ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants and one other person were accused in a complaint filed a by Respondent 1 against them for the offence punishable under Sections 3(i), 4, 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also for return of dowry amount of Rs 1,50,000 and other articles. Two sets of charges were framed against the accused by the trial court on 4-3-1998 for offence under Section 3(i) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and again on 30-7-1998, additional charge for offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was framed. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused. The judgment of acquittal was challenged by complainant Respondent 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1999. By the impugned judgment of the High Court, the acquittal of the appellants has been set aside, and the trial court has been directed to reframe the charges and retry the entire case. 3. The only ground for setting aside the acquittal and directing retrial is technical defect in framing of the charges, inasmuch as it has been noticed that one set of charges does not contain the signatures of the accused, further observing that when a female is an accused, it is impossible to say that she has been made aware of the charges levelled against her. The other defect mentioned is that in one of the charges, the section has not been mentioned and therefore the charge has not been properly framed. We can understand if din a given case, a grievance about prejudice having been caused on account of non-framing of proper charge is made by the accused, but that is not the case here. The appeal in the High Court was filed by the complainant. On the facts of the case, the judgment of acquittal could not have been set aside on the ground of non-framing of the charge when no such grievance was made by the accused. There was no ground to direct retrial of the case. 4. In this view, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. 5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.