4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

Username Login Remember | Register | Forgot Passw ord?

Member Strength 270,183 and growing..

Legal

Business

Civil

Constitutional

Criminal

Family

Labour

Intellectual

Property

Taxation

Others

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

Search for Lawyers

Discussion > Criminal Law > Dowry > Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments Pages : 1
There are 2 Replies to this message

Related Files
Posted 3 years ago

28 239 245.d
111 downloads

Kindly send your comments for the below written argument: Munirathnam
Scientist [ Scorecard : 894]

More >>

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. W RITTEN ARGUMENT SUBMISSION FROM APPLICANT/PETITIONER MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR, Humbly submits, applicant/pe titione r is the Accuse d (A1) in the above said court case . Applicant is approaching this Honble Court w ith this discharge application, unde r se ction 239 of Criminal Proce dure Code , to ge t discharge d from the proce e dings in CC. No. BBB/2008 of this Court on the be low grounds: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THIS HONBLE COURT: 1. Humbly submit, plain re ading of charge she e t re ve als that de facto complainant, complainant he re in, live d w ith applicant/pe titione r (A1) at the ir matrimonial home in Bangalore City, Karnataka Sate and no part of the alle ge d alle gations happe ne d in Hyde rabad, Andra Prade sh State . Furthe r submit that as pe r charge she e t, alle ge d alle gations happe ne d in Karnataka State only and during the inve stigation, e ve n w ithout visiting the crime place i.e ., Bangalore City, re sponde nt comple te d inve stigation in Andra Prade sh State and file d the charge she e t in this Honble Court. The criminal proce e dings in CC.No.BBB/2008 on the file of this Honble Court are abusing the proce ss of law by non-complying w ith the

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

1/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

se ctions 177 to 181 and 156 of criminal proce dure code s (CrPC) and the charge she e t is not maintainable as de scribe d be low : a. As pe r se ction 177 of CrPC, the criminal case can be trie d only, w he re cause of action arose and in the pre se nt case , as pe r the charge she e t and as pe r 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 , he nce this Honble court has no jurisdiction to try this case , w he re it is pe nding. Furthe r submit that it is admitte d ve rsion of the complainant in he r affidavits submitte d in MC.No.CCC/2009, on the file of Honble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District and in Transfe r Pe tition No.D/2010, on the file of the Honble Supre me Court of India that both the applicant and the complainant live d only at Bangalore and furthe r submit that the pe titione r did not claim that both live d anyw he re othe r than Bangalore City, he nce only Bangalore City courts has jurisdiction to try this case . He nce pray this Honble Court to discharge the pe titione r on this sole ground. Applicant put re liance on the be low list of judgme nts from Honble Supre me Court of India in support of this ground.
i. Manish Ratan and Ors. Vs State of M.P and Anr. Re porte d in 2007 volume -1 SCC 262. ii. Y. Abraham Ajith and Othe rs Vs. Inspe ctor of Police , Che nnai and Anothe r re porte d in 2004,

SCC Crl-2134.
iii.

Satvinde r Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

De lhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728

iv .

Bhanu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan 7

Anr in CASE NO: Appe al (crl.) 587 of 2008 [arising out of Spe cial Le ave Pe tition (Crl.) No. 79 of 2006).
v. Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of De lhi and Anr. in W .P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, De cision on 10.10.2007.

b.

As pe r se ction 156 of CrPC, police has the pow e r to inve stigate any cognizable case , w hich a court having jurisdiction ove r the local are a w ithin the limits of such station w ould have pow e r to inquire into or try unde r the provisions of Chapte r XIII. Se ction 156 CrPC re ad as: Se ction 156 of CrPC: Police inve stigate cognizable case s: 1) office r's pow e r to

Any office r in charge of a police station may, w ithout the orde r of a Magistrate , inve stigate any cognizable case w hich a court having jurisdiction ove r the local are a w ithin the limits of such station w ould have pow e r to e nquire into or try unde r the provisions of Chapte r XIII.

2)

No proce e dings of a police office r in any such case shall at any stage be calle d in que stion on the ground that the case w as one , w hich such office r w as not e mpow e re d unde r this se ction to inve stigate .

3)

Any Magistrate e mpow e re d unde r se ction 190 may orde r such an inve stigation as me ntione d. above

In pre se nt case , plain re ading of the charge she e t re ve als that alle ge d alle gations w e re not happe ne d w ithin the te rritorial jurisdictional limits of kukatpally police station and also provide information that alle ge d offe nce happe ne d in the jurisdiction of Bangalore City only. W he re as the kukatpally police furnishe d the false information in the charge she e t by saying that offe nce happe ne d in the ir

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

2/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

charge she e t by saying that offe nce happe ne d in the ir police station limits and inve stigate d the case in the ir jurisdiction and file d the charge she e t in this Honble Court, is contrary to the provisions of the se ction 156 of CrPC and charge she e t is not maintainable in law . Applicant put re liance on the be low list of judgme nts from Honble Supre me Court of India in support of this ground.
i.

Satvinde r Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

De lhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728

ii.

Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of De lhi and

Anr. in W .P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, De cision on 10.10.2007. c. Kukatpally police faile d to transfe r the FIR to the conce rn police station having the jurisdiction for inve stigation as pe r the law . Furthe r submit that in the case of Satvinde r Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of De lhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728, the Honble Supre me Court of India obse rve d that Se ction 170 Cr.P.C spe cifically provide s that if, upon inve stigation, it appe ars to the Office rs In-charge of the Police Station that crime w as not committe d w ithin the te rritorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forw arde d to the Police Stating having jurisdiction ove r the are a in w hich crime is committe d. d. Re sponde nt furnishe d false information in the charge she e t, Para-1, saying alle ge d alle gations happe ne d at Hyde rabad w he re as the plain re ading of the charge she e t re ve als that no part of the alle ge d alle gation happe ne d in Hyde rabad.

2.

Furthe r submit the proce e dings of the case in this Honble Court w ithout having jurisdiction w ould re sult in miss carriage of justice be ing the w itne sse s and the e vide nce in support of the applicant e xist at Bangalore City only. The supporting w itne sse s of the applicant, include s w ome n, are re side nts of Bangalore City and applicant is also re side nt of Bangalore City. Eithe r the applicant or his supporting w itne sse s doe s not have any re lative s or frie nds in this are a and have thre at from the complainant side pe ople . The accuse d supporting w itne sse s are re side nt of Bangalore City and the y do not have any re lative s or frie nds in this are a he nce w itne sse s may not pre fe r to trave l 700KM that to anothe r state jurisdiction w ould re sult in gre at inconve nie nce to de fe nd the criminal case and w ould re sult in miss carriage of justice . Furthe r submit that accuse d and the ir supporting w itne sse s have life thre at in this jurisdiction and w ould cause gre at inconve nie nce to de fe nd the case in this jurisdiction.

ARREST AND CHARGES U/s 3 & 4 OF DOW RY PROHIBITION ACT IS ILLEGAL: 3. Furthe r submit, as pe r complaint ve rsion the prope rty ite ms viz, Rs.40,00,000/- w orth agriculture land, 80 Kasulu gold and Rs.3,00,000/- cash w e re give n to complainant by he r pare nts. Furthe r submit the re w e re no de mands from accuse d and F.I.R is re giste re d unde r se ction 498A only. Furthe r submit that as pe r the complainants affidavit submitte d in Honble Supre me Court of India, in the Transfe r Pe tition No.D/2010, it is said that the se said prope rty ite ms w e re give n to the complainant by he r pare nts as Sridhan prope rty as pe r complainant pare nts family tradition. No de mands w e re re porte d by any of the w itne ss or by the complainant re ve als marriage is happe ne d w ith out the e le me nt of dow ry. Arre sting the accuse d unde r se ction 3 & 4 of Dow ry Prohibition Act and se nding to jail w ith out having e vide nce is ille gal and also provide information that re sponde nt is misuse d police pow e rs to harass the accuse d unde r the influe nce of complainant. As pe r complaint the se ite ms w e re give n to complainant by he r pare nts, w he re as as pe r charge she e t ve rsion the se ite ms w e re give n to A1. Conside ring that the said prope rty ite ms w e re give n to A1 and are w ith A1, no docume ntary proofs are colle cte d in support of the alle gation though the alle gation is contradicting to the complainant and w ithout application of mind re sponde nt se nt the pe titione r to jail w ithout che cking the

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

3/13

4/18/2014

re sponde nt se nt the pe titione r to jail w ithout che cking the truthfulne ss of the complainant. Furthe r submit that upon re sponde nt be lie ving that prope rty ite ms are give n to A1 the re w ill not be any re quire me nt to the A1 to harass the complainant to se ll the prope rty to ge t mone y from complainant. Furthe r submit marriage is happe ne d w ithout the e le me nt of dow ry and saying that A1 de mande d additional dow ry and harasse d the complainant saying dow ry is not e nough is absurd. Furthe r submit that none of the w itne sse s supporte d the alle gation that complainant w as de mande d for additional dow ry or did harassme nt to the complainant for giving le ss dow ry. Furthe r submit that the w itne sse s of the case are none othe r than the blood re lative s of the complainant. Only one inde pe nde nt and non blood re lation w itne ss is pre se nt and this w itne ss state me nt doe s not disclose any offe nce done by the applicant. NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF F.I.R ALLEGATIONS: 4. The FIR alle gations w e re not supporte d by any of the w itne sse s (LW 2 to LW 6), including the blood re lative s of the complainant and FIR alle gations w e re not pre se nt in CrPC-161 state me nt of the complainant re corde d by the police during the inve stigation. De tails are furnishe d be low :

