Discahrge U_s 239 CrPC, Written Arguments

4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 1/13

Username Login Remember | Register | Forgot Password?

Member Strength 270,183 andgrowing..

Posted 3 years ago

News | Experts | Articles | Files | Forum | Bare Acts | Jobs | Communities | Events | Coaching | Videos | Recommend | Lawyers Search | More>>

Discussion > Criminal Law > Dowry > Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

Pages : 1

There are 2 Replies to this message

Munirathnam

Scientist [ Scorecard : 894]

Kindly send your comments for the below written argument:

IN THE COURT OF THE IX METROPILITAN MAGISTRATE,

MUKTPALLY, JARAMBAD.

CRLMP. NO. AAA of 2010

IN

C.C NO. BBB of 2008.

Between:

Applicant / Petitioner(A1).

And

Respondent / Complainant.

WRITTEN ARGUMENT SUBMISSION

FROM APPLICANT/PETITIONER

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR,

Humbly submits, applicant/petitioner is the Accused (A1) in the above

said court case. Applicant is approaching this Honble Court with this

discharge application, under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code,

to get discharged from the proceedings in CC. No. BBB/2008 of this

Court on the below grounds:

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

OF THIS HONBLE COURT:

1. Humbly submit, plain reading of charge sheet reveals that defacto

complainant, complainant herein, lived with applicant/petitioner

(A1) at their matrimonial home in Bangalore City, Karnataka Sate

and no part of the alleged allegations happened in Hyderabad,

Andra Pradesh State. Further submit that as per charge sheet,

alleged allegations happened in Karnataka State only and during

the investigation, even without visiting the crime place i.e.,

Bangalore City, respondent completed investigation in Andra

Pradesh State and filed the charge sheet in this Honble Court. The

criminal proceedings in CC.No.BBB/2008 on the file of this Honble

Court are abusing the process of law by non-complying with the

Related Files

28 239 245.d

111 downloads

More >>

Legal Business Civil Constitutional Criminal Family Labour Intellectual Property Taxation Others

Search for Lawyers



sections 177 to 181 and 156 of criminal procedure codes (CrPC)

and the charge sheet is not maintainable as described below:

a. As per section 177 of CrPC, the criminal case can be tried

only, where cause of action arose and in the present case,

as per the charge sheet and as per the complainant the

cause of action arose only in Bangalore City i.e., at the

matrimonial home of the complainant at Bangalore City,

Karnataka State, hence this Honble court has no

jurisdiction to try this case, where it is pending. Further

submit that it is admitted version of the complainant in her

affidavits submitted in MC.No.CCC/2009, on the file of

Honble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District and in

Transfer Petition No.D/2010, on the file of the Honble

Supreme Court of India that both the applicant and the

complainant lived only at Bangalore and further submit that

the petitioner did not claim that both lived anywhere other

than Bangalore City, hence only Bangalore City courts has

jurisdiction to try this case. Hence pray this Honble Court

to discharge the petitioner on this sole ground. Applicant

put reliance on the below list of judgments from Honble

Supreme Court of India in support of this ground.

i . Manish Ratan and Ors. Vs State of M.P and

Anr. Reported in 2007 volume-1 SCC 262.

i i . Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of

Police, Chennai and Another reported in 2004,

SCC Crl-2134.

i i i . Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728

iv . Bhanu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan 7

Anr in CASE NO: Appeal (crl.) 587 of 2008 [arising

out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 79 of

2006).

v . Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and

Anr. in W.P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, Decision on

10.10.2007.

b. As per section 156 of CrPC, police has the power to

investigate any cognizable case, which a court having

jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such

station would have power to inquire into or try under the

provisions of Chapter XIII. Section 156 CrPC read as:

Section 156 of CrPC: Police officer's power to

investigate cognizable cases:

1) Any officer in charge of a police station may,

without the order of a Magistrate, investigate

any cognizable case which a court having

jurisdiction over the local area within the limits

of such station would have power to enquire

into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

2) No proceedings of a police officer in any such

case shall at any stage be called in question on

the ground that the case was one, which such

officer was not empowered under this section

to investigate.

3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190

may order such an investigation as above

mentioned.

