View
209
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
discharge
Citation preview
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 2/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 3/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 4/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 5/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 6/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 7/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 8/13
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.
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 9/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 10/13
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].
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 11/13
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
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 12/13
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???
4/18/2014 Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Discahrge-U-s-239-CrPC-written-arguments-18729.asp 13/13
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.