SHEIKH IRFANABEN W/O ABDUL RAZAK SHEIKH D/O GULABKHAN UMEDKHAN SHEIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/1921/2025                          ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1921
                           of 2025

==========================================================
     SHEIKH IRFANABEN W/O ABDUL RAZAK SHEIKH D/O GULABKHAN
                       UMEDKHAN SHEIKH
                             Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RAKSHA S KHATED(12987) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                          Date : 04/05/2026

                               ORDER

1.     Learned advocate Ms. Raksha S.Khated for the applicant
stated that she has no instruction in the matter.


2.     In the present matter, the original complainant of the
proceedings, under sections 498A, 323, 294A and 506(2) of
the IPC in Criminal Case No.5882 of 2023 on the judgment of
acquittal dated 12.08.2024 passed by the 5 th Additional
Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, had challenged the correctness
of acquittal before the appellate Court by filing Criminal
Appeal No.383 of 2024 under section 372 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, whereby the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Banskantha-Palanpur       vide    judgment     and      order      dated
29.07.2025 affirmed the acquittal.




                              Page 1 of 4
      R/CR.RA/1921/2025                               ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




2.1        Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the present
revisionist as a complainant has preferred the present revision
application making following prayer as under:

          “6(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow
          this Criminal Revision Application;

          (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set
          aside the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned
          5th Additional Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Palanpur, in
          Criminal Case No.5882 of 2023, which was confirmed by
          the Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banskatha-
          Planpur in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2024 dated
          29.07.2025 in the interest of justice.

          (C) Your Lordships be pleased to pass any such other
          and/or further orders that may be thought just and
          proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present
          case.”



3.      It is required to be mentioned that under sub-section
(3) of section 401 of the Cr.P.C., this Court in revision
jurisdiction would have no power to convert a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction. Sub-section (3) of section
401 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below:

             “401(3) )Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
             authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal
             into one of conviction.”


4.      The appeal under section 397 by a private party
could be maintainable, as has been observed in the case
of Sheetala Prasad & Ors. v. Sri Kant & Anr., reported in
(2010) 2 SCC 190, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
referred to the revisional power and the proper mode to be
exercised by the High Court and the scope of interference,
where the revision preferred is by the private complainant


                                    Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.RA/1921/2025                                  ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




(State or accused have not preferred any appeal). The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorized the cases, where revision
preferred        by      the   private     complainant      would        become
maintainable. It has been held in Paragraph 12 as under:-

                “Without making the categories exhaustive,
                revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High
                Court at the instance of a private complainant-

                (1)   where the trial court has wrongly shut out
                evidence which the prosecution wished to produce,

                (2)   where the admissible evidence is wrongly
                brushed aside as inadmissible,

                (3)   where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try
                the case and has still acquitted the accused,

                (4)    where the material evidence has been
                overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate
                court or the order is passed by considering
                irrelevant evidence, and

                (5)    where the acquittal is based on the
                compounding of the offence which is invalid under
                the law.”


5.     The ground raised is that the learned Sessions Judge
has not taken into consideration the facts and record of
the matter. The Sessions Judge has not considered the
fact that extra marital affairs has caused grave mental
trauma and also mental health issues leading to serious
consequences in the marriage, which would be amounting
to mental cruelty, and because of illicit affairs of the
respondent No.2, serious domestic discord has arisen
between the parties.


6.     Both the courts as 5th Additional Judicial Magistrate
and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge had dealt with the evidence


                                     Page 3 of 4
        R/CR.RA/1921/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 04/05/2026




 on record, which had been considered by analysing the
 evidence. The applicant is governed by Muslim Personal Law.
 The evidence of extra marital affairs resulting into cruelty, has
 been dealt with while recording that there has been ‘Talak’
 between the parties, and that the fact of extra marital affairs
 on that basis has not been believed.

 7.          This Court does not find any reason to entertain the
 present application, since the ground raised has been dealt
 with, hence, the present application stands rejected.



                                                                                                 (GITA GOPI,J)
 Pankaj/44
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/05/2026 18:36:39




                                                      Page 4 of 4