JUDGMENT : I.A. No.10861 of 2018 1. Heard learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for grant of special leave under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for presenting this appeal which has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.03.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar in PCR Case No. 38 of 2009. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant-appellant married the private respondent no.2 as per Hindu rites and customs and she was blessed with a daughter. It is alleged by the complainant-appellant that the private respondent no.2 used to physically and mentally torture the complainant-appellant in connection with demand of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, though the father of the complainant-appellant paid Rs.7,50,000/- at the time of marriage of the complainant-appellant. It is also alleged that the private respondent no.2 used to assault the complainant-appellant by kicks, slaps and fist blows and was pressurizing the complainant-appellant to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her father. The complainant-appellant was treated in departmental hospital for the assaults made upon her. One day the private respondent no.2 also threw hot water upon the complainant-appellant. On 02.07.2008 the private respondent no.2 came to Danipur and demanded money but on negative reply being given by the complainant-appellant, on 05.06.2008 after taking away jewelries worth Rs.85,000/- the private respondent no.2 drove away the complainant-appellant from her matrimonial house at Danipur. There was bleeding from nose of the complainant-appellant. 4. In support of its case the complainant-appellant has altogether examined five witnesses while five witnesses were also examined by the defence. 5. Out of the five witnesses examined by the complainant-appellant, C.W.-5 is the complainant herself. She has stated about her marriage with the private respondent no.2 and she was alright for two years after her marriage but after birth of her daughter the private respondent no.2 started assaulting her and was demanding Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant-appellant was taken from Kishanganj to Delhi and there also she was assaulted in connection with demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and ultimately the private respondent no.2 took away jewelries worth Rs.85,000/- and drove the complainant-appellant out from his house. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the occurrence took place at Kishanganj and Delhi. 6. The complainant-appellant was taken from Kishanganj to Delhi and there also she was assaulted in connection with demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and ultimately the private respondent no.2 took away jewelries worth Rs.85,000/- and drove the complainant-appellant out from his house. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the occurrence took place at Kishanganj and Delhi. 6. C.W.1-Ratikant Jha has stated about the marriage of complainant-appellant and that she was alright for two and half years and dowry demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was made. The private respondent no.2 used to assault the complainant-appellant as the dowry demand was not met. C.W.1 has stated that after the marriage the complainant-appellant went to her in-laws house at Danipur and after some days, she went to Kishanganj with her husband-the private respondent no.2 and stayed there for about two and half years. 7. C.W.2-Srikant Pathak has stated that 2-4 months after the marriage the private respondent no.2 was keeping the complainant-appellant well and thereafter he assaulted her in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/. In his cross-examination, the C.W.2 has stated that the complainant-appellant is his Sali (younger sister of his wife) and in paragraph no.8 he has stated that he cannot say the day, date or year when the demand of dowry was made by the private respondent no.2. In paragraph no.17 he has deposed whatever the C.W.5 told to him. 8. C.W.3-Santosh Kumar Jha has stated that till two years of her marriage his sister was alright and one day the private respondent no.2 threw hot water at the complainant-appellant. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the complainant-appellant was treated by a doctor of Patna but he does not remember the name of the doctor or the date of the treatment. 9. C.W.4-Gopal Chandra Jha is the father of the complainant-appellant. She was alright in her matrimonial house for two years. After birth of daughter the private respondent no.2 started assaulting the complainant-appellant in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. The private respondent no.2 and his relatives went to Delhi leaving the complainant-appellant at Danipur and after two months they came and after snatching the jewelries worth of Rs.85,000/- they drove her out from the house. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in June, 2008 the private respondent no.2 demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from him as dowry. Her daughter was not treated in hospital. 10. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in June, 2008 the private respondent no.2 demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from him as dowry. Her daughter was not treated in hospital. 