IKRAM-UL-BARI, J. This is an appeal against acquittal under Section 498, I. P. C. 2. Shanta Prasad appellant had filed a complaint against Somaru, Smt. Bhagni and Shilwanta respondents before the Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi under Sec tions 498,366, 409, 504 and 506, I. P. C. on 23-12-1976. 3. In the complaint the complainant-appellant has stated that he was married to Smt. Judawati Devi about 6 years ago ac cording to Hindu rites and customs of the Biradari that Smt. Judawati Devi was living with him as his wife that Somaru is father of Smt. Judawati Devi and Smt. Bhagni is mother of Smt. Judawati Devi that Shilwanta is maternal uncle of Smt. Judawati Devi that on 11/12-12-1976 at about 4 p. m. the three accused-respon dents came to his house and stayed in the night; that they asked him to send Smt. Judawati Devi with them immediately; that he and his father explained that she could not be sent in such haste and they may come a week later when Bidai shall take place; that the accused took their meals and had some talk with Smt. Judawati and went to sleep; that at about 12 in the night the accused enticed Smt. Judawati with dishonest intention and ab ducted her that she also carried clothes and ornaments with her that he and his family members discovered the abduction of Smt. Judawati by the accused in the morning; that on the next date he accom panied by his father went to the house of the accused and talked to the accused there; that the accused started abusing and were ready for a fight; that they did not allow him to meet Smt. Judawati; that they told him that they would marry Judawati to some other person and asked him and his father to go away; that about a week later, he accompanied by his relations again went to the house of the accused, but they repeated their misbehaviour; that on 22-12-1976 he sent a complaint to the Super intendent of Police by registered post; but no action appears to have been taken in that report. The learned Magistrate finally framed three charges of offences punish able under Sections 498,504 and 506, I. P. C. 4. In support of the charges, the com plainant examined himself as P. W. 1, Jamuna Prasad as P. W. 2 and Bachau as P. W. 3. The learned Magistrate finally framed three charges of offences punish able under Sections 498,504 and 506, I. P. C. 4. In support of the charges, the com plainant examined himself as P. W. 1, Jamuna Prasad as P. W. 2 and Bachau as P. W. 3. 5. Shanta Prasad P. W. 1 deposed con sistently with the statements in the com plaint. It was suggested to him that there was a compromise and he and his brother have given in writing that they have now no concern with Judawati as there has been a separation. He admitted that Judawati had been married now with another person. 6. P. W 2 Jamuna Prasad is a resident of the village of the complainant. He told that when the accused had come to the complainants house for the Bidai, he had stayed at the complainants door for about six minutes; that he does not know what happened thereafter; he admitted that he is on visiting terms with the complainant. P. W. 3 admitted that he is a relative of the complainant. He stated that he gathered the news about the occurrence from the complainant; that he accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused; that the accused on hearing the demand of Bidai of Judawati became angry and were ready for a fight; that the accused told that they would re-marry Judawati to another person. 7. The case of the defence till the examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was that of denial. The defence, however, examined D. W. 1 Sukhraj to prove the writing dated 26-1-1979 purporting to be an agreement for separation (Ext. Kha-1 ). The defence wit ness stated that after the separation the articles belonging to the complainant were resorted to his brother Rajroop and the compromise was written by Vishwanath, who had signed it; that he had also signed that compromise; that Rajroop had also signed it in his presence. He admitted that the complainant was not present at the time of those proceedings, but claimed that other relations of Rajroop were present. 8. The compromise is not very relevant with respect to the charges against the accused-respondents; because the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1976 while the compromise was admittedly entered into in January, 1979. There is no evidence as to when the second marriage of Judawati took place. 8. The compromise is not very relevant with respect to the charges against the accused-respondents; because the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1976 while the compromise was admittedly entered into in January, 1979. There is no evidence as to when the second marriage of Judawati took place. 9. It is, however, to be seen that the accused are father, mother and maternal uncle of Judawati. It is improbable that they would have abducted Judawati with some sinister designs. It has been sug gested to the prosecution witnesses that the complainant and Judawati were not having good relations. There is no evidence that Judawati had accompanied the accused under some deception and not voluntarily. What happened subsequently is a different matter. There is no evidence to establish that the design of the accused was to re-marry Judawati without separation when she had gone with them from the house of the com plainant. The learned Magistrate has recorded the order of acquittal taking into consideration these very aspects. 10. There is no occasion to interfere with the order of acquittal under appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .