IN THE IX METROPILITAN MAGISTRATE COURT
xxxx, at yyyy.
IA.
No. of 2010
In
C.C
No. xxx of 2008.
Between:
Accused (A1), … Applicant
And
1) The
Sate of A.P, Rep. by SHO,
2) Complainant … Respondents
APPL<st1:personname
w:st=”on”>IC</st1:personname>ATION FILED UNDER SECTION 239 OF Cr.P.C
The address for service of all notice and process on the
above named applicant (A1) is: abcd …..
G R O U N D S
1) Humbly
submits I am the applicant in this application and is the Accused (A1) in CC.
No. xxx/2008 on the file of this Hon’ble
Court Hon’ble Court
Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code
reads as under:-
“Section 177: ORDINARY PLACE
JURISD<st1:personname
w:st=”on”>IC</st1:personname>TION POINT OF VIEW
a) As per charge sheet
alleged allegations have taken place at Bangalore City
b) Respondent No.1
furnished the false information as part of charge sheet U/s 498A, in Para-1, by
saying the offence happened at complainant residence place at Hyderabad whereas
the details in subsequent Para(s) of the charge sheet reveals that complainant
matrimonial home is Bangalore City. No part of the alleged offence taken place
at Respondent No.1 territorial jurisdiction.
c) Respondent No.1
failed to transfer the complaint to the concern police station has the
jurisdiction for further investigation and did not comply with the Criminal
Procedure Code. Applicant put reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India available in ANNEXURE-P/2 in support of this ground.
d) Further submit, Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held in Transfer Petition No.20 or 2010 that,
jurisdiction matter may be held in Trial Court, order is in the Annexure-P/2-A,
hence applicant request Hon’ble Court to consider the jurisdiction ground to
discharge the applicant from the above said case proceedings.
e) Further submit that the
applicant (A1) side witnesses are neighbors, includes old age women, and are
residents ofBangalore City
f) Respondent
No.1 failed to investigate the complaint at the alleged allegations taken place
i.e., Bangalore City Bangalore City single time and completed the investigation
at Hyderabad Hon’ble
Court
2) None
of the FIR allegation is part of the charge sheet and none of the witness’s
statements supports complaint allegations provide information that allegations
in FIR all are completely false and further submit that police continued
investigation and filed the charge sheet contains completely different and with
new allegations to that of the FIR without having sufficient evidences. Even
charge sheet allegations are not supported by the witnesses of the case. All
the witnesses are none other than the blood relatives of the complainant, who
did not live at Bangalore City
Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code
reads as under:-
Section 239 CrPC: When accused shall be discharged.
“If, upon considering the police report and the
documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any,
of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the
prosecution and the accused an Opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate
considers the charge against the accused to be groundless”.
REF [A]: State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy
REF [B]: When offences
not prima facia made out against accused person framing of charge not proper
in Imtiaz Ahmed Vs State of M.P. , 1997 Cri LJ 1844 (MP).
REF [C]: Allegations has
to be specific in Krishan Jeet singh Vs. State of Haryana, 11 (2003) DMC
127 (P & H).
REF [D]: General
allegations are not sufficient to procure 498-A in Surajmal Barithia V. State of west Bengal 11
(2003) DMC 546 (Cal) (DB).
REF [E]: Vague
allegations are not acceptable in sher Singh V. state of Punjab 11 (2003) DMC 192 (P & H)
REF [F]: Bhajan Lal
Bhatia & ors. Vs. Sarita Neelam 2005 Vol I HLR 59
Where evidence on record neither disclosed that there
was cruelty on part o the accused which was of such a nature as was likely to
drive victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life or
limb or mental or physical health nor showed that she was harassed by accused
with regard to any demand for additional dowry, section 498-A could not be
attracted in such circumstances in Bomma Ilaiach Vs. State of U.P. , 2003
Cri LJ 2439 (AP)
REF [G]: Where there is
no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be proved
in Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State of Haryana, II (2003) DMC 127 (P&H)
REF [H]: Conviction not
sustainable in the absence of evidence of ‘torture’ or “harassment”
in Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra Vs State, 2004 (13) A<st1:personname
w:st=”on”>IC</st1:personname> 253 (ori.)
