby complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed.

  2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner( hereinafter referred to as the respondent) i.e. her brother-in-law stating therein that though she had obtained divorce from her husband in the month of November, 2004 but her children used to meet their grandfather in their ancestral house intermittently. Complainant further claimed that her husband died in suspicious circumstances.

  3. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that after the death of her husband on 5th July, 2012, respondent had taken into possession the Alto Car bearing registration No. HP- 57-2957 belonging to her husband. Complainant further averred in the complaint that despite repeated requests, respondent refused to hand over the keys of the accommodation of her husband as well as vehicle, as referred above. Apart from above, complainant also claimed before the court below that she is not being allowed by the respondent to enter in the house of her husband and she has been physically and mentally tortured by the respondent.

  4. Respondent by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim of the complainant and termed the complaint to be false and frivolous. Respondent also alleged that the complainant never remained in domestic relationship with the respondent in shared household and as such she does not fall within the definition of aggrieved person and as such, petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground. Respondent further alleged that house in question is self acquired/self built property of the respondent and not ancestral one and as such, complainant has no right to claim anything qua the same being legally wedded wife of the deceased husband...

To continue reading

Request your trial