In present case, plain reading of the charge sheet reveals

that alleged allegations were not happened within the

territorial jurisdictional limits of kukatpally police station and

also provide information that alleged offence happened in

the jurisdiction of Bangalore City only. Whereas the

kukatpally police furnished the false information in the

charge sheet by saying that offence happened in their



charge sheet by saying that offence happened in their

police station limits and investigated the case in their

jurisdiction and filed the charge sheet in this Honble Court,

is contrary to the provisions of the section 156 of CrPC and

charge sheet is not maintainable in law. Applicant put

reliance on the below list of judgments from Honble

Supreme Court of India in support of this ground.

i . Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728

i i . Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and

Anr. in W.P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, Decision on

10.10.2007.

c. Kukatpally police failed to transfer the FIR to the concern

police station having the jurisdiction for investigation as per

the law. Further submit that in the case of Satvinder Kaur

Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728, the

Honble Supreme Court of India observed that Section 170

Cr.P.C specifically provides that if, upon investigation, it

appears to the Officers In-charge of the Police Station that

crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of

Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the Police

Stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is

committed.

d. Respondent furnished false information in the charge sheet,

Para-1, saying alleged allegations happened at Hyderabad

whereas the plain reading of the charge sheet reveals that

no part of the alleged allegation happened in Hyderabad.

2. Further submit the proceedings of the case in this Honble Court

without having jurisdiction would result in miss carriage of justice

being the witnesses and the evidence in support of the applicant

exist at Bangalore City only. The supporting witnesses of the

applicant, includes women, are residents of Bangalore City and

applicant is also resident of Bangalore City. Either the applicant or

his supporting witnesses does not have any relatives or friends in

this area and have threat from the complainant side people. The

accused supporting witnesses are resident of Bangalore City and

they do not have any relatives or friends in this area hence

witnesses may not prefer to travel 700KM that to another state

jurisdiction would result in great inconvenience to defend the

criminal case and would result in miss carriage of justice. Further

submit that accused and their supporting witnesses have life

threat in this jurisdiction and would cause great inconvenience to

defend the case in this jurisdiction.

ARREST AND CHARGES U/s 3 & 4 OF

DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT IS ILLEGAL:

3. Further submit, as per complaint version the property items viz,

Rs.40,00,000/- worth agriculture land, 80 Kasulu gold and

Rs.3,00,000/- cash were given to complainant by her parents.

Further submit there were no demands from accused and F.I.R is

registered under section 498A only. Further submit that as per the

complainants affidavit submitted in Honble Supreme Court of

India, in the Transfer Petition No.D/2010, it is said that these said

property items were given to the complainant by her parents as

Sridhan property as per complainant parents family tradition. No

demands were reported by any of the witness or by the

complainant reveals marriage is happened with out the element of

dowry. Arresting the accused under section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and sending to jail w ith out having evidence is

illegal and also provide information that respondent is misused

police powers to harass the accused under the influence of

complainant. As per complaint these items were given to

complainant by her parents, whereas as per charge sheet version

these items were given to A1. Considering that the said property

items were given to A1 and are with A1, no documentary proofs

are collected in support of the allegation though the allegation is

contradicting to the complainant and without application of mind

respondent sent the petitioner to jail w ithout checking the



respondent sent the petitioner to jail w ithout checking the

truthfulness of the complainant. Further submit that upon

respondent believing that property items are given to A1 there will

not be any requirement to the A1 to harass the complainant to sell

the property to get money from complainant. Further submit

marriage is happened without the element of dowry and saying

that A1 demanded additional dowry and harassed the complainant

saying dowry is not enough is absurd. Further submit that none of

the witnesses supported the allegation that complainant was

demanded for additional dowry or did harassment to the

complainant for giving less dowry. Further submit that the

witnesses of the case are none other than the blood relatives of

the complainant. Only one independent and non blood relation

witness is present and this witness statement does not disclose

any offence done by the applicant.

NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF F.I.R ALLEGATIONS:

4. The FIR allegations were not supported by any of the witnesses

(LW2 to LW6), including the blood relatives of the complainant and

FIR allegations were not present in CrPC-161 statement of the

complainant recorded by the police during the investigation. Details

are furnished below:

FIR-Allegations on A1

Supporting

Witness

(LW2-

LW6)

Presence of FIR

allegation in the

161 Statement

of complainant

A1 use to harass the complainant to

get rid of her saying given dowry is

less and A1 lost an alliance of worth 1

crore rupees.

