ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner-complainant feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 26th of June 2015, passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, Camp Begun (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court confirmed the verdict of acquittal dated 29th of September 2014, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Begun, District Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. Initially, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29th of September 2014 acquitted the accused-respondents for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and subsequently the learned appellate Court, while concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, affirmed the same. 2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner-complainant filed a complaint before learned trial Court against respondents, inter alia, on the ground that her marriage was solemnized 12 years back with second respondent and matrimonial relations between them remained streamline for sometime but thereafter serious acrimony developed. It is also averred by the complainant that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondents with unlawful demand for property and valuable security. A specific allegation is also made against the respondents that she was tortured and given beatings. The learned trial Court sent the complaint to concerned police station for investigation by resorting to sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C and thereupon FIR 50/2008 came to be registered. Investigation in the matter progressed and after completion of investigation, all the accused-respondents were prosecuted for offence under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC by filing charge-sheet. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondents for the aforesaid offences, which were denied by them, and therefore, they were put on trial. 3. In order to prove charges against the accused-respondents, prosecution examined seven witnesses including the complainant. Besides that, nine documents were produced. Subsequently, statements of accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and, on their behalf, one defence witness was examined. Learned trial Court then proceeded to hear final arguments and by its verdict dated 29th of September 2014 acquitted the accused-respondents by extending them benefit of doubt. 4. Feeling dismayed with the verdict of acquittal, petitioner approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence available on record. Learned trial Court then proceeded to hear final arguments and by its verdict dated 29th of September 2014 acquitted the accused-respondents by extending them benefit of doubt. 4. Feeling dismayed with the verdict of acquittal, petitioner approached learned appellate Court and the learned appellate Court made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence available on record. After scrutinizing the entire evidence and other materials available on record, the learned appellate Court fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court, which entailed dismissal of the appeal. It is, in that background, the petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the impugned judgments and thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case. 6. There remains no quarrel that, in the present era, mushrooming of matrimonial disputes culminating into offence under Section 498-A IPC is a matter of grave and serious concern. Essentially, the cause of acrimony between spouses is erratic behaviour of one of the spouses and at times it may be cause of harassment to wife for unreasonable demand of dowry. In a civilized society, such behaviour of a groom or his family members cannot be countenanced and if such conduct is found to be proved then it is liable to be condemned in so many words by indicting the accused persons. However, slapping charge under Section 498-A, which is edificed on some trivial dispute between the spouses, is not desirable. 7. Upon examining the impugned judgment of learned trial Court, it is abundantly clear that it has made sincere endeavour to appreciate the evidence, which was available on record, while recording its finding favouring the accused persons for extending them benefit of doubt. It is also noteworthy that learned appellate Court also examined the entire evidence with bird's eye view for determining alleged culpability of the accused-respondents for aforesaid offence and concluded in clear and unequivocal terms that learned trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in extending the benefit of doubt. 8. As both the Courts below have examined the matter threadbare, in my considered opinion, revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised to interfere with the verdict of acquittal with utmost caution and circumspection. 9. 8. As both the Courts below have examined the matter threadbare, in my considered opinion, revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised to interfere with the verdict of acquittal with utmost caution and circumspection. 9. Legal position is no more res-integra that against a verdict of acquittal, revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for correction of a manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. Reliance, in this behalf, can be profitably made to a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kaptan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 4 Supreme 211 . 10. In a later judgment, the Supreme Court has culled out certain instances for exercising revisional jurisdiction at the instance of private complainant against verdict of acquittal. In case of Sheetala Prasad v. Sri Kant & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC 190 following guidelines are culled out by the Supreme Court : "(1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible; (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused; (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence; and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law." 11. In my opinion, the case in hand is not covered within the four corners of any of the guidelines enumerated herein above and consequently I feel dissuaded to exercise revisional jurisdiction in the matter to interfere with the verdict of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court. Resultantly, the petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.