1
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE J.M.F.C. SHRI P.S. KULKARNI SAHEB, DAUND COURT AT DAUND, DISTPUNE [MAHARASHTRA STATE] R.C.C. NO. OF 200 IN C.C. NO. OF 200. ………………..Complainant V/s Accused.
APPLICATION U/S 245 OF CR.P.C. GROUNDS 1) Due to change in circumstances’ the accused constrain to file present application u/s 245 of Cr.P.C. for discharge, Humbly submits the Accused 2 to 4 in CC. No170 OF 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble Court. The Accused further, submit that, the charge sheet filed by the complainant i.e. State of Maharashtra through I.O. of Daund Police station and the proceedings IN RCC No. 380 of 2010 that the file of this Hon’ble Court is abusing the process of law by not complying with the Criminal Procedure Codes and accused No.1 to 4 are liable to be discharged from the case.
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."
JURISDTION POINT OF VIEW
2
a) As per charge sheet alleged allegations have taken place at Pune City. No part of the allegation taken place in this Hon’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 accused is liable to be discharged from the case. On the sole ground of juridction. b) Applicant put reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India available in ANNEXURE-P/1 in support of this ground. c) Complainant i.e. State of Maharashtra through I.O. of Daund Police station furnished the false information as part of charge sheet U/s 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. In Para-4, has stated in her FIR dated 6.10.2010 filed at 14.00 pm at Daund police Station that :--“ mauL ifyaa-dI isamaa A gaayakvaaD
yaanaI
daOnD
paolaIsa
sToSanamaQyao
ik`.p`ao.kaoD 154 p`maanao tk`ar naaodvalaI %yaatIla…… efAayaAar poja k` 1 prICod 4 AaoL naM 6 va 7
maQyao ilahuna idlao Aaho kI tarIK 4.10.2010
raojaI ra~I 10 vaajata\ cao saumaarasa vaotaLnagar daOND yaqao maaJao Aa%yaacao GarI maaJaa navara AiSaYa hrIScad` gaayakvaaD gaayakvaaD
saasau saaO ]Yaa hrIScad`
saasaro hrIScad` iksanarava gaayakvaaD
tsaoca nanad iSatla
hrIScad`
gaayakvaaD
sava-
rahnaar ivaSaala nagar jagatap DoArI puNao 27 ho Aalao %yaavaoLI maaJaI Aa%yaa laIlaavatI nanavaro yaaMnaI %yaacao svaagat kolao %yaavaoLI to malaa mhNaalao Aamhalaa fukTcao svaagat nakao tIna laaK $pyao tyaar AsatIla tr AamhI tulaa baraobar nao] Asao to malaa mhnaalao %yaavaoLI maI %yaanaa pOsao donyaacaI maaJao Aa%yaacaI eOpt naahI tumhI
3
basaa maulaIlaa pha maI svayapak paaNaI krto Asao maI
%yaanaa
mhNaaloa
Asata
%yaanaI
caaOGaanaIhI malaa iSavaIgaaL k$na hataanao va laaqaabaukanaI maarhaNa kolaI %yaavaoLI maaJaI Aa %yaa laIlaavatI nanavaro va Aamacao AaoLKaIcao p`ivaNa prdoSaI yaaMnaI saaoDvaa saaoDva kolaI va %yaanaa samajaavauna saaganyaacaa p`ya%na kolaa prtu to malaa mhanaalao tuJaa Aamacaa\\ kahI saMbaQa naahI tulaa AamhI naadvaNaar naahI Asao mhNauna maulaIlaa na pahta inaGaUna gaolao. by saying the offence U/s 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC., happened at original complainant residence place at Vetal Nagar,At.& Po-Daund, Taluka-Daund, Dist-Pune on 4th October 2010 at 20.00 pm. subsequent
Para(s)
of
the
whereas the details in
charge
sheet
reveals
that
complainant matrimonial home is Pune City. No part of the alleged offence taken place at Vetal Nagar, Taluka-Daund Dist-Pune U/s 498A, 323, 504
r/w 34 of IPC.