NONE NO

A1 demanded complainant to give

money by selling her property given

to her at the time of her marriage by

her parents.

NONE NO

Complainant was restricted to make

phone calls.NONE NO

Complainant in-laws used to call A1 to

advise A1 on phone.NONE NO

A1 used to suspect complainant

character even if she speak with her

brother

NONE NO

Complainant got pregnancy of 4

weeks and A1 publicized saying she is

carrying 3 months pregnancy

NONE NO

A1 forced the complainant to consume

pregnancy abortion tablets by herself.NONE YES

Note: All the allegations in the FIR on A1 are mentioned in the table.

NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGATIONS IN CrPC-161 STATEMENT OF

COMPLAINANT:

5. The CrPC-161 statements of the complainant were not supported

by any of the witnesses (LW2 to LW6) including the blood relatives

of the complainant, details are furnished below:

Allegations in the CrPC-161

statement of complainant.

Supporting

Witness

(LW2-

LW6)

Presence

of

allegation

in FIR.

Complainant was harassed physically

by A1 saying that house hold items

are not enough.

NONE NO

Complainant was manhandled by A1

saying that she bought less dowry.NONE NO

A1 suspected complainant pregnancy

and forced to abort her pregnancyNONE NO

A1 suspected complainant character

and forced complainant to abort NONE NO



and forced complainant to abort

pregnancy.

NONE NO

On 22nd May-2008 gold ornaments

were taken from complainant and she

was thrown out off house by A1 and

A3.

NONE NO

Complainant got pregnancy of 4

weeks and is tested in hospital

before 20th Mau-2008 at Bangalore

City.

NONE YES

On 20th May 2008, complainant was

forcibly consumed pregnancy abortion

tablets and was locked in house.

YES

(LW1-LW5)YES

Note: All the allegations on A1, in CrPC-161 statement are

mentioned in the table.

6. Further submit that as per complainants CrPC-161 statement, on

the day of her marital life joining, she was harassed saying that

brother of the complainant (LW4) purchased house hold items

were not enough and also harassed saying that given dowry is not

enough. None of the witnesses (LW2 to LW5) CrPC-161 statement

says that accused did physical harassment to the complainant.

Whereas in the affidavit filed by the complainant in MC.

No.CCC/2009, on the file of Honble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R.

District, did not report such incident occurrence while complainant

is describing the cruelty that she was subjected by accused.

Further submit that in the entire affidavit complainant did not make

even single allegation on additional dowry demand made by

accused.

7. Further submit that no investigation is carried by the respondent

on the forcible pregnancy abortion allegations. As per respondent

information to A1, through the Right To Information Act reply letter

to the accused, no investigation is required on pregnancy

allegation being allegation is not attracting the sections of the

case registered on A1. Further submit that this allegation is not

part of the affidavit filed by complainant in M.C. No.CCC/2009 on

the file of Honble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, in which

complainant is alleging that cruelty is one of the ground to live

separately from husband/petitioner.

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN WITNESSES AND COMPLAINANT

8. Further submit that witness statements contradicts with

complainant and also contradicts with other witness as described

below:

a. As per complainant property items were given to her by

her parents as sridhan, whereas LW1 to LW5 say that

property items ware given to A1.

b. As per complainants parents, complainant was

harassed by A4 & A5 at their house on the day prior to

the matrimonial house joining day at Bangalore.

Whereas either complainant (LW1), or her brother (LW4)

statement to police, do not report such incident

happened at in-laws house. Further submit that as per

complainants brother (LW4) statement, the reason for

leaving the in-laws house on 25th May-2008 is A1 could

not come and join them at in-laws house on 25th May-

2008.

c. As per complainants parents (LW2&LW3) and witness

(LW5), complainant was harassed by A1 during the

period Nov-2007 to Dec-2007 at Bangalore City.

