me through the FIR, as well as evidence of the prosecution, the learned Advocate argued that both applicants were falsely prosecution in order to malign their image and to defame them in the eyes of their peers and public at large by prosecuting them vide Summary Criminal Case No.2706 of 2007. It is argued that cross-examination of respondent No.1/Maya in that case reflects motive on her part to falsely implicate both the applicants/complainants in the crime in order to defame them. Civil proceedings initiated by her as well as by her husband were dismissed by concerned Courts and she was in possession of only one room of the flat. In order to take possession of the entire flat, applicants were falsely implicated in the crime and prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code through the State by respondent No.1/Maya. This, according to the learned Advocate appearing for applicants, is sufficient to point out the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and, therefore, learned trial Court committed gross error of law in acquitting the respondent No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC in the complaint lodged by applicants.
