the daughter of the petitioner no. 1 had earlier filed Complaint Case No. 1854-C of 2012 on 08.08.2012 against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members under Sections 323, 498A, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was submitted that in the said case, after enquiry, summons have been issued against the accused. Learned counsel submitted that as a counter blast to the said case, the present complaint case has been filed on 11.1.2013. Learned counsel submitted that the mala fide intention on the part of the opposite party no. 2 would be exposed by the fact of him being the son-in-law of the petitioner no. 1, being married to his daughter, has not even been whispered in the entire complaint case, and, thus, the opposite party no. 2 has tried to play smart even with the Court by suppressing his close relationship with the accused as also the fact that much prior to filing of the present case, he and his family members were already accused in a complaint case filed by his wife i.e., the daughter of petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel submitted that the story as narrated in the complaint, of the accused pointing knives on the abdomen, pistol at the head and dabiya at the neck is not only unbelievable but actually comical. It was submitted that such allegation is only for the purpose of sensationalising and dramatizing an occurrence which never took place. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, when the