Whereas either complainant or her brother (LW4) did

not report such incidents occurrence.

d. As per witnesses LW2 to LW5 statements, only taunting

happened on the less house hold items purchased by

the complainant brother (LW4), no physical harassment

is reported. Whereas complainant says that physical

harassment is happened to her.

e. Complainants brother (LW4), the eye-witness did not



e. Complainants brother (LW4), the eye-witness did not

report in CrPC-161 statement that additional dowry is

demanded by A1 on the marital life joining day. Whereas

complainant reported that additional dowry is demanded

by A1. Further submit that none of the witnesses from

LW2 to LW5 support the complainants allegation on

additional dowry demand.

f. As per complainant and her brother (LW4) statements

to the police did not say that her pregnancy is aborted

in hospital, whereas complainant parents (LW2&LW3)

says that pregnancy is aborted in hospital, she was

bleeding and also said that complainant was joined in

hospital.

g. As per complainant at the time when complainant was

necked out off house, A1 took her gold ornaments from

her, whereas the eye witness, i.e., brother (LW4) of the

complainant statement did not report such incident

occurrence.

h. Complainant parents (LW2&LW3) say that their son

(LW4) purchased house hold items for Rs.70,000/-

whereas their son (LW4) reports he purchased for

Rs.60,000/-. Further submit that they failed to reveal list

of house hold items purchased.

i. As per complainant no facility to make phone calls,

whereas complainant says in the complainant that A1

suspected her even when she spoken with her brother

(LW4) is contradicts with her admitted statement that

no phone facility to speak with her relatives. Further

submit that complainants parents (LW2&LW3) did say

that complainant called them on phone.

9. Further submit that none of the F.I.R, charge sheet and

complainants CrPC-161 statement allegations attracting section

498A IPC. None of the allegations in complainants CrPC-161

statement are not part of the affidavit filed by complainant in M.C.

No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R.

District in which complainant is alleging that cruelty is one of the

ground to file the petition. Further submit that while complainant is

describing the cruelty caused by A1 in her affidavit filed in Honble

Family court, the harassment on house hold items were not

reported. Further submit that in the entire MC. No.CCC/2009

petition, there is no single allegation made on additional dowry

demand while describing the cruelty happened to her by A1. No

repeat of 498A case cruelty allegations in M.C. No. CCC/2009 while

describing the cruelty happened to her reveals that the

complainant allegations are false.

10. As per complainant version, she was restricted to call her

relatives during her stay at matrimonial home. Considering this

statement true, it is evident that the statements of the witnesses

(LW2 to LW5) stand no value. The possible witnesses could be the

neighbors of the complainant at matrimonial home. Respondent

failed to meet the neighbors to record their statements and failed

to do investigation properly to real the facts.

ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT SECTION 498A I.P.C:

11. The allegations, even if they are taken at their face value

and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

offence under IPC 498-A or make out a case against the accused

as described in the application and in support of the this ground

various judgments from Honble Supreme Court of India are cited

for reference. The complete details are as follows:

SECTION 498A IPC:

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her

to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of

the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty

shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"

means



means

a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as

is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or

to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health (whether mental or physical) of the

woman; or

b) Harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or

any person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or

is on account of failure by her or any person

related to her to meet such demand.

Under Explanation (a): the cruelty has to be of such gravity

as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause

grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

Under Explanation (b): cruelty means harassment of the

woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing

her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or is on

account of failure by her or any person related to her to

meet such demand.

Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment

cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object,

namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her

to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand

for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where

harassment is shown to have been committed for the

purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it

is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section.

REF [1]:

While interpreting the provisions of Section 304-B, 498-A,

306 and 324, IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P.V

Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court

observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under

explanation (b) to Section 498-A must have nexus with the

demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall

beyond the scope of Section 498-A, IPC.

REF [2]:

The mental cruelty is explained by the Supreme Court of

India by laying the following definition of mental cruelty in

V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs.D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710: the parties

cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The

situation must be such that the wronged party cannot

reasonably be asked to put with such conduct and continue

to live with the other party.

REF [3]:

The supreme court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2003

MANJU RAM KALITA vs. STATE OF ASSAM decided on

28/05/09 answered the question in negative. Speaking for

the bench his lordship honorable Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J held

that :

"Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C.

is to be established in the context of section

498-A IPC as it may be a different from other

statutory provisions. It is to be determined /

inferred by considering the conduct of the man,

weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts

and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive

the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be

established that the woman has been subjected

to cruelty continuously / persistently or at least

in close proximity of time of lodging the

complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as

`cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498-

A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that

it becomes unbearable may be termed as

cruelty.

