JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. IN terms of judgment dated 9.4.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, in Criminal Case No.24/2 of 09/2006, titled as State of H.P. versus Hari Ram and another, accused (respondents herein) stand acquitted of the charged offences. 2. ON the asking of the present petitioner Ms Champa Devi, FIR No.230/05 (Ex. PW-7/A), dated 14.11.2005, under Sections 323, 325, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan. Challan was presented in the Court for trial. Appreciating the evidence led by the parties, trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved thereof, State filed an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.9-NL/10 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Hari Ram and another, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. The same was decided vide judgment dated 26.5.2012, affirming the findings of acquittal returned by the trial Court. 3. STATE did not prefer any further proceedings. However, the original complainant has filed the present Revision Petition. Significantly, the complainant did not approach the authorities or seek permission before filing the present Revision Petition. 4. THAT apart, having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that in any event no case for interference is made out. Trial Court has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence led by the parties. It cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures, hypotheses and surmises or the findings are in any manner perverse. Trial Court rightly did not rely upon the testimony of Shri Roop Lal (PW-3), who was a spot witness. Complainant Ms Champa Devi has entered the witness box as PW-1. Her testimony has been disbelieved being shaky in nature. The other corroborative evidence shows that the complainant's tooth was broken on account of the blow given by the accused but on account of the fact that it was decaying. As such, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed, so also the pending application, if any.