ORDER 1. The instant appeal under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 20.6.2013 passed in Criminal Case No.1011/2012 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri whereby respondents No.1 to 5 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 447 and 506B of IPC. 2. One private complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant before learned trial Court in which cognizance was taken by the trial Court on 22.6.2012 and criminal case was registered against respondents No.1 to 5 bearing No. 1011/2012. Before the trial Court complainant examined herself as PW1 and one Aftab Khan as PW2. Thereafter, learned trial Court after considering the ocular and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, acquitted respondents No.1 to 5. 3. Vide order dated 30.11.2013, this Court has granted leave to file present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence produced by the appellant/complainant before the trial Court in his private complaint was not properly appreciated by the trial Court, hence this appeal may be admitted for final hearing. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, entire record of trial Court has been perused. 6. On going through the impugned judgment, it seems that after taking into consideration the entire evidence produced by the complainant, learned trial Court has found that the ingredients for the offence punishable under sections 447 and 506B of IPC have not been established by the complainant by producing the cogent and reliable evidence. Learned trial Court has held that complainant has failed to prove her possession over the land in question at the time of commission of offence and in that regard neither any Khasra entry of relevant year nor any sale deed has been submitted. The complainant has not even bothered to state survey number in her evidence before the Court. As per version of complainant incident occurred at about 6-7 a.m. while according to the witness of complainant -Aftab Khan (PW2) incident occurred at about 2-3 pm, thus, there is material contradictions between the statements. Aftab Khan (PW2) further stated that there is no partition between the field of complainant and Kosa Bai, therefore, on the date of incident which land was cultivated by respondents No.1 to 5 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Aftab Khan (PW2) further stated that there is no partition between the field of complainant and Kosa Bai, therefore, on the date of incident which land was cultivated by respondents No.1 to 5 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court whereby respondents No.1 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges under sections 447 and 506 (Part II) of IPC is well merited and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. F. A. Shah for appellant; Pramod Pachori, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.6/State.