Territorial
jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Court Mr. P.S. Kulkarni has verified all documents perused by the IO of Daund Police Station and came to the conclusion that, the Charges sheet filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. by the IO of Daund Police Station on behalf of State of Maharashtra against the accused u/s 323, 504 r/w 34 are false & groundless and accordingly accused No.1 to 4 discharged by the order dated 26th September 2014 bearing Ex. 82 and 87. ……. Copy of orders are annexed and marked as at Ex.A. D]
The original Complainant stated in her FIR dated 6.10.2010
that, :-“”” tarIK 14.2.2009 raojaI maaJao lagna AiSaYa
hrIScad` gaayakvaaD
yaacao baraobar hIndu Qama-
rItI irvaajaa p`maaNao
yaaogya tao maanapana
dovauna maaJaI Aa%yaa EaImatI ilalaavatI baabaurava
4
nanaavaro rahnaar vaotaL nagar taluka daOND ijalha pUnao yaanaI rajya raKIva paolaIsa bala gaT k` 5 maQaIla magalamautI- hyaa kayaa-layaamaQyao k$na idlao lagnaanatr maI maaJao saasarI puNao yaoqao naadavayaasa gaolao saumaaro ek mahInaa %yaanaI malaa vyavasqaIt naadvalao %yaanatr navara AiSaYa hrIScad` gaayakvaaD gaayakvaaD
saasau saaO ]Yaa hrIScad`
saasaro hrIScad` iksanarava gaayakvaaD
tsaoca nanad iSatla
hrIScad` gaayakvaaD
yaaMnaI
malaa tuJao Aa%yaanao lagna vyavasqaIt k$na idlao naahI lagnaamaQyao p`apcaIk saamaana idlao naahI Asao mhNauna iSacaIgaaL va maarhaaNa k$lna ~aasa dovau laagalao tsaoca tulaa maula haoNaar naahI ek vaYaa-cao Aat maula Jaalao naahI tr tulaa saaoDuna dovau Asao mh\Nauna maaJaa CL k$ laagalao %yaa natr malaa idvasa gaolao %yaanatr tulaa maulagaa Jaalaa pa\hIjao tsaoca kaPyauTr vyavasaaya vaaZvanao saaZI maahorahuna tIna laaK $pyao Gaovauna yao Asao
mhNauna
laagalao
tsaoca
tasaoca
malaa
saasarkDIla malaa maaJaI
to
laaOk ]paSaI
Aa%yaa
~aasa TovaU
EaImatI
dovau
laagalao ilalaavatI
baabaurava nanaavaro rahnaar vaotaL nagar taluaka daOND ijalha pUnao yaacao baraobar sapk- saaQauna idlaa naahI……SaovaTcaa prICod trI tarIK 14.2.2009 raojaI
lagna
Jaalaovar
sumaaro
ek
mahInyaanatr
ivaSaala nagar jagatap DoArI punao 27 yaoqao vaoLaovaoLI naadto kalaavaQaimaQyao the State of Maharashtra through I.O. of
Daund Police Station, 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
5
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India available in ANNEXURE-P/2 in support of this ground. Hence Accused requests this Hon’ble Court to consider the jurisdiction ground to discharge the Accused from the above said case proceedings. e) Accused Further submit that the Accused No.2 and 3 are Senior citizen of India, and having their own house at Pune, Accused No.2 is retired from service due to superannuation from V.S.N.L. as Sr. Officer and Accused No.3 is not keeping good health due to old age
women, Accused No.4 is residing at
Bombay with her In law and working with WIPRO Company.. This would result in great inconvenience in attending the court hearings in the place of Daund which is about 130 Kms. Distance from their residence to the Daund Court and about 400 Kms from Bombay to Daund Court that would result in miss carriage of justice to the Accused.. f) The State of Maharashtra through I.O. of Daund Police Station failed to investigate the complaint at the alleged allegations taken place i.e., Pune City. Police did not even visit the matrimonial place i.e., Pune City even at a single time and completed the investigation at Daund and filed the charge sheet in this Hon’ble Court. Investigation conducted on FIR. No. 170 of 2010 does not comply with the Criminal Procedure Codes. Proof for no investigation at crime place is enclosed.. The investigation seems to be completed by the State of Maharashtra through I.O. of Daund Police Station within one hrs. The documents perused by the IO clearly indicates that, the FIR registered at 02.00 pm, statements u/s 161 recorded between 02.00 to 03.00pm and Panchanama and etc completed between 03.30pm in the police station itself.
