IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.79 of 2008 PANKAJ KUMAR SWARNKAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM DEO THAKUR SWARNAKAR 3. UMESH THAKUR SWARNAKAR 4. MAHADEO THAKUR SWARNAKAR 5. SALENDRA THAKUR SWARNAKAR 6. UDHAV @ UDAY GUPTA 7. NIRMALA DEVI For the appellant : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate For O.P. nos. 2 to 7 : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate Mr. G.P. Jaiswal, Advocae. ----------- 4 29.01.2009 The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.8.2008 passed by the Trial Court whereby the accuseds (opposite party nos. 2 to 7) have been acquitted of the charges framed under section 498 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. To this Court, it seems that the skirmishes in the family particularly between the husband and wife are the real cause of the present litigation. Admittedly the opposite parties(accuseds) are the in laws of the complainant-petitioner. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has found and held that the evidence adduced was frugal and thus highly inadequate to prove charge under Section 380 Indian Penal Code. To the Trial Court, it appeared that the lady Anju Kumari (wife of the petitioner-complainant) had left her home herself with ornaments etc. So far as Section 498 is concerned, the Court, on the basis of materials on record, has come to the conclusion - 2 - that there was no criminal intent on the part of the accuseds who are admittedly the relatives of the lady (in laws of the complainant-petitioner). The Court below has also taken into account the fact that certain cases were filed by the accused(s) in which some of the witnesses including the complainant had to undergo jail custody. In these factual scenarios, the Trial Court has found and held that the allegations have not been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. This Court, in the background of facts noticed above, does not find any patent illegality in the judgment warranting interference by granting this application seeking leave to appeal. The application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Since the matter has been considered on merit and disposed of, the limitation application (I.A No. 2351/2008) is also accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J )