JUDGMENT 1. - The instant cr. appeal has been filed by the complainant Darga Ram S/o Prema Ji, resident of village Nana, Tehsil Bali, District Pali under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 26.9.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bali, District Pali whereby the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 500 IPC. 2. As per the brief facts of the case a complaint was filed by the appellant-complainant in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bali, District Pali alleging therein that he is resident of village Nana and the respondents nos. 2 and 3 are resident of the same village and belongs to his community. As per the allegation in the complaint, there was a dispute with Mota Ram respondent no.2 with regard to a plot in the village and due to the said rivalry when the marriage of his son Bhoma Ram was going to be solemnized on 10th June, 1998 with the daughter of Magnaram Meghwal a false complaint was made by the respondents before the Police Station, Bali in which to defame the appellant a wrong allegation was made that appellant is going to solemnize marriage of his minor son Bhoma Ram with the minor girl. On the basis of aforesaid report, the police authorities came at the residence of the appellant and the atmosphere of marriage was changed in a sorrow so also the relatives, friends and the guests left the house. The police made an inquiry with regard to age of his son and daughter-in-law upon which documents of age of his son were shown and after satisfaction, the police party returned back but due to said false complaint, the complainant suffered defamation in the society, therefore, the appellant prayed that respondents may be punished for their alleged offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. 3. The complainant served a notice to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony suffered by him but no compensation is given by the respondents. Thereafter, the complaint was filed in the court in which statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial court and on the basis of statements and documents cognizance was taken by the trial court against the respondents vide order dated 19.1.2001. 25,000/- for mental agony suffered by him but no compensation is given by the respondents. Thereafter, the complaint was filed in the court in which statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial court and on the basis of statements and documents cognizance was taken by the trial court against the respondents vide order dated 19.1.2001. The learned trial court after the trail for offence under Section 500 IPC acquitted the respondents from the charges leveled against them vide impugned judgment dated 26.9.2013. 4. In this appeal, the appellant-complainant is challenging the finding given by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and submit that due to false complaint made by the respondents his prestige in the society was damaged but this fact has not been considered properly by the learned trial court in spite of evidence on record, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 5. As per learned counsel for the appellant while giving statement before the court on oath a specific allegation was leveled against the respondents by the appellants that his son was major and girl with whom marriage was going to be solemnized was also major but due to false complaint made by the respondents to the police, the police party came at his home during marriage function and due to that the appellant suffered defamation in the society, therefore, it is a fit case in which the respondents are liable to be punished for offence under Section 500 IPC but the learned trial court completely ignored the facts and evidence available on record and gave erroneous finding to acquit the respondents from the charge without any cogent reasons, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and respondent may be punished. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents nos. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents nos. 2 and 3 submits that in the trial statements of PW-1 Magan Ram who is father-in-law of son of complainant, PW-2 Narayan Lal and PW-3 Mohan Lal who are close relatives of the appellant were recorded but the appellant himself did not appear before the Court due to illness but upon perusal of the statement of PW-1 Magan Ram and PW-3 Mohan Lal it is abundantly clear that both these witnesses said that police came for verification of age prior to 4-5 days of the marriage whereas the appellant made false allegation in the complaint that police came at his resident on the date of marriage. 7. After hearing the arguments, I have perused the findings of the learned trial court. The learned trial court acquitted the respondents on the basis of major contradiction in the statements, so also, on the ground that complainant did not appear before the court for recording his statement. In my opinion, the judgment passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity because the appellant has chosen to file appeal before this Court but not appeared as witnesses in the court during trial, so also, as per the finding of the learned trial court there are major contradiction in the statement of witnesses with regard to date of incident. In view of the above fact, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment impugned.Hence, this Criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******