6
g) 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, concocted, malicious, malafide & filed with oblique motive to grab money and property from the accused. h] The Accused further submit that the State of Maharashtra through I.O. of Daund Police Station,
continued investigation
and filed the charge sheet contains completely different and with new allegations to that of the FIR without having any supporting 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 Vetal Nagar, Daund Taluka. None 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 the accused are liable to be discharged u/s 498a of IPC. 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 of CR.P.C., 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”. Section 245 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973245 reads as under :-.
7
When accused shall be discharged. (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. :- THE ACCUSED RELIANCE ON …. 1. Delhi High Court CRL.M.C. 7262/2006…. Vague allegation made in the complaint by the complainant against every member of the family of husband, cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and allegation have to be scrutinized carefully by the court before framing charge. In this particular case, the allegations are not specific and it is sadly vague allegation. 2. SC of India, held in Cr. Appeal No. 6374 of 2010 held that, at the time framing a charge, the court must apply its judicial mind. 3. The SC of India held in AIR 1977 SCR [3] 113 held that, framing of charge affects a person liberty substantially and therefore, it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether material warrants the framing of the charge, it cannot blindly accept the decision of prosecution that the accused to face a trial. 4. The SC of India held in the case of Satish Mehara v/s Delhi Administration, that, the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge has the undoubted power to sift and weight the evidences of finding out whether prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Further held that, the object of
8
providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the code is to enable the court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there, it gains a lot of time of the court and save much human efforts and cost. Further held that, If the material produced by the Accused even at the early stage would clinch the issue why should the court shut it out saying that, such documents need be produced only after wasting lot more time in the name of trial proceeding 5. The SC of India held in the case of Union of India v/s Pragull Kumar Samal that, the Trial Judge who has first to examine the case on the basis of statements of witness recorded by the police and the documents filed with a view to find out whether a prima facia case for trial has been made and then to proceed to try the same.
6. Hon. Justice P. Swaroop Reddy held in Cr. Petition No. 6642 of 2007 that, when the allegations are not very specific and prima facie do not inspire confidence. Case deserved to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
CONTRADTIONS ON THE ALLEGATIONS/STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 161 OF CR.P.C. AT DAUND POLICE STATION
1…..maUL ifyaa-dI isamaa A gaayakvaaD yaanaI daOnD paolaIsa sToSanamaQyao ik`.p`ao.kaoD 154 p`maanao tk`ar naaodvalaI %yaatIla…… efAayaAar poja k` 1 prICod 4 AaoL naM 6 va 7 maQyao ilahuna idlao Aaho kI tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 10 vaajata\ cao
9
saumaarasa vaotaLnagar daOND yaqao maaJao Aa%yaacao GarI maaJaa navara AiSaYa hrIScad` gaayakvaaD saaO
]Yaa
hrIScad`
gaayakvaaD
saasaro
iksanarava gaayakvaaD tsaoca nanad iSatla
saasau hrIScad` hrIScad`
gaayakvaaD sava- rahnaar ivaSaala nagar jagatap DoArI puNao 27 ho Aalao %yaavaoLI maaJaI Aa%yaa laIlaavatI nanavaro yaaMnaI %yaacao svaagat kolao %yaavaoLI to malaa mhNaalao Aamhalaa fukTcao svaagat nakao tIna laaK $pyao tyaar AsatIla tr AamhI tulaa baraobar nao] Asao to malaa mhnaalao %yaavaoLI maI %yaanaa pOsao donyaacaI maaJao Aa%yaacaI eOpt naahI tumhI basaa maulaIlaa pha maI svayapak paaNaI krto Asao maI %yaanaa mhNaaloa Asata %yaanaI caaOGaanaIhI malaa iSavaIgaaL k$na hataanao va laaqaabaukanaI maarhaNa
kolaI
%yaavaoLI
maaJaI
Aa%yaa
laIlaavatI
nanavaro va Aamacao AaoLKaIcao p`ivaNa prdoSaI yaaMnaI saaoDvaa
saaoDva
kolaI
va
%yaanaa
samajaavauna
saaganyaacaa p`ya%na kolaa prtu to malaa mhanaalao tuJaa Aamacaa\\ kahI saMbaQa naahI tulaa AamhI naadvaNaar naahI Asao mhNauna maulaIlaa na pahta inaGaUna gaolao.