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

FIR-Allegations on A1

Supporting Witness (LW2LW6)

Presence of FIR allegation in the 161 Statement of complainant

A1 use to harass the complainant to ge t rid of he r saying give n dow ry is le ss and A1 lost an alliance of w orth 1 crore rupe e s. A1 de mande d complainant to give mone y by se lling he r prope rty give n to he r at the time of he r marriage by he r pare nts. Complainant w as re stricte d to make phone calls. Complainant in-law s use d to call A1 to advise A1 on phone . A1 use d to suspe ct complainant characte r e ve n if she spe ak w ith he r brothe r Complainant got pre gnancy of 4 w e e ks and A1 publicize d saying she is carrying 3 months pre gnancy A1 force d the complainant to consume pre gnancy abortion table ts by he rse lf.

NONE

NO

NONE

NO

NONE NONE

NO NO

NONE

NO

NONE

NO

NONE

YES

Note : All the alle gations in the FIR on A1 are me ntione d in the table .

NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGATIONS IN CrPC-161 STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT: 5. The CrPC-161 state me nts of the complainant w e re not supporte d by any of the w itne sse s (LW 2 to LW 6) including the blood re lative s of the complainant, de tails are furnishe d be low : Supporting Witness (LW2LW6) NONE Presence of allegation in FIR. NO

Allegations in the CrPC-161 statement of complainant. Complainant w as harasse d physically by A1 saying that house hold ite ms are not e nough. Complainant w as manhandle d by A1 saying that she bought le ss dow ry. A1 suspe cte d complainant pre gnancy and force d to abort he r pre gnancy A1 suspe cte d complainant characte r and force d complainant to abort

NONE NONE

NO NO

NONE

NO

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

4/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

and force d complainant to abort pre gnancy.

NONE

NO

On 22 n d May-2008 gold orname nts w e re take n from complainant and she w as throw n out off house by A1 and A3. Complainant got pre gnancy of 4 w e e ks and is te ste d in hospital be fore 20 th Mau-2008 at Bangalore City. On 20 th May 2008, complainant w as forcibly consume d pre gnancy abortion table ts and w as locke d in house . me ntione d in the table .

NONE

NO

NONE

YES

YES (LW 1-LW 5)

YES

Note : All the alle gations on A1, in CrPC-161 state me nt are

6.

Furthe r submit that as pe r complainants CrPC-161 state me nt, on the day of he r marital life joining, she w as harasse d saying that brothe r of the complainant (LW 4) purchase d house hold ite ms w e re not e nough and also harasse d saying that give n dow ry is not e nough. None of the w itne sse s (LW 2 to LW 5) CrPC-161 state me nt says that accuse d did physical harassme nt to the complainant. W he re as in the affidavit file d by the complainant in MC. No.CCC/2009, on the file of Honble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not re port such incide nt occurre nce w hile complainant is de scribing the crue lty that she w as subje cte d by accuse d. Furthe r submit that in the e ntire affidavit complainant did not make e ve n single alle gation on additional dow ry de mand made by accuse d.

7.

Furthe r submit that no inve stigation is carrie d by the re sponde nt on the forcible pre gnancy abortion alle gations. As pe r re sponde nt information to A1, through the Right To Information Act re ply le tte r to the accuse d, no inve stigation is re quire d on pre gnancy alle gation be ing alle gation is not attracting the se ctions of the case re giste re d on A1. Furthe r submit that this alle gation is not part of the affidavit file d by complainant in M.C. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, in w hich complainant is alle ging that crue lty is one of the ground to live se parate ly from husband/pe titione r.