REF [4]:

In Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414, the

Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue held that

mental or physical torture should be "continuously"

practiced by the accused on the wife. The Court further



practiced by the accused on the wife. The Court further

observed as under:

"Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty

to the other is essentially a question of fact. The

impart of complaints, accusations or taunts on a

person amounting to cruelty depends on

various factors like the sensitivity of the

individual victim concerned, the social

background, the environment, education etc.

Further, mental cruelty varies from person to

person depending on the intensity of sensitivity

and the degree of courage or endurance to

withstand such mental cruelty. In other words,

each case has to be decided on its own facts to

decide whether the mental cruelty was

established or not."

REF [5]:

In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR

2002 SC 2078; the Supreme Court held that "cruelty" has to

be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided

in Section 498A I.P.C and there should be a case of

continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another.

REF [6]:

Supreme Court in Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975)

2 SCC 326 has referred to this aspect of `cruelty' like this:-

The cruelty must be of such a character as to

cause `danger' to life, limb or health or as to

give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a

danger. Clearly danger to life, limb or health or a

reasonable apprehension.

REF [7]:

Similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court

in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur v. State of

Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53

wherein it was observed that offence under Section 498-A

IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by

husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes

and not on account of demand of dowry.

REF [8]:

In the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare

v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18, the Bombay

High Court had observed that it is not every harassment or

every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A IPC.

Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to

commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands.

REF [9]:

It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498-A IPC and

afore-noted judicial pronouncements that pre-condition for

attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A

IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the

cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women

without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will

not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498-A, IPC.

It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported

as Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121. In said

case, it was observed that cruelty under Section 498-A IPC

is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

F.I.R ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT 498A IPC:

a. Even considering the allegation that applicant (A1) used

to harass the complainant saying A1 lost an alliance of

worth Rs. 1,00,00,000/- rupees and also beaten the

complainant to get rid of her is happened to be true

allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as described

below:

i . As per CrPC-161 statements of complainant

and witnesses no such incident occurrence is

disclosed.



disclosed.

i i . It is not reported that the physical

harassment incident is repeated or is exercised

repeatedly and complainant lived with A1 reveals

A1 did not fell danger to life and did not report

any physical injury hence as per REF [2] to REF

[9] neither physical nor mental harassment

happened.

i i i . As per complainant petitioner married while

A1 has offers better than complainant alliance

reveals that petitioner is not greedy of money.

iv . As per complainant affidavit submitted in the

case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble

Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, says that

only ill-treatment is done by the accused and his

relatives and no physical beating details are

reported. This reveals the dishonesty of the

petitioner in procuring the false allegations

against the applicant.

b. Even considering the allegation that applicant (A1) used

to harass the complainant to give money by selling her

property, is happened to be true allegation do not

attract Section 498A IPC as described below:

i . Complaint do not disclose the kind

harassment details that she was subjected to,

whereas as CrPC-161 statement of the

complainant do not say that she was harassed

to give money by selling her property. No specific

harassment is disclosed even after investigation.

Hence it can not be said that allegation attracts

498A IPC. Further submit that to meet the

alleged demand what kind of harassment is

caused by the A1 is not disclosed even in the

respondent investigation report.

CrPC-161 STATEMENT ALLEGATIONS OF

COMPLAINANT DOES NOT ATTRACT 498A IPC:

c. Even considering the allegation that applicant (A1)

harassed the complainant saying the house hold articles

purchased by the complainants brother (LW4) at

Bangalore are not enough, is happened to be true

allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as described

below:

i . Applicant asked the complainant to join him

and no demands were made by the applicant.

During the initial 6 months period, i.e., before the

complainant date of joining with applicant at

Bangalore City, no allegations either on demands

or on harassment are reported reveals no

demands from applicant side.

i i . The nature and details of the harassment

happened to the complainant is not disclosed

either in complaint or in respondent investigation

report. As per eye-witness, i.e., brother (LW4) of

complainant and the complainant parents CrPC-

161 statements i.e., his parents (LW3&LW4),

only taunting taken place saying house hold

items are less, no specific items were demanded

hence as per REF[1] allegation do not attract

section 498A-IPC.

i i i . No physical harassment proofs, attracting the

section 498A IPC, are submitted hence as per

REF [4] & REF [6] allegation do not attract

section 498A IPC.

