Synopsis

The petitioner (original complainant) challenged the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a case involving offences of assault, obscenity, criminal intimidation, and violation of the Bombay Police Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in lodging the FIR (28 hours), hostile eye‑witnesses, improvements in testimony, and the fact that the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to a separate serious case (under Section 307 IPC) filed by the accused against the complainant’s husband. The High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC is limited; findings of fact cannot be reappreciated unless perverse; and the trial court’s reasons were cogent and did not warrant interference.

Court: High Court of Gujarat
Coram: Hasmukh D. Suthar, J.
Date: April 8, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided (likely 2026:GHC:xxxx)
Core Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 (revisional jurisdiction); Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 294(B), 506(2); Bombay Police Act, 1951 – Section 135(1).

2. Legal Framework

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397 – power of High Court to call for records and exercise revisional jurisdiction; Section 401 – powers of revision. The scope of revision is limited to correcting patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or perversity; reappreciation of evidence is not permissible.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 294(B) (obscene acts/songs), 506(2) (criminal intimidation).

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.