JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant/complainant against the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2005 passed in criminal case no. 1682 of 2002 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla (MP) acquitting the respondents no. 1 to 4/accused from the charges of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned trial court is not justified in acquitting the respondents/accused inspite of evidence of her husband for dowry from the complainant Kalpana Chourasiya and her family members. 3. According to impugned judgment, marriage of Kalpana Chourasiya took place with Prafullaya in the year 1997 and they remained together till 26.6.2002. The evidence of Kalpana (PW-1), her father Ishwar Prasad (PW-2), mother Pramila (PW-8) and brother Babloo (PW-3) have been disbelieved by learned trial court on the ground that a Panchayat was organized to resolve the dispute between the parties and earlier also, Kalpana Chourasiya lodged a report on 16.11.2000 at Police Chowki Hirdenagar where the complainant and her family members had not stated anything about harassment for fulfillment of demand of dowry. On the other hand, the complainant herself was pressurizing her husband to live separately from her mother. In the letter Ex.D/3 written on 9.5.2002 near about one and half months before lodging of the FIR, the complainant herself has not made any allegation for demand of dowry and harassment for the said fulfillment. On the other hand, she has stated that behaviour of her husband is proper and she is harassed by her mother in law only. But, there is no allegation that she was harassed by her mother in law for fulfillment of demand of dowry and she was ready to live separately with her husband. Her willingness to live with her husband separately and further absence of any allegation of harassment for fulfillment of demand of dowry in earlier report and also before the Panchayat, the evidence of harassment for fulfillment of demand of dowry produced by the prosecution has been rightly disbelieved by learned trial court. 4. Learned trial court is therefore justified in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal by properly appreciating the evidence and applying the principle of law. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment under revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.