JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents No. 1 to 7 for offences under Sections 147, 451, 323 and 341 I.P.C. the petitioner, who happens to be the complainant, has filed the present petition before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2.1.2007 the petitioner had submitted a written report (Ex.P-2) before the S.P., Nagaur, wherein he alleged that on 20.12.2006, the accused-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had assaulted his son at their shop. On the basis of said report, a formal F.I.R, F.I.R No. 2/2007 was chalked out for the aforementioned offences. In order to substantiate, its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and had submitted four documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the petitioner himself had admitted that prior to submitting his report before the S.P., has already submitted a report at Police Station, Peelwa (Ex.D-1). Therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly concluded that Ex.D-1 happens to be the F.I.R. Moreover, the petitioner had also admitted that in case he were informed by the police that they had acted upon his previous F.I.R or initiated proceeding under Section 107 I.P.C against accused-respondent, he would not have submitted his report before the S.P. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has noted that in the report submitted before the S.P., the petitioner had exaggerated the entire story. For in the initial report submitted at the Police Station, Peelwa, there was no mention of the fact the accused-respondents had assaulted his son at the shop. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Magistrate was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 5. It is the duty of the learned trial Court to meticulously examine the evidence produced by the prosecution and by the defence. In case there are glaring lacunae in the case of the prosecution, the leaned trial Court would be justified in acquitting the offender. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 5. It is the duty of the learned trial Court to meticulously examine the evidence produced by the prosecution and by the defence. In case there are glaring lacunae in the case of the prosecution, the leaned trial Court would be justified in acquitting the offender. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has clearly noted that prior to submitting his report before the S.P., the petitioner had already submitted report before the Police. Station, Peelwa. Thus, the said report (Ex.D-1) was right treated as F.I.R. Therefore, the report sent to the S.P., cannot be termed as an F.I.R. Moreover, there is exaggeration in the report submitted before the S.P. In the report submitted before the Police Station, the petitioner did not mention the fact that the accused-respondents had assaulted his son at the shop. Yet after lapse of two days, a new story was woven by the petitioner and a report was submitted to the S.P. The exaggeration made by the petitioner clearly amounts to contradictions. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in disbelieving the story as presented by the prosecution. 6. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Thus, this petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******