SALEHA ARIF SHAIKHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/7/2009                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
            R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 7 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

              Approved for Reporting                 Yes          No

==========================================================
                            SALEHA ARIF SHAIKH
                                    Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MHM SHAIKH(2007) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHTAA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
   CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 08/04/2026
                                  JUDGMENT


1.      By way of present revision application under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and
setting aside of the judgment and order dated 27.11.2008
rendered by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.18
Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.2246 of 2005.

2.      Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.


3.      It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is the
original complainant who lodged an FIR with Naroda Police
Station against respondent No.2 for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 294(B) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Pursuant thereto,
the police investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet against
respondent No.2 for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the
learned Magistrate framed charge below Exh.2, which came to be


                                       Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.RA/7/2009                        JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




denied by the accused below Exh.3. In support of the
prosecution case, five witnesses came to be examined, including
the petitioner below Exh.4 and the husband of the petitioner
below Exh.6, and documentary evidence such as the complaint
below Exh.5, scene of offence panchnama below Exh.9 and
recovery panchnama of the weapon below Exh.11 also came to
be produced on record. Thereafter, the further statement of the
accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the accused submitted a
written explanation but neither examined himself nor any other
witness in defence. Upon hearing both sides, the learned Trial
Court was pleased to acquit the accused vide judgment and
order dated 27.11.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.2246 of
2005 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.18. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of acquittal, the
petitioner has preferred the present Revision Application.

4.      Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused despite clear
oral and documentary evidence on record, including the evidence
of the complainant at Exh.4, her husband at Exh.6 and the
recovery panchnama of the weapon below Exh.11. It was
submitted that the Trial Court wrongly presumed the complaint
to be false merely because the accused had filed a complaint
against the husband of the petitioner. Learned advocate further
submitted that the evidence on record clearly established that
the accused had harassed and assaulted the petitioner and,
therefore, the findings of the Trial Court that there was delay in
lodging the complaint and that the prosecution had failed to


                             Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.RA/7/2009                         JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




prove the case beyond reasonable doubt are erroneous. It was,
therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order be
quashed and set aside.

5.      Learned advocates for the respondent No.2 submitted that
the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record and has rightly acquitted the
accused by giving cogent and valid reasons. It was submitted
that there were material contradictions and inconsistencies in
the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses and that
there was unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. Learned
advocate further submitted that no independent witness was
examined and the prosecution failed to establish the alleged
incident beyond reasonable doubt. It was also submitted that the
complaint was filed only as a counterblast to the complaint
lodged by the accused against the husband of the petitioner.
Therefore, it was urged that no interference is required in the
well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court.

6.      Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and after perusing the record, it appears that
the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order after
properly appreciating the evidence produced on record and
keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC
460, wherein it has been held that the scope of revision is
limited.




                              Page 3 of 5
     R/CR.RA/7/2009                                JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




7.      Even upon examining the reasons assigned by the learned
Trial Court, it appears that, as per the case of the prosecution,
the alleged incident took place on 14.11.2005 and the second
incident took place on 15.11.2005, whereas the complaint came
to be filed after a delay of 28 hours and the said delay has not
been properly explained. Not only that, but two eye-witnesses
turned      hostile   and   did   not    support   the     version      of      the
complainant. As per the case of the prosecution, neither the
complainant nor the eye-witness, Laxman Babubhai, has fully
supported the case of the prosecution and, upon perusal of the
evidence, it appears that certain improvements were made
during the course of recording evidence. The learned Trial Court
has taken note of the aforesaid facts. Not only that, but it also
appears that the accused persons have filed a case against the
husband of the complainant for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending
adjudication before the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, no
error, much less any jurisdictional error, can be said to have
been committed by the learned


8.      The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is
a palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and
where the decision is completely erroneous or where judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if the reasons assigned
by the learned trial Court are examined, it appears that the
learned trial Court has already appreciated the facts and
findings of fact are not to be upset unless they are found to be
perverse. Findings of fact are not to be substituted keeping in
mind the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit


                                  Page 4 of 5
       R/CR.RA/7/2009                                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026




 Kapoor (Supra). As no perversity is found in the reasons
 assigned by the learned trial Court and as the learned trial Court
 has properly assigned reasons and recorded findings based on
 the evidence led before it, no interference at the hands of this
 Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.


 9.       It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the
 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs.
 State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 wherein
 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 397/401 CrPC
 vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
 correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order
 recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings
 of such inferior Court. The object of the provision is to set right a
 patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a
 well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of the
 individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the
 same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the
 facts and evidence of the case so as to reverse those findings. It
 is a settled legal proposition that if the Courts below have
 recorded findings of fact, the question of reappreciation of
 evidence by the Revisional Court does not arise unless such
 findings are found to be totally perverse.

 10.      In     wake           of    aforesaid       conspectus,            present         revision
 application            fails        and   stands       dismissed.           Rule       is    hereby
 discharged. Interim relief if any granted earlier stands vacated
 forthwith.

                                                                    (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
 ALI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/04/2026 11:29:21
                                                Page 5 of 5