was dealt with by the 4th and 5th respondents who are the officers of the police. He invited our attention to the averments made in the petition, and in particular, averments made in paragraphs 32 and 33 thereof. He pointed out that false and fabricated record has been created by the concerned respondents to show that the accused persons were called to the police station and interrogated on the complaint made by the petitioner. He submitted that in fact, the concerned police officers have helped the accused to abscond by pointing out that the complaint has been filed by the petitioner. He pointed out that this modus operandi has been adopted by the accused in several cases. He invited our attention to the affidavits filed by the 5th respondent. He submitted that only by way of an afterthought, that in the second affidavit, the 5th respondent has come out with a case that there was fire on 4th June, 2012 in the police station and as a result, the original record of the said complaint filed by the petitioner has been destroyed. He submitted that the said stand was not taken in the earlier affidavit filed on 23rd July, 2012 and on the contrary, the said affidavit proceeds on the footing that the applicant's complaint dated 15th November, 2011 is available on record. He submitted that this Court was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the concerned officer in the first affidavit to what is stated in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the petition and, therefore, additional affidavit was permitted to be filed. He invited our attention to the additional affidavit filed by the same officer dealing