10. The five witnesses examined by the defence have all stated about the rude character of the complainant-appellant and that the complainant-appellant frequently used to go to her paternal house and was spending more time in her paternal house then with the private respondent no.2 and that was the bone of contention between the husband and the wife. 11. Learned court below after considering the evidence in the record observed that the C.W.1 is not a witness of the demand of dowry. C.W.2 has stated that the complainant-appellant is his Sali and he was not aware about the day, date or year of demand and has categorically stated that he has stated whatever was told to him by the complainant-appellant. Though the C.W.3 claims that the complainant-appellant was treated by the doctor but no medical document was produced in court. Learned court below also noticed the contradiction in the testimony of C.W.4 who has stated that after marriage for some days the complainant-appellant stayed at Danipur but thereafter from the year 2004 to 2008 the victim was at Kishanganj and again the complainant-appellant was kept at Danipur and in July, 2008, from where she was drove out from the house whereas as per the testimony of the complainant-appellant the private respondent no.2, the complainant-appellant and their daughter were at Danipur and thereafter the private respondent no.2 went to Delhi and after a month he came back and again assaulted and drove the complainant-appellant out from his house. The trial court took notice of the fact that the complainant-appellant has deposed that the occurrence took place at Kishanganj and Delhi in her deposition though in the complaint the place of occurrence was mentioned as Danipur. The trial court took notice of the fact that the complainant-appellant has deposed that the occurrence took place at Kishanganj and Delhi in her deposition though in the complaint the place of occurrence was mentioned as Danipur. The trial court also took note of the fact that in paragraph no.15 the complainant-appellant has stated that she came to Danipur on 5th July whereas as per the complaint she was drove out from Danipur from 5th July thus, the trial court observed that the complainant-appellant herself is not supporting her contention made in the complaint and as it appeared to the trial court that there is doubt regarding the case put forth by the complainant, the learned trial court acquitted the private respondent no.2-accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the learned court below failed to properly appreciate the fact and circumstances of the case in its entirety and did not consider the fact that the petition for dissolution of marriage between the parties filed by the private respondent no.2 was dismissed by the Family court at Gaya. It is next submitted that the learned trial court did not consider the fact that the delay in filing the case by the complainant-appellant was not at all intentional and the same occurred because the complainant-appellant was trying different means for restitution of the family life. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment is perverse. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2012 dated 09.04.2019 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter-alia held that “14. …. …. ….. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress caused by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled that wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home…. …. …. …..” and submits that the cruelty perpetrated to a lady continue even after the cruelty ceases so the discrepancy in the evidence of the complainant-appellant regarding the place where the allegedly cruelty was meted out to her cannot be treated as a major discrepancy. It is next submitted that the complainant-appellant has a very good ground to agitate in this appeal, hence, it is submitted that the special leave be granted to present the appeal. 13. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned court below has rightly observed the discrepancy in the evidence in record and the discrepancy between the case made out in the complaint vis-à-vis the evidence put forth by the witnesses examined by the complainant and though the trial court has not considered the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR but the fact remains that though the last occurrence took place on 05.07.2008 the complaint was filed only on 08.01.2009 and for such inordinate delay in lodging of the complaint no explanation has been put forth by the complainant-appellant in the complaint. It is further submitted that in view of lack of evidence in the record to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the private respondent no.2, the learned trial court having rightly acquitted the private respondent no.2 and there is no merit in the appeal hence, the special leave for presenting the appeal ought not be granted. 14. Having heard the rival submission made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, I find that there is discrepancy between the testimonies of the witnesses examined in the case by the complainant-appellant. There is also discrepancy between the case made out in the complaint and the oral testimonies put forth by the witnesses of the complainant. Having heard the rival submission made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, I find that there is discrepancy between the testimonies of the witnesses examined in the case by the complainant-appellant. There is also discrepancy between the case made out in the complaint and the oral testimonies put forth by the witnesses of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that as the complainant-appellant has not proved the judgment or any document of any proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act between the parties during the trial of this case certainly it is not open for the complainant-appellant to refer to such proceedings in this appeal in the absence of any evidence in the record and there is also major contradiction as to where the occurrence took place i.e. in Danipur or Kishanganj and Delhi and there is no specific evidence as to when and in what manner the cruelty if any, perpetrated by the private respondent no.2. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant regarding the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is concerned certainly the same is a settled principle of law so far as cause of action for filing a complaint for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code or the connected offences but I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant that the ratio of the said judgment can be extended to cover specific contradiction in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence put forth in the evidence by the witnesses during the trial. Under such circumstances, I do not find any apparent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the special leave to present the appeal under Section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be granted. Accordingly, this interlocutory application being without any merit is rejected. 15. Consequently this Acquittal Appeal (C) No.6 of 2019 is also dismissed.