IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.45 of 2010 VINOD RABIDAS, S/o. late Chhedi Ram, r/o. Mohalla- Bhagirath Lane, P.S. Sultanganj, District- Patna. Versus 1. Pramila Devi, W/o. Vinod Rabidas, 2. Parbati Devi, w/o. late Baijnath Ram, 3. Raj Kumar Ram, 4. Manoj Ram, 5. Mamta Ram, 6. Shankar Ram, 7. Bansi Ram, O.P. Nos.3 to 7 sons of late Baidyanath Ram, 8. Annu Devi, w/o. Raj Kumar Ram, 9. Girija Devi, w/o. Shankar Ram, 10. Geeta Devi, W/o. Bansi Ram, All r/o. village- Jalalpur Chauk, P.S. Lalganj, District- Vaishali. ----------- 03. 29.06.2010 Delay in filing of this application is condoned. This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal as passed by Sri Thakur Aman Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City in Trial No.1170 of 2010/C.A. 552 of 2007, whereby the respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 323,379, 427 and 448/34 of the I.P.C. The respondent Pramila Devi is the wife of the petitioner and other respondents are the mother- in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the petitioner. Vide his complaint the petitioner filed the 2 case against ten O.Ps. i.e. his wife, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law alleging that on 8th July, 2007 at about 3.00 p.m. they all came to his house and assaulted with fists and slaps and that O.P. Parbati Devi, his mother-in-law threw T.V. causing damage of Rs.2,000/- and took away a Lota. The further allegation was that accused Raj Kumar, the brother-in-law took away a box containing clothes and Rs.600/-. The petitioner/complainant including himself examined four witnesses. The learned trial- court considered that the petitioner/complainant who examined himself as P.W.1 stated in his examination in chief the boundary of the place of occurrence but during his cross-examination he gave a different boundary and thus there was vital contradiction on the boundary of the P.O. It was also considered that in his evidence he stated that a damage of Rs.5,000/- was caused but in his complaint he stated damage of Rs.2,000/- with regard to the T.V. The learned trial- court also considered that the complainant stated that he does not know the name of his sister-in-law but 3 the name of the sister-in-law was mentioned in the complaint petition. The P.W.2 Usha Devi, who is stated to be the Bhabhi of the petitioner/complainant, stated in her evidence that her husband i.e. the brother of the petitioner/complainant had also filed a case against his brother-in-law, thus it was argued that the complainant and his brother both are in the habit of filing cases against their in-laws. The learned trial-court further considered that the O.P. Pramila Devi, the wife of the petitioner/complainant has filed a case under Section 498A of I.P.C. against the petitioner/complainant and that the petitioner/complaint has filed this case as a defence measure. Learned trial-court further considered that PW 3, who was examined by the petitioner/complainant as witness to the occurrence, stated that he was working in a printing press in Bhagirathi Lane in which the P.O. house is situated but this witness was unable to tell even the boundary of the place of occurrence. Considering the infirmities and the 4 contradiction and also considering that the O.Ps. have also filed a case under Section 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner/complainant, the learned trial- court was satisfied about the complainant’s case not proved beyond doubt, hence, the O.Ps. were acquitted. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials as discussed by the learned trial-court, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the trial-court’s judgment. In such view of the matters finding no merit in this application, the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)