Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This is an application filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing Munger the F.I.R. of munger S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 46/2004 dated 28.9.2004 registered on the written report of one Jumman Das (Oppostte Party. No. 2) against the petitioners for the offences under Secs. 366-A, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 27 of the Arms Act and sec. 3 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence, He has lodged the F.I.R. on hearsay account of his minor daughter. There has been delay in lodging the F.I.R. No offence under Sec. 3 of the Act is made out in this case as the alleged insult did not take place in public view. 4. The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer. 5. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the F.I.R. which is based on a written report of Jumman Das is that Sona Devi, then aged about 14 years was his daughter-in-law who was wife of his son Sharavan Das aged about 16 years. His daughter-in-law was living in his house. On 22.9.2004 at 5.00 P.M. she had gone to attend the call of nature along with her minor daughter in a nearby field when petitioner Pramod Malakar who was in the Bahiar forcibly took her away for unlawful purpose. When the informant Opposite Party No. 2 returned in the evening after doing his work, his daughter informed him that a boy had dragged his daughter-in-law away. The informant and the family members of the father of the girl then started searching for the girl and in course of that reached the house of the petitioners. On enquiry the mother of petitioner No. 1 informed that the girl was not at her house. The informant and his companions, however, raised hulla and on this petitioner No. 1 came out with a country made Pistol and asked them to return saying that the girl would reach their house on the next day. He also abused by addressing them as Chamar. The informant and his companions, however, raised hulla and on this petitioner No. 1 came out with a country made Pistol and asked them to return saying that the girl would reach their house on the next day. He also abused by addressing them as Chamar. It is further said that the Informant and others than insisted to return the girl when petitioner No. 1 fired but fortunately no body received injury. On the next day the informant met petitioner No. 2 Ganesh Malakar, father of petitioner No. 1 who also told that he would send the girl in the evening after searching her out, the girl, however, wasnot released. Hence, on 25.9.2004 the informant again met petitioner Ganesh Malakar for the return of the girl when Ganesh Malakar and his family members ran to assault him. 6. The informant, hence, filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge of Quasim Bazar Police Station on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered. 7. It is well settled that any person having knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence by any person known or un-known can give information to the Officer-in-charge of a police action for the purpose of investigation which is commonly known as F.I.R. It also cannot be disputed that the F.I.R. need not be given by any eyewitness. The informant need not have the personal knowledge of the incident, Similarly, it is also well settled that mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. is no ground to doubt the prosecution case. 8. Therefore, in this case though the informant was not an eye witness to the kidnapping and if there has been any delay in lodging the F.I.R., the same are no ground to quash the F.I.R. 9. Of course, the F.I.R. can be quashed if the facts mentioned therein do not disclose any cognizable offence but in this case the allegations made in the F.I.R. disclose that the daughter-in-law of the informant was kidnapped and the allegation further shows that when the informant and others went to the house of the petitioners in search of the girl, petitioner No. 1 insulted them calling as Chamar and also fired on them with a country made Pistol. The allegations also disclose that petitioner No. 2 ran to assault the Informant when he went to the house of the petitioners in search of the girl. 10. The allegations also disclose that petitioner No. 2 ran to assault the Informant when he went to the house of the petitioners in search of the girl. 10. Therefore, the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. clearly disclose a cognizable offence. Though the F.I.R. is not clear whether the informant or others ware insulted in public view, the same is a matter of investigation and on that ground also the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.