iv . Further submit that complainant continued

matrimonial life with applicant at Bangalore

reveals complainant did not feel mental cruelty

hence as per REF [2] allegation do not attract

section 498A IPC. Further submit that

complainant brother (LW4) left to his native place

also reveal there was no danger or threat to



also reveal there was no danger or threat to

complainant from the applicant.

v . There is no allegation reported saying that

demands were continued during the

complainants stay with the applicant hence as

per REF [3], REF [4] & REF [5] allegation do not

attract section 498A IPC. Taunting on the house

hold items which even did not force the

complainant leave matrimonial house, such

incident do not attract the section 498A IPC.

v i . Also complainant did not allege that either

applicant (A1) or other Accused demanded any

specific house hold items from either complainant

or from complainants brother (LW4) and also

failed to reveal the list of house hold items were

purchased by the complainants brother (LW4),

reveals the allegation is vague in nature.

v i i . This allegation is not present in complaint.

Further submit that while complainant describing

the cruelty happened to her in her affidavit

submitted in the case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the

file of Honble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R.

District, did not report that this incident is

happened. This reveals the dishonesty of the

petitioner in procuring the false allegations

against the applicant.

d. Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that

applicant (A1) demanded additional dowry at the time of

dispute on house hold items, is happened to be true

this allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as

described below:

i . Mere demand of property is not amount to

cruelty as per explanation (b) of the section 498A

IPC, hence allegation do not attract section 498A

IPC. Either continuous demand or harassment is

not reported to meet the illegal additional dowry

demand hence as per REF [3], REF [4] & REF [5]

allegation do not attract section 498A IPC.

i i . No documentary evidence is available to

show that additional dowry is demanded.

Admitted fact is that no dowry is given to

applicant and making an allegation that

additional dowry is demanded is absurd.

i i i . Continuous demand or continuous

harassment is not reported and complainant

continued to live with applicant at Bangalore

reveals complainant did not feel mental cruelty

as per REF [2] hence allegation do not attract

section 498A IPC.

iv . This allegation is not present in complaint.

Further submit that while complainant describing

cruelty happened to her in the affidavit of the

case MC. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble

Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not

report that additional dowry demand incident is

happened.

e. Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that

applicant (A1) suspected complainants character by

saying one year required to get pregnancy and

complainant got pregnancy in six months and forced the

complainant to consume pregnancy abortion tablets on

20th May-2008, is happened to be true this allegations

do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below:

i . As per complainant version the cause of

action for forcible abortion is not the dowry

demand or additional dowry demand, hence

allegation does not attract section 498A IPC as

per REF [1].



i i . As per complainant version applicant forced

her to abort her pregnancy whereas no physical

cruelty is reported. During the dispute also

applicant did not subjected the complainant to

any physical cruelty such that complainant

received injuries which would attract section

498A IPC as per REF [2], REF [3], REF [4] and REF

[5].

i i i . The complainant is B.Sc graduate and has one

year working experience in medical domain

though no medial reports are submitted in

support of the forcible abortion provide

information that allegation is false and even no

medical report on pregnancy termination

confirmation report at Bangalore is submitted.

iv . Kukatpally police refused to investigate the

allegation on forcible pregnancy abortion even

after applicant requested them and replied

saying allegation does not attract 498A IPC

hence no need of investigation. Pregnancy

abortion did not happen at Bangalore till

complainant left matrimonial home. Supporting

documents are in Annexure -P/7.

v . Applicant filed criminal complaint against the

complainant under sections 312 IPC, 506, 120B,

384 and 500 of IPC at Bangalore City; Honble

Court in Bangalore City took the cognizance and

ordered for investigation.

v i . Further submit that while complainant

describing the cruelty and harassment caused by

the applicant in the affidavit filed in the case

MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family

Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not report

that this incident is happened.

f. Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that

applicant (A1) and his brother-in-law (A3) necked out

the complainant out off matrimonial home, is happened

to be true as per REF [1] allegation do not attract

section 498A IPC being this incident happened not to

meet dowry demands by the complainant. No physical

injuries reported and the incident did not create danger

to complainant life hence as per REF [3], REF [4] and

REF [5] incident do not attract section 498A IPC.

Further submit that as per complainant brother (LW4)

CrPC-161 statement he is the eye-witness of the

incident but he did not say that complainant gold

ornaments were taken from her by A1. Further submit

that police did not register the case under applicable

sections for this allegation. Further submit that

complainant admitted version in her affidavit in MC.

No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family Court, L.B.

Nagar, R.R. District, says applicant was physically not

present at the time complainant was leaving the

matrimonial home and also said that even on phone

applicant was not available reveals that this incident

occurrence is not possible.

12. Further submit that allegations in FIR and in charge sheet

are vague in nature with out disclosing information details like

place and date of harassment occurrence to the complainant and

nature of the harassment is caused to complainant by the accused.

Details of vagueness of the allegations is as below:

Allegation Vagueness

Complainant

was harassed

saying house

hold items

purchased are

not enough.

Investigation does not real how, when, by

whom harassment is done by the accused. Also

investigation do not disclose which house hold

items were purchased by the complainant

brother and what is the demand of the accused

Additional

dowry is

No details on how much dowry that accused

demanded. No specific dowry demands from



Posted about a year ago

Posted about a year ago

dowry is

demanded

demanded. No specific dowry demands from

accused are revealed.

A1 publicized

saying

complainant is

carrying three

months

pregnancy.

No details of this allegation in the investigation

like with whom and when it has been publicized

by the A1.

In-laws

advised A1 to

harass

complainant on

phone.

No details from which number in-laws called A1

and upon receiving phone call what kind of

harassment happened is done by A1.

13. Respondent refused to record the statements of

neighbors, with whom most of the time complainant spend time by

going to marriage parties, birthday parties, shopping and by

playing with their children at Bangalore City and failed to record

the doctors statement did the abortion to the complainant and

failed to collect the pregnancy related documents from hospital in

Bangalore City. Further submit that despite respondent failed to

collect the telephone calls list of A4 & A5 in support of complainant

allegations charge sheet is filed on in-laws and improper

investigation failed to bring the facts on record.

14. Further submit that the allegations in the charge sheet are

new and different from complaint allegations and these new

allegations were not communicated to the accused to defend by

the accused by producing supporting evidences which provide

information that said allegations are false. Improper investigation

is leading the accused to face the malicious criminal case trail in

this Honble court. Applicant made complaint to the Commissioner

of Police, Cyberabad about the improper investigation and

requested to collect documentary evidences from Bangalore City

that provides information that alleged allegations are false. Deputy

Commissioner of Police replied by saying that the documentary

evidences submitted by the applicant already provide information

that said allegations are false. The reply, under Right To

Information Act, from the Deputy Commissioner of Police is

ANNEXURED in the petition.

In the above said circumstances Honble court may be pleased to

discharge of applicant (A1) from the case CC. No. BBB/2008 in the interest

of justice and to secure ends of justice.

Date:

Place: Applicant/Petitioner

Counsel for petitioner:

varadg

nil [ Scorecard : 50]

what was the out come/result???



Member (AccountDeleted)

Leader [ Scorecard : 235]

Hi Muni ratnam you can add the AP Highcourt Judgments of quashing the 498Aon the basis of Juridisction. you have many from AP High court also.if u need those you can contact me RegardsSatish

Previous Next

Related T hreads

Post your reply for Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to login

Not a member yet ?? Click here to signup

Message

Submit Reset

This is a public forum. Avoid posting content which you do not wish to disclose in public.Use thank button to convey your appreciation.

Maintain professionalism while posting and replying to topics.Try to add value with your each post.

Subscribe to the latest topics : Enter Email Subscribe Search Topics & Posts GO

Forum Home | Forum Portal | Control Center | Who is Where | Popular Threads | Today's Topic | Recent Posts | Today's Posts | Post New Topic| Thread With Files | Top Threads - Month | Unreplied Topics | Forum Stats

back to the top

www.CAclubindia.com | www.MBAclubindia.com

Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of Knowledge

We are Hiring About Advertise Terms of Use Disclaimer Privacy Policy Contact

2012 Law yersclubindia.com. All trademarks and copyrights are held by respective ow ners. Members comments/posts and f iles are ow ned by contributors.

Discahrge U_s 239 CrPC, Written Arguments

Documents

Transcript of Discahrge U_s 239 CrPC, Written Arguments