2). The two arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner are that, the statement in verification of respondent no.2 does not make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 497 IPC. According to him, there are inconsistencies in the statement in verification of the complainant. Some of the incidents stated in the complaint have not been mentioned in the statement in verification and some of the incidents have been differently narrated in the statement in verification. His second argument is that, respondent no.2 cannot be said to be an aggrieved person because there is delay of 2 years in filing the complaint. According to him, since respondent no.2 had kept quiet for a long period of 2 years, it would mean that, he had no grievance against the petitioner. 3). Perusal of the impugned order shows that, the same have been passed after detailed consideration of the statements in verification and considering sufficiency of the material therein. This Court has also carefully gone through the statement in verification. Undoubtedly, respondent no.2 has not narrated every incident stated in the complaint in his statement in verification. Some of the incidents have been omitted from the statement. However, as long as the complaint and the statement in verification make out the ingredients of the offence, mere omission of all the details therefrom is inconsequential. As regards one of the incidents being stated differently, the same principle would apply. That difference
