ORDER 1. This application under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the applicant/complainant being aggrieved by judgment dated 22.1.2005 delivered in R.T. No.118-A/2005, by learned JMFC, Bhopal acquitting the respondents from the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. 2. To appreciate the say of the applicant, I would like to say that basic case that was placed before the trial Court in nutshell is that the applicant got married with respondent No.1 in the year 1990 and her parent has given Rs.35,000/- in cash to accused persons along with other household articles to the tune of Rs.3,95,420/-. After two years of marriage the accused persons started harassing the applicant on account of demand of dowry. They also committed Marpeet and lastly thrown the applicant from her matrimonial house. On 05.11.1996 a notice was issued to the applicant through her advocate to the respondents for return of cash and other articles, however, the respondents did not return the same. A complaint case under section 200 of CrPC was registered against the accused and adopting due procedure for registration of criminal complaint case proceeded and complaint case was registered against the accused , accused has been charge-sheeted. 3. The accused abjured the guilt; therefore, they were put to trial. 4. The complainant has examined Jalil Mohd.Khan (PW1), Capt.Naim (PW2) and Adil Rashid (PW3) and exhibited documents (Ex.P-1 and P-2) to prove its case. During the statement under section 313 of the CrPC the accused denied all the evidence putforth against him and pleaded innocence. Accused also examined Mohd.Altaf (DW1) and Mohd. Laeek (DW2) as defence witnesses. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded impugned judgment of acquittal of accused against which this application for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/applicant has taken me through the entire judgment and main grounds of challenge mentioned in the memo of petition and pointed out the error that has allegedly committed at the time of recording of the findings of acquittal by the learned trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has submitted that judgment of acquittal is based on proper findings and no interference is called for in this petition seeking leave to appeal. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has submitted that judgment of acquittal is based on proper findings and no interference is called for in this petition seeking leave to appeal. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that this application for leave to appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Reason for acquittal of the accused mentioned by learned trial Court that the applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to articles given at the time of marriage, does not require any interference. After detailed marshelling of depositions of complainant Smt. Gayatri Meena (PW1), learned trial Court pointed out in para 6 of the impugned judgment held as under :- ^^6- izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku bl lk{kh us ;g izdV fd;k fd tks Hkh lkeku mlus vius dFku esa crk;k gS mlds laca/k esa dksbZ jlhn] fcy izdj.k esa izLrqr ugha fd,A mlus iwoZ esa Hkh vkjksihx.k ds fo#) /kkjk 3 ,oa 6 ngst izfr"ksèk vf/kfu;e ,oa /kkjk 406 Hkk-n-l- ds varxZr ifjokn izLrqr fd;k FkkA mDr ifjokn esa mlus ngst esa fn, x, lkeku dk o.kZu fd;k FkkA izn'kZ Mh&1 ds ifjokn esa ftl lkeku dk mYys[k gS og lgh gSA izn'kZ Mh&1 dk vfHkys[k mlds lkeku dh lwph ugha gSA mlus mDr nLrkost dHkh ugha ns[kk vkSj u gh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gSA bl lk{kh us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd fookg ds le; ngst esa fn, x, lkeku dk dksbZ fcy izdj.k esa layXu ugha gS vkSj u gh vkjksihx.k ds fo#) izek.k izdj.k esa izLrqr ugha gSA mls tkudkjh ugha gS fd 25-4-1995 dks mldk vkjksih vkseizdk'k ls U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls rykd gqvk gS mlus fofn'kk U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh rykd dh fMØh dks fujLr djus gsrq dksbZ vkosnu fn;k Fkk vFkok ugha bl laca/k esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gSA mls ;g Hkh tkudkjh ugha gS fd mDr izdj.k esa mlds vf/koDrk dkSu FksA mlus fookg ds le; fn, x, lkeku ds QksVks izdj.k esa izLrqr fd, gSaA bl lk{kh us vkjksihx.k ds fo#) vlR; djus ds fcanq ls bUdkj fd;kA** 10. The High Court can consider any special feature in a particular case and cannot ignore the effect which the granting of leave to appeal without due discrimination may have on the principles of normal presumption of innocence of the accused in our criminal law which has been further reinforced and strengthened by the order of acquittal by the trial Court. Accordingly, unless the High Court is satisfied, considered in the light above, about some indications or error in a judgment of acquittal, the High Court may not grant leave. 11. The learned counsel for applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in the application for leave to file appeal is not called for. 12. Hence, this application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed.