CrPC 239 Discharge Application format for 498A/406 and various sections
CrPC 239 Discharge Application format for 498A and various sections
IN THE IX METROPILITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT,
xxxx, at yyyy.
IA.
No. of 2019
In
C.C
No. xxx of 2019.
Cr
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. I further
submit that the charge sheet filed by the Respondent No.1 and the proceedings
in CC.No.xxx/2008 on the file of this Hon’ble Court is abusing the
process of law by not complying with the Criminal Procedure Codes and applicant
is liable to be discharged from the case. Respondent no.2 in this petition is the
defacto complainant in CC.No.xxx/2008. Details are as follows:
Section 177 of the Criminal
Procedure Code reads as under:-
“Section
177: ORDINARY PLACE OF INQUIRY AND TRIAL: Every offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.”
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. No part of the allegation taken place in
thisHon’ble Court jurisdiction. As per section-177 of Criminal Procedure
Code, every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed; accordingly applicant (A1) is
liable to be discharged from the case. Applicant put reliance on judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India available in ANNEXURE-P/1 in support of this
ground.
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. The applicant side witnesses do
not have friends or relatives in this city and are having business atBangalore.
This would result in great inconvenience in attending the court hearings in
another state that witnesses are living and also need to travel more than 600KM
would result in miss carriage of justice to the applicant.
f) Respondent
No.1 failed to investigate the complaint at the alleged allegations taken place
i.e., Bangalore City. Police did not even visit the crime place
i.e., Bangalore City single time and completed the investigation
at Hyderabad and filed the charge sheet in this Hon’ble Court.
Investigation conducted on FIR. No. yy/2008does not comply with the Criminal
Procedure Codes. Proof for no investiagtion at crime place is enclosed as
ANNEXURE-P/3.
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. One of the witnesses is the independent
witness, whose statement does not disclose any alleged offence. Even witnesses
statements contradict with each other. Absolutely no evidence is available for
allegations either in complaint or in charge sheet and applicant is liable to
be discharged from the case under section 239 CrPC. Details are as describe
below:
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 , a three judge Bench of SC Court had observed that at the stage
of framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether
or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the
accused. As framing of charge affects a person’s liberty substantially, need
for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized.
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) : 2003 (3) Crime 100.
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 provide information that applicant is
interested to lead matrimonial life with complainant. While inviting the
complainant for matrimonial home no demands were made by applicant. Further
submit that this allegation is false and is dropped from charge sheet
allegations on A1.
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, complainant was carrying
pregnancy. No evidence is available on the pregnancy termination confirmation
at 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 is false and is denied by the applicant. No
medical reports are available on forcible abortion and on the abortion
confirmation.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. Even the statement of
eye-witness i.e., the complainant’ brother, who accompanied the complainant do
not disclose any offence at in-laws place by the in-laws. Whereas the parents
of the complainant given statements by saying that in-laws harassed the
complainant at in-laws house.
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 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.
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 reveals complainant did not feel mental cruelty hence as
per REF [2] allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Further submit that
complainant brother left to his native place also reveal there was no danger or
threat to complainant from the applicant. There is no allegations reported
saying that demands were continued during the complainant’s 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, do not attract the section 498A IPC.
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 till complainant left matrimonial
home. <st1:personname w:st=”on”>Support</st1:personname>ing
documents are in ANNEXURE-P/4.
iv) Applicant
filed criminal complaint against the complainant under sections 312 IPC, 506,
120B, 384 and 500 of IPC atBangalore City; Hon’ble
Court in Bangalore City took the cognizance and ordered for
investigation.
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 were not collected
which provide information that allegations are false.
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. Respondent No.1 failed to
visit Bangalore and failed to reveal the facts. Further
submits, Respondent No.1 failed to reveal the fact that even on the last day
complainant did shopping to purchase gifts for a party at neighbors house with
whom complainant used to spend most of her day time.
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 and filed to reveal the fact that none of the
applicant relatives lived with applicant.
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. Also investigation officer failed to collect possible
documentary evidences for the complaint allegations; in fact these documentary
evidences provide information that allegations are false.
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 to cause any harassment to the complainant.
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 a
हर साल 108000 से ज्यादा पुरुष आत्महत्या कर रहे हैं इनके और इनके परिवार वालों की भी सोचो, मत इनको मौत के मुँह में धकेलो
अगर नेता पुरुषो से इतनी नफरत करते है, उनके लिए कोई कानून , मंत्रालय , आयोग नहीं बना सकते तो पुरुष इनको वोट क्यों दे ?
#NoVote2MaleHaters #Nota4Men
#StopAbuseMen a movement intends to work for Men's welfare and strongly believe in replacing the word Men/Women by Person and Husband/Wife by Spouse in any Government law or policy. #MenToo are Human, they also have Constitutional Right to Live & Liberty with Dignity (#Article21 ) . #Unfairlaw or Policy can not bring Fairness in any Society, it only kills fairness in Justice System and harmony in Society. #SpeakUpMan. Help Line for abused/distressed Men ( SIF - One): +91-8882498498
Comments
Post a Comment