REF [I]: Taunting is not
Cruelty in Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand , 2003, Cri LJ 2759 (Del
NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT
ALLGATIONS
a) The allegation made in
complaint that applicant (A1) and his sister (A2) use to harassed the
complainant by saying the applicant (A1) left the match which is suppose to
give Rs.1.0 crore and further beaten her by saying they wanted to get rid of
complainant is absolutely false and is denied by applicant
(A1). None of the witnesses support the complainant allegation
including the blood relatives of the complainant. Even none of the witnesses
and relatives of the complainant never heard of such incident occurrence from
complainant. Absolutely no evidence available for this allegation. The admitted
fact is that applicant married the complainant and also requested complainant
to join him at Bangalore
b) The allegation made in
complaint that applicant (A1) demanded the complainant to bring money by
selling her property given by complainant’s parents is absolutely false and is
denied by applicant (A1). None of the witnesses support the complainant
allegation. Even the blood relatives of the complainant do not support the
complainant allegation. No evidence available for this allegation. This
allegation is vague in nature without disclosing the nature of the harassment
happened. Further submit that this allegation is false and is dropped from
charge sheet allegations.
c) The allegation
made in complaint that applicant (A1) restricted to make phone calls is
absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). Complainant admitted in the
same complaint that complainant use to call her brother on phone. Even the
statements of complainant brother and parents say that complainant called them
on phone. None of the witnesses supports the complainant allegation. Even the blood
relatives of the complainant do not support the complainant allegation. Further
submit that this allegation is false and is dropped from charge sheet
allegations.
d) The allegation made in
complaint that complainant’s in-laws use to call applicant (A1) and advised on
phone is absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). The consequences of
the received phone calls from in-laws are not reported. No documentary
evidences are supported on phone call details. None of the witnesses support
the complainant allegation. Even the blood relatives of the complainant do not
support the complainant allegation. No evidence available for this allegation.
In-laws telephone calls list reveals that no call is made to the applicant (A1)
due to lack of STD facility to the phone. Respondent no.1 failed to investigate
the allegation to reveal the facts. Further submit that this allegation is
false and is dropped from charge sheet allegations. This sole allegation made
the in-laws of the complainant as accused in this false criminal case.
e) The allegation in
complaint that applicant (A1) publicized saying the complainant is carrying 3
months pregnancy is absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). During
investigation complainant filed to give the details with whom via which media
applicant (A1) publicized. The said allegation is false. No evidence is
collected and none of the witness supports the complainant allegation. Further
submit that this allegation is false and is dropped from charge sheet allegations.
f) The
allegation in complaint that applicant (A1) forced complainant to abort
pregnancy is absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). Till
complainant left matrimonial home at Bangalore Bangalore
NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE FOR
CHARGE SHEET ALLGATIONS
g) The allegation in charge
sheet that applicant (A1) was given dowry items at the time of complainant
marriage by the complainant parents is false and is denied by the applicant.
Even as per complaint no dowry is given to applicant. This allegation is
contradicting to the complaint allegation as well as the affidavit submitted by
the complainant in Transfer Petition no.5/2010 on the file of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. No documentary evidence is available in support of charge sheet
allegation says dowry property given to the applicant. Though the complainant
statement is contradicting and without having the reliable documentary evidence
in support of the complainant statement, applicant is arrested under sections 3
& 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is illegal.
h) The allegation in
charge sheet that applicant (A1) harassed the complainant physically for the
less house hold articles purchased by the complainant’s brother at Bangalore is
absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). The eye-witness, i.e., the
brother of the complainant and the complainant’s parents say that only taunting
taken place on house hold items and no physical harassment is reported by them.
The allegation is vague and the details of the house hold items purchased by
the complainant’s brother at Bangalore are not disclosed and also the house
hold items demanded by the applicant is not disclosed. None of the witnesses
support the complainant allegation on physical harassment. Even the blood
relatives of the complainant do not support the complainant allegation on
physical harassment. No reliable evidence available for this allegation.
i) The allegation
in charge sheet that applicant (A1) harassed the complainant for additional
dowry is absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). Complainant admitted
that no dowry is given to applicant (A1) and allegations saying demand for
additional is absurd. None of the witnesses support the complainant allegation
on additional dowry demand. Even the blood relatives of the complainant do not
support the complainant allegation. No reliable evidence available for this
allegation.
j) The
allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1) forcibly aborted complainant’s
pregnancy at Bangalore
k) The allegation in
charge sheet that applicant (A1) and applicant’s brother-in-law (A3) were
necked out the complainant and complainant’s brother out of house is absolutely
false and is denied by applicant (A1). Complainant admitted in her petition
MC.No.145/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court of L.B.Nagar, that at the
time of complainant leaving home at Bangalore City, applicant is not
even available on phone for one week duration; hence applicant leftBangalore,
reveals applicant’s dishonesty in making false allegations on applicant (A1)
and on brother-in-law of the applicant (A3).
l) The
allegation in charge sheet saying that during complainant 5 days stay with
in-laws, at in-laws place, in-laws used to say with complainant to
bring additional dowry and further threatened complainant by saying they will
perform another marriage on failure of meeting their demands is absolutely
false. Complainant never lived 5 days with in-laws at in-laws place.
Going by the version of the charge sheet complainant lived with not more than
24 hours. The allegation is absurd being no dowry is given to given to
applicant (A1) and demanding additional dowry by in-laws is absurd.
CONTRAD<st1:personname
w:st=”on”>IC</st1:personname>TIONS ON THE ALLEGATIONS
m) None of the allegation in the
complaint is supported by the witness’s statements. Also complainant’s
statements contradicts with her own written complaint and also with charge
sheet version as describe below:
1.
i. As
per complaint, Rs. 3,00,000/- cash, 80 kasulu gold
and Rs. 40,00,000/- worth agriculture land is given to complainant by
her parents. Whereas police investigation report says above said
property items were given to applicant (A1) at the time of marriage. Accused A1
is arrested under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is illegal.
Complainant admitted in her petition filed in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
saying that said property items were given to her by her parents as “Sridhan”
as per her family tradition.
1.
ii. As
per complaint applicant (A1) and his sister harassed the complainant saying
that complainant bought less dowry and harassed physically to get rid of
complainant. Whereas charge sheet says complainant was harassed for less gifts
purchased by complainant’s brother at the time of complainant joined with
Accused-A1 atBangalore. Witnesses say that there was taunting on the gifts
purchased. None of the witnesses support the complainant allegation on physical
harassment. Even the blood relatives of the complainant do not support the
complainant allegation on physical harassment.
1.
iii. As
per complainant version no demands were made for additional dowry by the
applicant (A1). Whereas police investigation report says additional dowry is
demanded by the applicant (A1) and none of the witness supports the charge
sheet allegation. Even the blood relatives of the complainant do not support
the charge sheet allegation.
1.
iv. The
reason said for forcible abortion is not consistent from FIR to charge sheet.
Also the reason for forcible abortion said by the witnesses is inconsistence
with the complainant.
n) Witness version
contradicts with complainant version and also contradict with other
witnesses as described below:
i) As per
complainant and complainant’s brother version no harassment happened at the
time complainant visitedBangalore City just after the marriage during
Nov-Dec-2007. Whereas the parents and relatives of the complainant given
statements by saying that complainant was harassed by not providing food and
necessaries and demanded the complainant to bring money by selling the property
given to complainant by them, at the time of marriage.
ii) As per
complainant version no harassment at the time complainant visited the in-laws
place, for the duration of one day, just before the day complainant joined with
the applicant (A1) at Bangalore
iii) As per complainant version,
on the day complainant joined with applicant (A1) at Bangalore dispute is
raised on house hold items purchased, costing Rs. 60,000/- by the
complainant’s brother for complainant’s family and alleged that complainant was
harassed physically by the applicant (A1) and by applicant’s sister (A2) for
bringing less house hold items and for less dowry. In contra the statement of
the eye-witness, i.e., brother of the complainant do not disclose any physical
harassment caused by A1 and A3 and also contradicts with complainant
version. In contradiction to above two versions, the parents of the
complainant say that for Rs.70,000/- house hold items were purchased and
A1 and A3 did taunting on the items purchased and do not say that physical
harassment happened.
iv) As per complainant’s parents
version applicant (A1) aborted the complainant’s pregnancy forcibly at Hospital
inBangalore. Whereas the complainant and brother of the complainant do not say
that abortion happened at hospital inBangalore.
v) As per
complainant’s parents statement applicant made call from hospital saying
complainant is in hospital and seeking for help. Whereas as complainant said
that she made call from home.
vi) As per complainant version on
the day complainant was thrown out of house applicant (A1) taken gold ornaments
from complainant and thrown her out of house. In contra, the eye-witness, i.e.,
the brother of the complainant do not make such allegations. Also the
statements of the complainant’s parents do not support the complainant
allegation. Whereas in complainant’s maintenance suit filed in Hon’ble Family
Court, L.B. Nagar, complainant admitted that at the time complainant was
leaving the matrimonial home applicant was not available even on phone.
3) The
allegations, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence under section 498A IPC or
make out a case against the accused as describe below:
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 –
(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 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
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.
ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT SECTION 498A IPC
a) Even considering the
allegation in the charge sheet, that applicant (A1) harassed the complainant
for the less house hold articles purchased by the complainant’s brother at
Bangalore, 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.
ii) The nature of
harassment happened to the complainant is not disclosed by the complainant and
by the police investigation report. As per eye-witness, i.e., brother of
complainant and the complainant parent’s CrPC-161 statements, only taunting
taken place on the house hold items saying house hold items are less, no
specific items were demanded hence as per REF [1] allegation do not attract
section 498A IPC. No physical harassment incidents are reported hence as per
REF [4] & REF [6] allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Further
submit that complainant continued matrimonial life with applicant at Bangalore
iii) Also complainant did not
allege that either applicant (A1) or other Accused demanded any specific house
hold items from either complainant or from complainant’s brother and also
failed to reveal the list of house hold items were purchased by the
complainant’s brother, reveals the allegation is vague in nature.
iv) This allegation is not
present in complaint. Further submit that while complainant describing the
harassment caused by the applicant in case MC. No.145/2009 on the file of
Hon’ble 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.
b) Even considering the
allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1) demanded additional dowry at
the time of dispute on house hold itmes, is happened to be true this allegation
do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below:
i) As
admitted by the complainant in the complaint that no dowry is given and also no
specific dowry items demand is reported and is a vague allegation. 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. This demand is not
continued and no harassment is reported hence as per REF [3], REF [4] & REF
[5] allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. 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. Complainant initially said that property itmes were given
to her by her parents, later changed the version saying that same were given to
applicant and made the applicant arrested under section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Upon making complaint on the complainant and her parents for
the offence under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, complainant admitted
in her affidavit filed in Transfer Petition No.5 of 2010, on the file Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, saying the property itmes was given to her by her
parents as Sridhan which is their family tradition. This reveals the
dishonesty of the complainant in making false allegations.
ii) 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.
iii) This allegation is not
present in complaint. Further submit that while complainant describing the
harassment caused by the applicant in case MC. No.145/2009 on the file of
Hon’ble 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.
c) Even
considering the allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1) suspected
complainant’s 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].