CONTRADICTIONS BETW EEN W ITNESSES AND COMPLAINANT 8. Furthe r submit that w itne ss state me nts contradicts w ith complainant and also contradicts w ith othe r w itne ss as de scribe d be low : a. As pe r complainant prope rty ite ms w e re give n to he r by he r pare nts as sridhan, w he re as LW 1 to LW 5 say that prope rty ite ms w are give n to A1. b. As pe r complainants pare nts, complainant w as harasse d by A4 & A5 at the ir house on the day prior to the matrimonial house joining day at Bangalore . W he re as e ithe r complainant (LW 1), or he r brothe r (LW 4) state me nt to police , do not re port such incide nt happe ne d at in-law s house . Furthe r submit that as pe r complainants brothe r (LW 4) state me nt, the re ason for le aving the in-law s house on 25 th May-2008 is A1 could not come and join the m at in-law s house on 25 th May2008. As pe r complainants pare nts (LW 2&LW 3) and w itne ss (LW 5), complainant w as harasse d by A1 during the pe riod Nov-2007 to De c-2007 at Bangalore City.

c.

W he re as e ithe r complainant or he r brothe r (LW 4) did not re port such incide nts occurre nce . d. As pe r w itne sse s LW 2 to LW 5 state me nts, only taunting happe ne d on the le ss house hold ite ms purchase d by the complainant brothe r (LW 4), no physical harassme nt is re porte d. W he re as complainant says that physical harassme nt is happe ne d to he r. e. Complainants brothe r (LW 4), the e ye -w itne ss did not

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

5/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

e.

Complainants brothe r (LW 4), the e ye -w itne ss did not re port in CrPC-161 state me nt that additional dow ry is de mande d by A1 on the marital life joining day. W he re as complainant re porte d that additional dow ry is de mande d by A1. Furthe r submit that none of the w itne sse s from LW 2 to LW 5 support the complainants alle gation on

additional dow ry de mand. As pe r complainant and he r brothe r (LW 4) state me nts to the police did not say that he r pre gnancy is aborte d in hospital, w he re as complainant pare nts (LW 2&LW 3) says that pre gnancy is aborte d in hospital, she w as ble e ding and also said that complainant w as joine d in hospital. g. As pe r complainant at the time w he n complainant w as f. ne cke d out off house , A1 took he r gold orname nts from he r, w he re as the e ye w itne ss, i.e ., brothe r (LW 4) of the complainant state me nt did not re port such incide nt occurre nce . h. Complainant pare nts (LW 2&LW 3) say that the ir son (LW 4) purchase d house hold ite ms for Rs.70,000/w he re as the ir son (LW 4) re ports he purchase d for Rs.60,000/-. Furthe r submit that the y faile d to re ve al list i. of house hold ite ms purchase d. As pe r complainant no facility to make phone calls, w he re as complainant says in the complainant that A1 suspe cte d he r e ve n w he n she spoke n w ith he r brothe r (LW 4) is contradicts w ith he r admitte d state me nt that no phone facility to spe ak w ith he r re lative s. Furthe r submit that complainants pare nts (LW 2&LW 3) did say that complainant calle d the m on phone .

9.

Furthe r submit that none of the F.I.R, charge she e t and complainants CrPC-161 state me nt alle gations attracting se ction 498A IPC. None of the alle gations in complainants CrPC-161 state me nt are not part of the affidavit file d by complainant in M.C. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District in w hich complainant is alle ging that crue lty is one of the ground to file the pe tition. Furthe r submit that w hile complainant is de scribing the crue lty cause d by A1 in he r affidavit file d in Honble Family court, the harassme nt on house hold ite ms w e re not re porte d. Furthe r submit that in the e ntire MC. No.CCC/2009 pe tition, the re is no single alle gation made on additional dow ry de mand w hile de scribing the crue lty happe ne d to he r by A1. No re pe at of 498A case crue lty alle gations in M.C. No. CCC/2009 w hile de scribing the crue lty happe ne d to he r re ve als that the complainant alle gations are false .

10.

As pe r complainant ve rsion, she w as re stricte d to call he r re lative s during he r stay at matrimonial home . Conside ring this state me nt true , it is e vide nt that the state me nts of the w itne sse s (LW 2 to LW 5) stand no value . The possible w itne sse s could be the ne ighbors of the complainant at matrimonial home . Re sponde nt faile d to me e t the ne ighbors to re cord the ir state me nts and faile d to do inve stigation prope rly to re al the facts.

ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT SECTION 498A I.P.C: 11. The alle gations, e ve n if the y are take n at the ir face value and acce pte d in the ir e ntire ty do not prima facie constitute any offe nce unde r IPC 498-A or make out a case against the accuse d as de scribe d in the application and in support of the this ground various judgme nts from Honble Supre me Court of India are cite d for re fe re nce . The comple te de tails are as follow s: SECTION 498A IPC: Se ction 498-A of the Indian Pe nal Code re ads as unde r: Husband or re lative of husband of a w oman subje cting he r to crue lty- W hoe ve r, be ing the husband or the re lative of the husband of a w oman, subje cts such w oman to crue lty shall be punishe d w ith imprisonme nt for a te rm w hich may e xte nd to thre e ye ars and shall also be liable to fine . Explanation - For the purpose of this se ction, "crue lty" me ans

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

6/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

me ans a) Any w illful conduct w hich is of such a nature as is like ly to drive the w oman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or dange r to life , limb or he alth (w he the r me ntal or physical) of the w oman; or b) Harassme nt of the w oman w he re such harassme nt is w ith a vie w to coe rcing he r or any pe rson re late d to he r to me e t any unlaw ful de mand for any prope rty or valuable se curity or is on account of failure by he r or any pe rson re late d to he r to me e t such de mand. Unde r Explanation (a): the crue lty has to be of such gravity as is like ly to drive a w oman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or dange r to life , limb or he alth. Unde r Explanation (b): crue lty me ans harassme nt of the w oman w he re such harassme nt is w ith a vie w to coe rcing he r or any pe rson re late d to he r to me e t any unlaw ful de mand for any prope rty or valuable se curity or is on account of failure by he r or any pe rson re late d to he r to me e t such de mand. Explanation (b) doe s not make e ach and e ve ry harassme nt crue lty. The harassme nt has to be w ith a de finite obje ct, name ly to coe rce the w oman or any pe rson re late d to he r to me e t harassme nt by itse lf is not crue lty. Me re de mand for prope rty e tc. by itse lf is also not crue lty. It is only w he re harassme nt is show n to have be e n committe d for the purpose of coe rcing a w oman to me e t the de mands that it is crue lty and this is made punishable unde r the se ction. REF [1]: W hile inte rpre ting the provisions of Se ction 304-B, 498-A, 306 and 324, IPC in the de cision re porte d as State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supre me Court obse rve d that harassme nt to constitute crue lty unde r e xplanation (b) to Se ction 498-A must have ne xus w ith the de mand of dow ry and if this is missing the case w ill fall be yond the scope of Se ction 498-A, IPC. REF [2]: The me ntal crue lty is e xplaine d by the Supre me Court of India by laying the follow ing de finition of me ntal crue lty in V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs.D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710: the partie s cannot re asonably be e xpe cte d to live toge the r. The situation must be such that the w ronge d party cannot re asonably be aske d to put w ith such conduct and continue to live w ith the othe r party. REF [3]: The supre me court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2003 MANJU RAM KALITA vs. STATE OF ASSAM de cide d on 28/05/09 answ e re d the que stion in ne gative . Spe aking for the be nch his lordship honorable Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J he ld that : "Crue lty" for the purpose of Se ction 498-A I.P.C. is to be e stablishe d in the conte xt of se ction 498-A IPC as it may be a diffe re nt from othe r statutory provisions. It is to be de te rmine d / infe rre d by conside ring the conduct of the man, w e ighing the gravity or se riousne ss of his acts and to find out as to w he the r it is like ly to drive the w oman to commit suicide e tc. It is to be e stablishe d that the w oman has be e n subje cte d to crue lty continuously / pe rsiste ntly or at le ast in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Pe tty quarre ls cannot be te rme d as `crue lty' to attract the provisions of Se ction 498A IPC. Causing me ntal torture to the e xte nt that it be come s unbe arable may be te rme d as crue lty. REF [4]: In Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414, the Supre me Court w hile de aling w ith the similar issue he ld that me ntal or physical torture should be "continuously" practice d by the accuse d on the w ife . The Court furthe r

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

7/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

practice d by the accuse d on the w ife . The Court furthe r obse rve d as unde r: "W he the r one spouse has be e n guilty of crue lty to the othe r is e sse ntially a que stion of fact. The impart of complaints, accusations or taunts on a pe rson amounting to crue lty de pe nds on various factors like the se nsitivity of the individual victim conce rne d, the social background, the e nvironme nt, e ducation e tc. Furthe r, me ntal crue lty varie s from pe rson to pe rson de pe nding on the inte nsity of se nsitivity and the de gre e of courage or e ndurance to w ithstand such me ntal crue lty. In othe r w ords, e ach case has to be de cide d on its ow n facts to de cide w he the r the me ntal crue lty w as e stablishe d or not." REF [5]: In Girdhar Shankar Taw ade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078; the Supre me Court he ld that "crue lty" has to be unde rstood having a spe cific statutory me aning provide d in Se ction 498A I.P.C and the re should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to anothe r. REF [6]: Supre me Court in Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 has re fe rre d to this aspe ct of `crue lty' like this:The crue lty must be of such a characte r as to cause `dange r' to life , limb or he alth or as to give rise to a re asonable appre he nsion of such a dange r. Cle arly dange r to life , limb or he alth or a re asonable appre he nsion. REF [7]: Similar vie w w as take n by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the de cision re porte d as Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Re ce nt Criminal Re ports 53 w he re in it w as obse rve d that offe nce unde r Se ction 498-A IPC w ould not be made out if be ating give n to bride by husband and his re lations w as due to dome stic dispute s and not on account of de mand of dow ry. REF [8]: In the de cision re porte d as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar W aghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18, the Bombay High Court had obse rve d that it is not e ve ry harassme nt or e ve ry type of crue lty that w ould attract Se ction 498-A IPC. Be ating and harassme nt must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill ille gal de mands. REF [9]: It is thus cle ar from the re ading of Se ction 498-A IPC and afore -note d judicial pronounce me nts that pre -condition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Se ction 498-A IPC is the de mand and if the de mand is missing and the crue lty is for the sake of giving torture to the w ome n w ithout any ne xus w ith the de mand the n such a crue lty w ill not be cove re d unde r e xplanation (b) to Se ction 498-A, IPC. It may be a crue lty w ithin the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as he ld by the Supre me Court in the de cision re porte d as Shobha Rani v Madhukar Re ddy AIR 1998 SC 121. In said case , it w as obse rve d that crue lty unde r Se ction 498-A IPC is distinct from the crue lty unde r Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. F.I.R ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT 498A IPC: a. Eve n conside ring the alle gation that applicant (A1) use d to harass the complainant saying A1 lost an alliance of w orth Rs. 1,00,00,000/- rupe e s and also be ate n the complainant to ge t rid of he r is happe ne d to be true alle gation do not attract Se ction 498A IPC as de scribe d be low : i. As pe r CrPC-161 state me nts of complainant and w itne sse s no such incide nt occurre nce is disclose d.

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

8/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

disclose d.
ii. It is not re porte d that the physical harassme nt incide nt is re pe ate d or is e xe rcise d re pe ate dly and complainant live d w ith A1 re ve als

A1 did not fe ll dange r to life and did not re port any physical injury he nce as pe r REF [2] to REF [9] ne ithe r physical nor me ntal harassme nt happe ne d. iii. As pe r complainant pe titione r marrie d w hile A1 has offe rs be tte r than complainant alliance re ve als that pe titione r is not gre e dy of mone y. iv . As pe r complainant affidavit submitte d in the case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, says that only ill-tre atme nt is done by the accuse d and his re lative s and no physical be ating de tails are re porte d. This re ve als the dishone sty of the pe titione r in procuring the false alle gations against the applicant. b. Eve n conside ring the alle gation that applicant (A1) use d to harass the complainant to give mone y by se lling he r prope rty, is happe ne d to be true alle gation do not attract Se ction 498A IPC as de scribe d be low : i. Complaint do not disclose the kind harassme nt de tails that she w as subje cte d to, w he re as as CrPC-161 state me nt of the complainant do not say that she w as harasse d to give mone y by se lling he r prope rty. No spe cific harassme nt is disclose d e ve n afte r inve stigation. He nce it can not be said that alle gation attracts 498A IPC. Furthe r submit that to me e t the alle ge d de mand w hat kind of harassme nt is cause d by the A1 is not disclose d e ve n in the re sponde nt inve stigation re port. CrPC-161 STATEMENT ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINANT DOES NOT ATTRACT 498A IPC: c. Eve n conside ring the alle gation that applicant (A1) harasse d the complainant saying the house hold article s purchase d by the complainants brothe r (LW 4) at Bangalore are not e nough, is happe ne d to be true alle gation do not attract Se ction 498A IPC as de scribe d be low : i. Applicant aske d the complainant to join him and no de mands w e re made by the applicant. During the initial 6 months pe riod, i.e ., be fore the complainant date of joining w ith applicant at Bangalore City, no alle gations e ithe r on de mands or on harassme nt are re porte d re ve als no de mands from applicant side . ii. The nature and de tails of the harassme nt happe ne d to the complainant is not disclose d e ithe r in complaint or in re sponde nt inve stigation re port. As pe r e ye -w itne ss, i.e ., brothe r (LW 4) of complainant and the complainant pare nts CrPC161 state me nts i.e ., his pare nts (LW 3&LW 4), only taunting take n place saying house hold ite ms are le ss, no spe cific ite ms w e re de mande d he nce as pe r REF[1] alle gation do not attract se ction 498A-IPC. iii. No physical harassme nt proofs, attracting the se ction 498A IPC, are submitte d he nce as pe r REF [4] & REF [6] alle gation do not attract se ction 498A IPC. iv . Furthe r submit that complainant continue d matrimonial life w ith applicant at Bangalore re ve als complainant did not fe e l me ntal crue lty he nce as pe r REF [2] alle gation do not attract se ction 498A IPC. Furthe r submit that

