JUDGMENT : 1. Shri M. K. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. 2. Applicant has preferred this application under section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28-11-2016 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.A. No. 90/2016, whereby the judgment dated 1-2-2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 6519/2014 has been set aside and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage was solemnized between the complainant and respondent No. 1-Aarif on 13-5-2006 and a daughter was born out of their wedlock. According to the complaint made by the complainant, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 demanded cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- for meeting the study expenses of the respondent No. 1 and the complainant's father gave the aforesaid amount to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. After completion of the study of medical science of the respondent No. 1, the accused persons further demanded Rs. 25.00 lakhs cash for opening hospital of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 to 4 started harassing her to fulfill their demand, however complainant tolerated the harassment with a hope that one day the respondents will mind their ways and will treat her properly. The situation did not improve and one day the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial home along with her daughter, thereafter they started living with her parents. Applicant lodge a report against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and on the basis of this a case bearing Crime No. 114/2014 has been registered against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code at Mahila Thana, Ujjain and after due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 4. The learned trial Court, after due appreciation of entire evidence on record, found proved the charges levied against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/accused and convicted them for the aforesaid offence and sentenced them to 2 years R.I with a fine of Rs. 500/-. 4. The learned trial Court, after due appreciation of entire evidence on record, found proved the charges levied against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/accused and convicted them for the aforesaid offence and sentenced them to 2 years R.I with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction respondent No. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court after reappreciating the evidence acquitted the respondent No. 1 to 4/accused from the aforesaid charges. Dissatisfied with the same, the applicant/complainant has filed this petition for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. 5. Having heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution has proved the fact on the basis of the statement of complainant- Kamrunisha Bee that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were demanding cash from her and to meet out their demand, they persistently ill treated her and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused persons for the charge under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, however, the learned appellate Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent 1 to 4/accused from the aforesaid charge. Hence counsel prayed for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. 7. On perusal of statement of the prosecution witness Kamrunisha Bee (P.W.1) it reveals that respondent Nos. 1 to4 were demanding Rs. 25.00 lakhs from her and to meet out their demand they were harassing her. They tried to kill her by injecting poison and after that on 7-6-2014, they had thrown her out from the matrimonial house since then she is residing with her parents. 8. The evidence of complainant-Kamrunisha Bee shows that the allegation relating to commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code are omnibus and did not refer to any specific act of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Although the complainant claims that her father paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to meet out the educational expenses of respondent No. 1, however, she has not filed any documents to substantiate the aforesaid fact. According to the complainant, she was subjected to cruelty on not fulfilling their demand of cash of Rs. 25.00 lakhs for opening hospital for respondent No. 1. 2,50,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to meet out the educational expenses of respondent No. 1, however, she has not filed any documents to substantiate the aforesaid fact. According to the complainant, she was subjected to cruelty on not fulfilling their demand of cash of Rs. 25.00 lakhs for opening hospital for respondent No. 1. However, she admitted in her cross-examination that her father is doing the work of filling cotton in mattresses and pillows and by this he is earning only Rs. 8,000/- per month and whole family is dependent on his income which indicates that financial condition of her father is not so good that he can fulfill the aforesaid demand, therefore, the demand of Rs. 25.00 lakhs by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 does not seems to be reliable. She further admitted that after completion of the M.B.B.S Degree from Kazakhstan, Russia, respondent No. 1 came to India and he took her to Ajmer Sharif and other places along with his daughter. She also admitted that respondent No. 1 had also borne the expenses of education of the daughter of her sister, which shows that the financial condition of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are very sound and they are financially helping the family of the complainant, therefore, the demand of Rs. 25.00 lakhs by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appears to be false. 9. On consideration of these facts, the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the accusation regarding cruelty and harassment for demand of cash amount are absurd and improbable. It is also pertinent to note that material contradictions and omissions have come in the statement of the complainant-Kamurnisha which shows that she has exaggerated the story so that allegation made against the respondent appear to be more grave. 10. On perusal of the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and findings given by the appellate Court in paras 18, 19 and 20 of the impugned judgment, in my considered opinion, the appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that nothing has been proved against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/accused persons, on which basis they can be held guilty for offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 1 to 4/accused persons, on which basis they can be held guilty for offence under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In view of that the finding of acquittal recorded by the appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not appear to be perverse. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the appellate Court. 11. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Certified copy, as per rules.