opposite party no.2 had made the allegations of bribe etc., against the applicant no.3. Thereupon, the applicant no.2 has reported about the same to the applicant no.1, upon which applicant no.1 had issued notice to the opposite party no.2 and has called for explanation and asked him to substantiate the charges levelled by him, in open, against the applicant no.3. When the opposite party no.2 failed to substantiate the charges against the applicant no.3, then, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the opposite party no.2 by the applicant no.1. Therefore, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, as a counterblast to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the applicant no.1 against the opposite party no.2. The falsity of the instant F.I.R. is apparent from the fact that the F.I.R. alleges that the applicant no.2 was also present on the date of incident and had assaulted and abused the opposite party no.2. However, from the record, which has been produced before this Court, the leave application of the applicant no.2 was allowed and he was on leave from 16.02.2008 to 19.02.2008 and in his Attendance Register also, it has been marked that he was on casual leave from 16.02.2008 to 19.02.2008. In such circumstances, it is improbable for the applicant no.2 to be present at the place of incident. Therefore, no offence could have been alleged against the applicants. Since, the allegations, as made in the F.I.R., are found to be false with regard to the applicant no.2, therefore, since the allegation against the applicant nos. 1 & 3 is also made during the same incident, therefore, since the allegations against the applicant no.2 is false, then, the entire prosecution story appears to be false, applying the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus .
