Judgment The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment dated 24.3.1998 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in T.R. No. 157/1997 arising out of Complaint Case No. 28 of 1995• whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused Respondents from the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below without considering the evidence of the witnesses, acquitted the accused respondents and issued show cause notice to the complainant appellant under Section 250 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that the court below has not considered the Exhibit-1 letter written by the complainant's daughter. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant (Complainant) Raj Kishore Choudhary arrayed the aforesaid respondents party and one Jang Bahadur' Singh (deceased) on the allegation that his daughter Munni Singh was married to Vinod Kumar Singh some time in the year 1985 and thereafter his wife Urmila Devi and the mother of his son-in-law jointly purchased some land of Khata No. 69 Plot No. 1558 measuring 10.5 decimals in Village-Govindpur by paying consideration amount by each of them and they constructed a residential house over it. Further, it was alleged that Munni Singh's mother-in-law used to reside with her family in the said house while the portions belongs to the complainant's wife was lying vacant. Further, uncle-in-law, aunt-in-law, husband's elder brother and the wife of husband's brother of the complainant's daughter approached the complainant in the year 1993 after Holi Festival and asked him to hand over the land purchased in the name of complainant's wife as part of dowry but the complainant refused it whereupon the accused persons left the place with threat of dire consequences' for refusing it. Further, Munni Singh sent a letter on 3.1.1994 to her father to the effect that the accused persons are physically and mentally torturing her. Further it was alleged that the complainant visited his daughter's place on 20.1.1994 but he was not permitted to meet with his daughter and again the demand was made by the accused persons. Thereafter, the daughter of the complainant (Munni Singh) was driven away from her Sasural by the accused persons after torturing her. Further it was alleged that the complainant visited his daughter's place on 20.1.1994 but he was not permitted to meet with his daughter and again the demand was made by the accused persons. Thereafter, the daughter of the complainant (Munni Singh) was driven away from her Sasural by the accused persons after torturing her. Thereafter, the accused persons also drove out the son-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant's daughter from the house with a threat to his son-in-law that he would not be spared if he did not obey their demand by pressurising his mother-in-law. On 28.1.1995 Raj Kishore Choudhary (Complainant-appellant) visited for the last time to the Sasural of his daughter but the accused persons reiterated that their demand should be fulfilled and refused to keep his daughter and his daughter is residing with him as his son-in-law has got no quarter. All the efforts for conciliation had failed and as such the complaint petition was filed by the complainant-appellant (i.e. Complaint Case No. 28 of 1995). 4.' The prosecution has examined four witnesses and filed a letter written by the complainant's daughter i.e. Exhibit-1. Amongst the prosecution witnesses P W. 1 Raj Kishore Choudhary the complaint, P.W. 2 Binod Kumar Singh son-in-low of the complainant, P.W. 3 Munni Singh daughter of the complainant, P.W. 4 Ram Dulari Devi mother-in-law of Munni Devi who is daughter of the complainant. 5. Perused the lower court records scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses, I find that none of the witnesses could established the prosecution case and furthermore, all the witnesses are admittedly inimical term with the accused respondents and Partition Suit is going on between them. It has also come in the evidence of P.w. 1 (the complainant) at para-22 that the daughter of the complainant who is P.W. 3 is residing with her husband (P.W. 2) and they are in good terms with each other. Therefore, trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations in the complaint petition made under Section 498A I.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the trial court has issued show cause notice under Section 250 Cr.P.C. to him which is wholly illegal and fit to be quashed. Therefore, trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations in the complaint petition made under Section 498A I.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the trial court has issued show cause notice under Section 250 Cr.P.C. to him which is wholly illegal and fit to be quashed. He has further contended the trial court has failed to appreciate that mere acquittal of the accused is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 250 Cr.P.C. 7. From the records, I find that the complainant has failed to establish the allegation made in the complaint petition against the accused persons as because not having sufficient evidence and for not producing the independent witnesses but it does not mean that the appellant has filed a false and frivolous complaint petition. 8. Considering all these aspect, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment in respect of the acquittal of the accused respondents. Therefore, I do not interfere with the judgment of acquittal of the accused respondents but I set aside the part of the said judgment dated 24.3.1998 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in T.R. No. 157/1997 arising out of Complaint Case No. 28 of 1995 whereby the court below has issued show cause notice under Section 250 Cr.P.C. to the appellant complainant which is wholly illegal and issued without any reasonable ground. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal and modify the aforesaid judgment to the extent stated above and confirm the acquittal of the accused respondents.