ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE hearing arises from an application under sections 397/401 read with section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the FIR being No. 86 dated 03. 06. 2004 arising out of airport P. S. Case No. 86 dated 03. 06. 2004 under section 147/148/149/436/427/ 379 IPC and section 9b (ii) Indian Electricity Act pending in the Court of ld. S. D. J. M. , Barrackpore.- ( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the above application are that one Jayanta ghosh lodged a complaint on 03. 06. 2004 inter alia alleging that on 30. 05. 2004 over the issue of writing on wall, there was a scuffle resulting in head injury of a person who subsequently died on 02. 06. 2004. On receipt of the said information of death, on 03. 06. 2004 at about 5. 15 a. m. the boys residing at Promodnagar and nearby the playground of Milan Sangha Club damaged ten houses, shops of the locality as also a motorbike, looted away articles including TV set, carom board, drum etc. of the said club and set fire to the above houses. On the basis of the said FIR, Airport P. S. Case No. 86 dated 03. 06. 2004 under section 147/ 148/149/436/427/379 IPC was started against twelve accused persons as named therein. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by lodging of the said FIR, three petitioners viz. Laltu pal, Namita Ghosh and Susmita Sanyal have come up before this Court for quashing the FIR. ( 4 ) MR. . Joymalya Bagchi, ld. Counsel for petitioners, on drawing Court's attention to the FIR contended that since it has been specifically averred in the body of the FIR that the boys of Promodnagar and nearby the playground of milan Sangha Club committed the offence, he is pressing the prayer for petitioner nos. 2 and 3 viz. Namita Ghosh and Susmita Sanyal only as they are not 'boys'. Mr. R. S. Chatterjee, ld. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, on referring to the case diary contended that as the names of the offenders including petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been specifically mentioned in the FIR and chargesheet has already been submitted against all the accused persons under section 147/148/149/435/ 427/447/448/379 IPC thereby showing prima facie case against them, the question of quashing the FIR against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been specifically mentioned in the FIR and chargesheet has already been submitted against all the accused persons under section 147/148/149/435/ 427/447/448/379 IPC thereby showing prima facie case against them, the question of quashing the FIR against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 does not arise at all. ( 5 ) ONE of the principles of interpretation of words is that they must be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. For the purpose of construction, etymological dissection by picking up word/words is not permissible. Language has to be read not on the spitting up straw nor in a hyper-technical manner nor the interpretation is to be effected by over refined subtlety. The FIR is to be read as a whole including the portion bearing out the names of the offenders which being an essential part cannot be excluded from it. Accordingly, there being no merit in the present revisional application, it be dismissed.