JUDGMENT : Harsh Kumar, J. The application has been moved by State of U.P. for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2018 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Budaun in S.S.T. No.193 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar), acquitting the respondent from the charges under sections 354A, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)10 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Heard Shri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 3. Learned AGA has assailed the impugned judgement of acquittal on the ground that the impugned judgement and order is wrong on the facts of law and the learned trial court has acted wrongly and perversely in holding P.W.-2 Anil Kumar Saxena, the clerk of the college to be an interested witness while he was not at all interested rather was an independent witness; that for lodging F.I.R. of the incident, the prosecutrix had moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without any inordinate delay and her application was treated as complaint, wherein, she supported the complaint case and duly corroborated by the statements of P.W.-2 Anil Kumar Saxena and P.W.-3 Omveer; that P.W.-3 Omveer was son-in-law of complainant/victim but P.W.-2 Anil Kumar Saxena was not related with the complainant in any manner whatsoever and so his testimony was creditworthy; that it is proved from the evidence on record that the respondent used to pass filthy comments in order to outrage modesty of complainant by stating that:- ^^;g fpfM+;k esjs tky esa ugh Ql jgh gS] bl dkWyst dh dbZ fpfM+;Wk esjs tky esa QWl pqdh gSA^^ ^^lkyh pefj;k jkst u;s u;s diMs+ cny dj vkrh gS vkSj eq>ls drjkrh jgrh gSA vxj mldh cudj ugh jgsxh rks xq.Mks ls rq>s mBok ywWxkA^^ and on 06.04.2015 at about 11:30 when she was taking water from the hand-pump, he (accused-respondent Dharmendra Kumar) proposed her for establishing physical relations and on her protest, he told:- ^^eS yksxks ls rsjs gkFk iSj Hkh rqMok nwWxk vkSj ekSdk iM+us ij tku ls Hkh ejok nwaxkA dksb esjk dqN ugha fcxkM+ ldrk gSA bl dkyst esa esjk dbZ yksxks ls >xM+k Hkh gqvk gS exj esjk vHkh rd dqN ugh fcxM+k gSA^^ 4. Upon hearing the learned AGA and perusal of impugned judgment, I find that regarding the alleged incident dated 06.04.2015 an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by complainant was moved after 50 days on 26.05.2015 which was treated as complaint vide order dated 20.06.2015. Undoubtedly, the complainant was working as a peon in the educational institution, having been appointed under dying-in-harness rules on account of death of her husband and accused-respondent was also working on the post of Class-IV employee in the same institution. It is also undisputed fact that P.W.-2 Anil Kumar Saxena was also a Class-IV employee of the institution, who was promoted to Class-III in due course and was working as a clerk to the institution. The accused-respondent has denied the allegations made against him and has also stated that his promotion is due and in order to deprive him from promotion, a false complaint was made by Anil Kumar Saxena to the institution of which correct reply was submitted by him. 5. The learned trial court after analysing the entire evidence on record has held that since Anil Kumar Saxena is in conflict with accused and so he is considered to be a partisan witness in view of the fact that the appointment of complainant is disputed in view of her academic qualifications. It is also contended that Anil Kumar Saxena the clerk is protecting the services and interests of complainant despite her fake educational certificates. It is pertinent to mention that prior to alleged incident dated 06.04.2015 when the accused-respondent allegedly proposed the complainant for establishing physical relations, he is said to have been using to pass filthy comments and also commenting for getting her kidnapped, which allegations are self contradictory as the alleged proposal dated 6.4.2015 may not be supposed to have been made earlier to above incidents of eve teasing or threatening of kidnapping. 6. In view of the above material contradictions, I find that the reasoning given by the learned trial court is cogent and there is no manifest error of fact on law or any perversity, which may require interference by this Court. It is not the case of applicant that the learned trial court failed to consider any evidence, which was there on record. 7. It is not the case of applicant that the learned trial court failed to consider any evidence, which was there on record. 7. Perusal of record shows that the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court is absolutely flawless since he has analyzed the evidence in great detail and appreciated them in correct perspective. The trial court has ascribed cogent reasons for not placing reliance on the untruthful testimony of complainant and her witnesses. In such a fact situation, High Court is not advised under law to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 8. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified". 9. In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned AGA has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order of acquittal and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 10. The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.