JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Amritanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. No one appears on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 5.9.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 2668 of 1998, whereby and where under opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted for the charges levelled against them under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are all independent witnesses, who have supported the factum of occurrence with respect to demand of dowry and the subsequent assault on the petitioner on account of non fulfillment of the said demand. It has further been submitted that P.Ws. 1 and 5 are the parents of the petitioner, who have supported the prosecution case. It has also been submitted that there being consistent evidence with respect to the assault committed upon the petitioner and her ouster from the matrimonial house, learned courts below should have convicted opposite party nos. 2 to 5 under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that a complaint case was filed by the petitioner against O.P. Nos. 2 to 5, in which it was alleged that the petitioner was married with opposite party no. 2 and out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born. It is said that at the time of marriage, father of the petitioner had given cash, golden jewellery as well as other costly articles. Allegation has been levelled that during her stay at her in-laws house, petitioner was treated cruelly and there was always demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused persons in order to purchase a Hero Honda Motorcycle. Father of the petitioner had given Rs.10,000/- and on failure to make payment of Rs.40,000/-, petitioner was kicked out from her matrimonial house with a warning that until and unless she brings Rs.40,000/-, she will not be allowed to enter into her matrimonial house. 4. Father of the petitioner had given Rs.10,000/- and on failure to make payment of Rs.40,000/-, petitioner was kicked out from her matrimonial house with a warning that until and unless she brings Rs.40,000/-, she will not be allowed to enter into her matrimonial house. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, C.P. Case No. 728 of 1998 was instituted, which however on being sent to the police under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., was registered as Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 115/1998 under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation culminated in submission of chargesheet under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken, charge was framed and trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 6. P.W-1-Salamat Ahmad is the father of the informant, who had stated that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 with the petitioner was solemnized in the year 1996 and at the time of her marriage several articles including cash were given. This witness has stated that there was a demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and although an amount of Rs.10,000/- was given but the petitioner was beaten and admitted to hospital. This witness has further stated that the informant had filed a case under section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed whereas the suit filed by the opposite party no. 2 for restitution of conjugal rights was decided in favour of the opposite party no. 2. 7. P.W-2-Nisar Ansari has although supported the occurrence of assault but has feigned ignorance about the case under section 125 Cr.P.C. or with respect to the suit, which was filed by the opposite party no. 2. 8. P.W-3-Md. Md. Yasin has supported the prosecution case with respect to demand of motorcycle made by the accused persons. This witness in cross-examination has admitted that he has deposed before the Family Court in favour of the petitioner and that he did not know that the petitioner had lost that case or for that matter opposite party no. 2 had filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. P.W-4-Md. Nejam has stated that he had seen the accused persons assaulting the petitioner and demanding Rs.40,000/-. This witness has further showed his ignorance about the counter case or title suit. 10. 2 had filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. P.W-4-Md. Nejam has stated that he had seen the accused persons assaulting the petitioner and demanding Rs.40,000/-. This witness has further showed his ignorance about the counter case or title suit. 10. P.W-5-Sahjadi Khatoon is the mother of the informant, who has supported the prosecution case with respect to demand and assault upon the petitioner, pursuant to which she was admitted in Central Hospital. She has also stated about the maintenance case filed by the petitioner and the suit preferred by the opposite party no. 2. This witness has admitted that opposite party no. 2 has not remarried. 11. P.W-6-Sabina Khatoon is the informant of the case, who has stated that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- and on account of non fulfillment of the same she was ousted from the matrimonial house, pursuant to which a Panchayti was held and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was given to the father in law and husband in presence of villagers. She has stated that she was assaulted by the accused persons, which led her to be admitted in hospital and her ornaments were also snatched. This witness has stated about the ouster from her matrimonial house as well as the cases instituted by the petitioner and by the opposite party no. 2. 12. Defence has examined as many as two witnesses. 13. D.W-1-Kayum Ansari has stated that the opposite party no. 2 had got compassionate appointment in BCCL and an undertaking was given by him that he shall look after the brother and sister. This witness has stated that opposite party nos. 3 and 5 used to reside separately. 14. It appears that the prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer. The prosecution case is mainly based upon the evidence of P.Ws-1, 5 and 6. These witnesses have stated about the assault committed upon the petitioner, subsequent to which she was admitted in hospital but the prosecution has failed to bring on record any document or any report to substantiate such statements as neither the doctor has been examined nor any medical prescription has been exhibited. If further appears that a case under section 125, Cr.P.C. was subsequently compromised between the parties. Suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed in favour of opposite party no. 2. If further appears that a case under section 125, Cr.P.C. was subsequently compromised between the parties. Suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed in favour of opposite party no. 2. These facts go to prove that the petitioner was never willing to reside with her husband and the evidence of the witnesses with respect to the assault fortifies the fact that case instituted by the petitioner was a frivolous case as on the point of assault the prosecution could not bring on record any supportive evidence. The evidence of the defence witness also bears this signature inasmuch as D.W-2 happened to be the Sadar of the Panchayat who had narrated about certain facts which run contrary to what has been stated by the prosecution witnesses. Demand of Rs.50,000/- and on non fulfillment of the said demand on the part of the petitioner allegedly led to her ouster from her matrimonial house after being subjected to physical assault but as has been indicated above in absence of the prosecution having failed to bring on record any substantive piece of evidence in support thereof the prosecution thus has failed to prove the allegation made against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and the learned trial court therefore had rightly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 from the charges levelled against them under section 498-A of the IPC. 15. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is dismissed.