falsely implicated. Had 16 persons assaulted two persons, they might not have sustained only three injuries each. In fact, on 25.06.2009 Sahab Lal, husband of opposite party no. 2, Dashrath, Vishram, Munna Lal and Pati Ram tried to dispossess appellants from their place and in this continuation on 25.06.2009 at about 12.30 hours in the noon all the accused persons came at the door of the first informant and asked to remove her ' madha ' (house) from there and when Asgari w/o Mainuddin, one of the accused in the complaint refused to vacate the 'madha' , all the five accused persons hurled wild abuses, caste based words and set ablaze the house of the first informant. They also gave threat that whosoever would try to save the house, he would also be thrown in the fire. All the house hold stuff and goats present in the house (madha) of first informant got burnt. The report of Asgari Begum was not written in the police station, though, Sub-Inspector came on the spot, inspected the burnt house and other material and forced them to resolve the matter. The report was not written. She moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 09.07.2009 on the basis of that application FIR could be lodged on 28.11.2009 under Section 436 IPC. It is submitted that in counterblast of the application of Asgari Begum dated 09.07.2009 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the present application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 13.07.2009 was filed, on the basis of this application complaint of opposite party was registered against 16 persons. Thus, it is argued that in counterblast of the application of Asgari Begum one of the accused in the complaint of opposite party no. 2, this false complaint has been lodged against the appellants and other co-accused persons.
