JUDGMENT AND ORDER : HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J. 1. This is a criminal revision petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the judgment and order, dated 5.1.2009, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Margherita, in GR Case No. 306/2006, acquitting the accused-respondent. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, Mr. R.S Mishra as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. R. Ali. State respondent No. 1 is represented by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M.P Goswami. 3. I have also perused the records of the learned trial court including the impugned judgment as well as the evidence of the witnesses recorded by the learned trial court. 4. The fact of the case is that, the present revision-petitioner got married with the respondent No. 2 in the year 1992 and since after 3 years of their marriage, she subjected the revision-petitioner to cruelty due to her failure to meet his unlawful demand of dowry. 5. On receipt of the FIR, on the above facts, Digboi Police Station registered a case, being Digboi PS Case No. 141/2006, and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the respondent No. 2 under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 6. After exhausting all required legal formalities, formal charge against the respondent No. 2 was framed under Section 498(A) of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial commenced. 7. The prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses in support of its case and defence examined 1 (one) witness. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the respondent No. 2 was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, and in his such statement, he denied the accusation made against him. 9. In the instant case, the victim was examined as PW1, and in her evidence, she is found to have stated that the respondent No. 2, subjected her to torture demanding gold ornaments. But, on perusal of the complaint, filed by PW2.informant, it does not reveal that she made any such complaint. The relationship between the revision-petitioner/PW1 and her husband/respondent No. 2 was never good since after their marriage and rather they were always in discord and even the respondent No. 2 threatened her to leave his house. 10. The dispute between the parties got settled in Lok-Adalat, and thereafter, they resumed their conjugal life. The relationship between the revision-petitioner/PW1 and her husband/respondent No. 2 was never good since after their marriage and rather they were always in discord and even the respondent No. 2 threatened her to leave his house. 10. The dispute between the parties got settled in Lok-Adalat, and thereafter, they resumed their conjugal life. But, even thereafter, the respondent No. 2 continued to put threat to his wife/present revision-petitioner. In her own evidence, she had developed the case from the story narrated in the FIR as there was never an allegation in the FIR that there was demand of ornaments which she developed, in her evidence, as PW1. But, the fact remains that the evidence of putting the present revision-petitioner/wife to threat by the respondent No. 2, is insisted upon even during her cross-examination. 11. After the settlement of the dispute between the parties in the Lok-Adalat, PW2.informant, took PW1 to his house, and there also, he had put threat to the PW1.revision-petitioner. The only allegation against the respondent No. 2, appears to be, from the evidence as a whole, that she was threatened and scolded by the respondent No. 2. 12. To constitute an offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC, cruelty or harassment should be with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand for dowry. Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it does not appear that there is any evidence led by them to attract the said constituents of the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 13. That being so, in the considered view of this court, the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial court, is based on evidence on record and requires no interference. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed on merit. 15. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.