had told him about the accused and the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the second witness namely, Milind Kumar, has stated that it was the brother-in-law of the petitioner who had taken Rs. 15-20 thousand from the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that the said Milind Kumar has further stated that it was only the brother-in-law of the petitioner, who has taken out the gun. Learned counsel submitted that the witness Gajendra Singh has stated that it was the petitioner, who had got the papers forcibly signed by the son of the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submitted that there being so much material contradictions between the complaint, S.A. and the statement of witnesses, even the Court below found that the allegations under Sections 342, 506, 386, 379, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25A, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act have been added only to make the offence serious. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation appears to be concocted and false for the reason that if at all the sister of the petitioner had taken Rs. 15,000/- and certificates at Mumbai, going to the house of the petitioner after three years and that too after getting an ex parte decree of divorce is absolutely unbelievable and untenable and there cannot be any truth in the same. Learned counsel submitted that further, the allegation in the complaint being that the sister of the petitioner had snatched away