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

complainant brothe r (LW 4) le ft to his native place also re ve al the re w as no dange r or thre at to

9/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

also re ve al the re w as no dange r or thre at to complainant from the applicant. v. The re is no alle gation re porte d saying that de mands w e re continue d during the complainants stay w ith the applicant he nce as pe r REF [3], REF [4] & REF [5] alle gation do not attract se ction 498A IPC. Taunting on the house hold ite ms w hich e ve n did not force the complainant le ave matrimonial house , such incide nt do not attract the se ction 498A IPC. v i. Also complainant did not alle ge that e ithe r applicant (A1) or othe r Accuse d de mande d any spe cific house hold ite ms from e ithe r complainant or from complainants brothe r (LW 4) and also faile d to re ve al the list of house hold ite ms w e re purchase d by the complainants brothe r (LW 4), re ve als the alle gation is vague in nature .
v ii. This alle gation is not pre se nt in complaint. Furthe r submit that w hile complainant de scribing the crue lty happe ne d to he r in he r affidavit submitte d in the case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not re port that this incide nt is happe ne d. This re ve als the dishone sty of the pe titione r in procuring the false alle gations against the applicant.

d.

Eve n conside ring the alle gation in charge she e t, that applicant (A1) de mande d additional dow ry at the time of dispute on house hold ite ms, is happe ne d to be true this alle gation do not attract Se ction 498A IPC as de scribe d be low :
i. Me re de mand of prope rty is not amount to crue lty as pe r e xplanation (b) of the se ction 498A IPC, he nce alle gation do not attract se ction 498A IPC. Eithe r continuous de mand or harassme nt is not re porte d to me e t the ille gal additional dow ry de mand he nce as pe r REF [3], REF [4] & REF [5] alle gation do not attract se ction 498A IPC. ii. No docume ntary e vide nce is available to show that additional dow ry is de mande d. Admitte d fact is that no dow ry is give n to applicant and making an alle gation that additional dow ry is de mande d is absurd. iii. Continuous de mand or continuous harassme nt is not re porte d and complainant continue d to live w ith applicant at Bangalore re ve als complainant did not fe e l me ntal crue lty

as pe r REF [2] he nce alle gation do not attract se ction 498A IPC. iv . This alle gation is not pre se nt in complaint. Furthe r submit that w hile complainant de scribing crue lty happe ne d to he r 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 re port that additional dow ry de mand incide nt is happe ne d. e. Eve n conside ring the alle gation in charge she e t, that applicant (A1) suspe cte d complainants characte r by saying one ye ar re quire d to ge t pre gnancy and complainant got pre gnancy in six months and force d the complainant to consume pre gnancy abortion table ts on 20th May-2008, is happe ne d to be true this alle gations do not attract Se ction 498A IPC as de scribe d be low : i. As pe r complainant ve rsion the cause of action for forcible abortion is not the dow ry de mand or additional dow ry de mand, he nce alle gation doe s not attract se ction 498A IPC as pe r REF [1].

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

10/13

4/18/2014

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

ii. As pe r complainant ve rsion applicant force d he r to abort he r pre gnancy w he re as no physical crue lty is re porte d. During the dispute also applicant did not subje cte d the complainant to any physical crue lty such that complainant re ce ive d injurie s w hich w ould attract se ction 498A IPC as pe r REF [2], REF [3], REF [4] and REF [5]. iii. The complainant is B.Sc graduate and has one ye ar w orking e xpe rie nce in me dical domain though no me dial re ports are submitte d in support of the forcible abortion provide information that alle gation is false and e ve n no