ii) As per
complainant version applicant forced her to abort her pregnancy, no physical
cruelty is caused, not subjected to harassment and lived with applicant till
her brother came to Bangalore and disputed with applicant. 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].
iii) 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. 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
iv) Applicant filed criminal
complaint against the complainant under sections 312 IPC, 506, 120B, 384 and
500 of IPC atBangalore City ; Hon’ble
Court Bangalore City
v) As per complaint
version applicant believes that complainant was carrying three months pregnancy
and did publicized saying the same and as per CrPC-161 statement of the
complainant version, applicant believes that even 6 months is not enough to get
pregnancy contradicts with earlier said version. This reveals complainant
attempt to develop false story on the pregnancy termination matter against the
applicant.
vi) Further submit that while
complainant describing the harassment caused by the applicant in case MC.
No.145/2009 on the file of Hon’ble 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) and his brother-in-law 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 complainant admitted version in her affidavit in MC. No.145/2009 on
the file of Hon’ble 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
the complainant’s dishonesty in making allegations on the accused.
4) Respondent
No.1 did improper investigation and investigation report do not comply with the
Criminal Procedure Codes and the following consequences are resulted:
CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW
a) Neighbors, who are
potential eye-witnesses of the real facts, statements are not recorded which
provide information that alleged allegations are false and not possible to
occur. Documentary evidences from Bangalore
b) Police failed to collect
the statement from the complainant sister-in-law, i.e., wife of complainant’s
brother, who was present along with the complainant during her join with
applicant at Bangalore
c) Though the
complainant statement during the investigation contradicts with her own written
statement in complaint on the property items, without having reliable evidence
in hand, police arrested the applicant (A1) under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
d) Respondent No.1 failed
to reveal the facts that during the entire days matrimonial life (not more than
23 days) of complainant at Bangalore complainant
along with applicant (A1) attended marriage parties, birthday parties, did
shopping and invited guests to home at Bangalore Bangalore
e) Respondent No.1 failed
to collect neighbor’s statements, which are the potential eye-witnesses for the
incident on considering the complainant version is true and also failed to
reveal the facts that no disputes were taken place on the day complainant
joined with applicant (A1) at Bangalore
f) Respondent
No.1 failed to reveal the facts that only complainant and the applicant lived
together at Bangalore
g) Even though neighbors
from Bangalore came to Kukatpally PS
and told to the investigation officer that no part of the allegations in are
true, investigation officer refused to investigate and collect neighbor’s
statements at Bangalore
h) Applicant (A1) and
other accused were not informed about the new allegations added in the charge
sheet, which are not part of complaint and failed to give an opportunity to the
accused to submit the evidences during the investigation. Further submit
investigation officer failed to collect possible documentary evidences to support
complainant allegations, which in fact provide information that allegations are
false.
i) Respondent
No.1 investigation did not investigate atBangalore to reveal the fact that
applicant’s (A1) relatives did not live with complainant family at Bangalore City
j) Respondent
No.1 investigation did not reveal the fact that in-laws did not made phone
calls to Accused (A1). Police failed to collect the documentary evidences in
support of the complainant allegations and still charges are made on in-laws.
k) No investigation
carried out on forcible abortion allegation at Bangalore
l) Investigation
did not disclose and collect the documentary evidences to support the
allegation that complainant brother purchased house hold items for the
complainant family at Bangalore
m) Despite no supporting evidence is
available with the police on the complainant allegations, police opposed
granting the anticipatory bail to sister of the applicant.
n) Police supplied
false information to this Hon’ble
Court Hon’ble Court
5) The other grounds
would be urged at the time of hearing.
P R A Y E R
Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to:-
a) Pass an order of
discharge of applicant (A1) in the proceedings CC.No.xxx/2008 on the file of
this Hon’ble Court
And
b) Pass such other order or
further orders as this Hon’ble
Court
Cyderabad, Adacate/
Applicant:
Dt: Sig:
No comments:
Post a Comment