Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This is a second revision. 2. Challenge made is to the order dated 14.5.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Gurd,aspur, accepting the revision tiled by Sohan Singh Dhesi and Rupinder Kaur - respondents (herein referred as respondents), and ordering their discharge in case under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts in the background of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, on the basis of which her husband Amandeep Singh was challaned, while her parents-in-law (respondents) were kept in column No. 2. However, during trial, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Batala vide order dated 17.1.1998 summoned the respondents to face trial for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondents went up in revision, which was accepted by Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide the impugned judgment and the respondents were discharged while making a specific observation that there are no allegations against them having demanded any dowry articles and maltreating the petitioner. It was also noticed that in the complaint itself, it was mentioned that they were residing at Dalhousie on the day of occurrence. 4. The statement made by the petitioner does not inspire confidence. It appears that she exaggerated the allegations in order to take revenge from the respondents family. !n his statement dated 19.9.1996, M.S. Hundai father of the petitioner- has not attributed any over act to the respondents and has also not levelled any allegations of demand of dowry or mis-appropriation thereof. The case is full of contradictions and exaggerations and, thus, no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of M.S. HundaLand the petitioner, qua the respondents. 5. In any case, while sitting in revision, the powers of this court to interfere with the findings of fact is very limited. In case Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, 1986(2) R.C.R.(Cnminal) 500 : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1721, the Apex Court held that the mere circumstance that finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. Their Lordships further held that even in an appeal, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ from the findings of fact reached by the Trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope. 6. Apart from the above position in law, it is also significant to note that the trial is likely to be concluded as material evidence has already been recorded, as disclosed by the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State. 7. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.