me dical re port on pre gnancy te rmination confirmation re port at Bangalore is submitte d. iv . Kukatpally police re fuse d to inve stigate the alle gation on forcible pre gnancy abortion e ve n afte r applicant re que ste d the m and re plie d saying alle gation doe s not attract 498A IPC he nce no ne e d of inve stigation. Pre gnancy abortion did not happe n at Bangalore till complainant le ft matrimonial home . Supporting docume nts are in Anne xure -P/7. v. Applicant file d criminal complaint against the complainant unde r se ctions 312 IPC, 506, 120B, 384 and 500 of IPC at Bangalore City; Honble Court in Bangalore City took the cognizance and orde re d for inve stigation. vi. Furthe r submit that w hile complainant de scribing the crue lty and harassme nt cause d by the applicant in the affidavit file d in the case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not re port that this incide nt is happe ne d. Eve n conside ring the alle gation in charge she e t, that applicant (A1) and his brothe r-in-law (A3) ne cke d out the complainant out off matrimonial home , is happe ne d to be true as pe r REF [1] alle gation do not attract se ction 498A IPC be ing this incide nt happe ne d not to me e t dow ry de mands by the complainant. No physical injurie s re porte d and the incide nt did not cre ate dange r to complainant life he nce as pe r REF [3], REF [4] and REF [5] incide nt do not attract se ction 498A IPC. Furthe r submit that as pe r complainant brothe r (LW 4) CrPC-161 state me nt he is the e ye -w itne ss of the incide nt but he did not say that complainant gold orname nts w e re take n from he r by A1. Furthe r submit that police did not re giste r the case unde r applicable se ctions for this alle gation. Furthe r submit that complainant admitte d ve rsion in he r affidavit in MC. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Honble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, says applicant w as physically not pre se nt at the time complainant w as le aving the matrimonial home and also said that e ve n on phone applicant w as not available re ve als that this incide nt occurre nce is not possible . 12. Furthe r submit that alle gations in FIR and in charge she e t are vague in nature w ith out disclosing information de tails like place and date of harassme nt occurre nce to the complainant and nature of the harassme nt is cause d to complainant by the accuse d. De tails of vague ne ss of the alle gations is as be low : Alle gation Complainant w as harasse d saying house hold ite ms purchase d are not e nough. Additional dow ry is Vague ne ss Inve stigation doe s not re al how , w he n, by w hom harassme nt is done by the accuse d. Also inve stigation do not disclose w hich house hold ite ms w e re purchase d by the complainant brothe r and w hat is the de mand of the accuse d No de tails on how much dow ry that accuse d de mande d. No spe cific dow ry de mands from

f.

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

11/13

4/18/2014

dow ry is de mande d

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

de mande d. No spe cific dow ry de mands from accuse d are re ve ale d.

A1 publicize d saying complainant is carrying thre e months pre gnancy. In-law s advise d A1 to harass complainant on phone . No de tails from w hich numbe r in-law s calle d A1 and upon re ce iving phone call w hat kind of harassme nt happe ne d is done by A1. No de tails of this alle gation in the inve stigation like w ith w hom and w he n it has be e n publicize d by the A1.

13.

Re sponde nt re fuse d to re cord the state me nts of ne ighbors, w ith w hom most of the time complainant spe nd time by going to marriage partie s, birthday partie s, shopping and by playing w ith the ir childre n at Bangalore City and faile d to re cord the doctors state me nt did the abortion to the complainant and faile d to colle ct the pre gnancy re late d docume nts from hospital in Bangalore City. Furthe r submit that de spite re sponde nt faile d to colle ct the te le phone calls list of A4 & A5 in support of complainant alle gations charge she e t is file d on in-law s inve stigation faile d to bring the facts on re cord. and imprope r

14.

Furthe r submit that the alle gations in the charge she e t are ne w and diffe re nt from complaint alle gations and the se ne w alle gations w e re not communicate d to the accuse d to de fe nd by the accuse d by producing supporting e vide nce s w hich provide information that said alle gations are false . Imprope r inve stigation is le ading the accuse d to face the malicious criminal case trail in this Honble court. Applicant made complaint to the Commissione r of Police , Cybe rabad about the imprope r inve stigation and re que ste d to colle ct docume ntary e vide nce s from Bangalore City that provide s information that alle ge d alle gations are false . De puty Commissione r of Police re plie d by saying that the docume ntary e vide nce s submitte d by the applicant alre ady provide information that said alle gations are false . The re ply, unde r Right To Information Act, from the ANNEXURED in the pe tition. De puty Commissione r of Police is

In the above said circumstance s Honble court may be ple ase d to discharge of applicant (A1) from the case CC. No. BBB/2008 in the inte re st of justice and to se cure e nds of justice . Date : Place : Counse l for pe titione r: Applicant/Pe titione r

Posted about a year ago

what was the out come/result??? varadg

nil [ Scorecard : 50]

Posted about a year ago

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

12/13

4/18/2014
Member (Account Deleted)
Leader [ Scorecard : 235]

Discahrge U/s 239 CrPC, written arguments

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

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 files are ow ned by contributors.

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

13/13