[1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 265/2006 SMT. RUKSHANA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. DATE: 08.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. M.I. Khan for the complainant- petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 07.01.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar in Sessions Case No. 838/2002, by which the accused- respondent No.2 Mukim Ahmed has been acquitted from the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner Smt. Rukshana before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, Sikar which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, upon which FIR No. 384/2002 was registered at Police Station Neem-Ka-Thana, Sikar. In the complaint, it was stated that the petitioner got married with the respondent No.2 four year ago and from their wedlock a male child was born. The respondent No.2 and other family [2 members started gave beating to the petitioner after ten days of the marriage and the accused asked her to bring a motorcycle and Rs. 25,000/-, otherwise they will kill her. After investigation the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the accused-petitioner which he denied and claimed trial. During trial the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case and the statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana after hearing the submissions of both the parties, vide its impugned judgment dated 07.01.2006 acquitted the accused- respondent from the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act giving the benefit of doubt as the prosecution and the complainant have not been able to prove the aforesaid offences against the accused-respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2006 passed by the Court below. The trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect including the allegations levelled against [3 the accused-respondent in the complaint regarding demand of motorcycle and Rs. 25,000/-, but since the complainant and the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offences against the accused- respondent, therefore, he has rightly been acquitted from the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act giving benefit of doubt. Since no illegality or error has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2006, therefore, the same requires no interference whatsoever by this Court. Consequently, the criminal revision petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Record be sent back forthwith. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/