Chhattisgarh High Court
CRR/44/2022 of SMT. ARCHNA BANJARE Vs ARJUN BANJARE on 27 July 2026
2026:CGHC:32368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 44 of 2022 1 - Smt. Archna Banjare, D/o D.R. Kurre, Aged About 35 Years, Current R/o House No. 544, Near Progressive School, Kumharpara, Jarhabhatha Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Applicant/Complainant versus 1 -
CGHC010012082022
2026:CGHC:32368
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 44 of 2022
1 - Smt. Archna Banjare, D/o D.R. Kurre, Aged About 35 Years, Current R/o House No. 544, Near Progressive School, Kumharpara, Jarhabhatha Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)
... Applicant/Complainant
versus
1 - Arjun Banjare S/o N.L. Banjare, Aged About 39 Years, 2 - Smt. Ahilya Devi, W/o N.L. Banjare, Aged About 62 Years, 3 - Than Singh Banjare, S/o Late R.R. Banjare, Aged About 57 Years, 4 - Vijay Kumar, S/o N.L. Banjare, Aged About 45 Years, 5 - N.L. Banjare, S/o Late R.R. Banjare, Aged About 67 Years, 6 - Bheemsen Banjare, S/o N.L. Banjare, Aged About 41 Years No. 1 to 6 are R/o Borsibhatha, Ward No. 50, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (CG)
7 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (CG)
---- Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
For Applicant
: Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate
For State/ Non-Applicant No.7 : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 28.07.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This revision petition has been preferred by the Applicant/wife of Non- Applicant No.1- Arjun Banjare under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.183/2021, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (CG), while affirming the judgment dated 02.03.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Case No. 3699/2014, has acquitted the Non-Applicants No.1 to 6 with regard to the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that on 19.02.2014, a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the Applicant, who is the wife of Non- Applicant No.1- Arjun Banjare, on the allegation that her marriage was solemnized with him on 10.03.2013 and she lived only for 15 days in her in-laws house and during this period, she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of a Car and, it was alleged further that on 26.05.2013, she was assaulted by her husband and mother-in-law, namely, Smt. Ahilya Devi, the Non- Applicant No.2 herein and, based upon the alleged allegation, the Non- Applicants have been charged for the offence as mentioned herein- above.
3. Although, it was alleged by the prosecutrix that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of a Car, but from perusal of her (PW-1) statement, particularly paragraph 10 of her cross-examination, would reveal the fact that her in-laws have possessed three Cars and, according to the statement of her father (PW-2), it appears that he was not aware whether three Cars are available with her in-laws or not, but it was admitted by him that they are possessing two Cars. In view of such an admission, the allegation of her that she was harassed and maltreated by her husband and in- laws on account of demand of Car cannot be relied upon.
4. Pertinently, to be noted here further that her marriage was solemnized with the Non-Applicant No.1- Arjun Banjare on 10.03.2013 and, she lived with her husband and in-laws only for 15 days, but no report to this effect that she was harassed during the said period on account of such demand was lodged immediately thereafter and, instead a written report (Ex.P-1) was lodged only on 19.02.2014, i.e. much after a considerable period of more than 9 months even without offering any explanation for it, so as to hold that she was harassed and maltreated by them as such.
5. Consequently, courts below have not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE sunita