2…..mauL ifyaa-dIcyaa vatInao saaxaIdar r@tacao naato Asalaolao laIlaavatI nanavaro yaacaa jabaaba yaanaI %yaacao jabaabaamaQyao il\ahuna idlao Aaho kI, to %yaacaI daona maulao naamao EaInaaqa maainak nanavaro va EaIkYNa maainak nanavaro yaacao baraobar vaotaLnagar yaoqao rhanaosa Aaho tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 10 vaajata\
cao saumaarasa vaotaLnagar daOND yaqao maaJao GarI isamaacaa navara AiSaYa hrIScad` gaayakvaaD saasau saaO ]Yaa hrIScad` gaayakvaaD
saasaro
hrIScad` iksanarava gaayakvaaD tsaoca nanad iSatla hrIScad` gaayakvaaD sava- rahnaar ivaSaala nagar jagatap DoArI puNao 27 ho Aalao caaOGaanaIhI itlaa
10
iSavaIgaaL maarhaNa
k$na kolaI
hataanao %yaavaoLI
va
laaqaabaukanaI
maI
svat
saaoDvaa
saaoDva kolaI…hyaa maQyao p`vaINa prdoSaI yaacaa kahI hI ]llaoK naahI mhNajao ASaI kahI GaTnaa GaDlaolaI naahI. puZo p`Sna Asaa Aaho kI to daona maulaabaraobar rahtat tr daonhI maulao tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 10 vaajata koazoo haotI.
3…….mauL ifyaa-dIcyaa vatInao saaxaIdar r@tacao naato Asalaolao EaInaaqa maaiNak nanavaro yaacaa jabaaba
tarIK
6.10.2010
naaodvanyaat
Aalaa
%yaatIla
SaovaTcaa prICod id 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 10 vaajataa…. SaovaTuna 4 qaI AaoL… maarhaNa kolaI va %yaanatr AamhI BaaDNao saaoDvalaI va to sava- inaGauna gaolao….ifyaa-dIcyaa
mhNanyaanausaar
maaJaI
Aa%yaa
laIlaavatI nanavaro va Aamacao AaoLKaIcao p`ivaNa prdoSaI yaaMnaI saaoDvaa saaoDva kolaI va %yaanaa samajaavauna saaganyaacaa
p`ya%na
kolaa
hyaa
maQyao
EaInaaqa
nanavaro yaacao naavacaa kaoTo ih ksalaa hI ]llaoK naahI…. mhNajao tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 10 vaajata daOnD yaoqao ASaI kahI GaTnaa GaDlaolaI naahI
4……mauL
ifyaa-dIcyaa
vatInao
saaxaIdar
EaI
p`ivaNa maaiNaklaala prdoSaI- daOND nagar prIYadocao nagarsaovak rahnaar iSavaajaI caaOk, yaacaa jabaaba tarI\K 6.10.2010 daOND paOlaIsa kayaa-layaat naaodvanyaat Aalaa poja naM 2 SaovaTcaa prICod phIlaI AaoL…… idnaaMk 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~aI 10 vaajata maaaJaa ima~ EaIkYNa maaiNak nanavaro ho maaJao GarI Aalao va malaa saaigatlao kI isamaacao saasau saasaraa navara va nanad vaotaL nagar yaoqao Aalao Aahot va %yaanaI 3 laaK $pyaacaI maagaNaI kolaI ….tumhI taabaDtaoba calaa Asao mhNaalao natr maI jaavauna pahIlao Asataa isamaalaa AaraopaI laaqaa bau@yaanaI
11
maarhaNa krt haoto va %yaavaoLI maI scat saaoDvaa saaoDva kolaI…….hyaa maQyao prdoSaI yaanaI kaoTohI isamaacyaa Aa%yaanao va maI saaoDvaa saaoDva kolaI Asao mhNat naahI.AaiNa ifyaa-dIcyaa mhNanyaanausaaar prdoSaI Agaaodr paasaunaca itcao GarI haoto. mhNajao ASaI kahI GaTnaa GaDlaolaI naahI
5……mauL ifyaa-dIcyaa vatInao saaxaIdar r@tacao naato Asalaolao EaI ABaya rivad` gaaOD ifyaa-dIcaa maamaa
yaacaa
jabaaba
tarIK
6.10.2010
raojaI
naaodvanyaat Aalaa %yaatIla po\ja 2 prICod 2 ..idnaak 4.10.2010
raojaI
ra~aI 10
vaajataa
maaJaa
ima~
EaInaaqa yaacaa faona Aalaa kI isamaacao saasau saasaro navara va nanad ho vaotaL nagar yaoqao Aalao va %yaanaI tIna laaK $pyaacaI maagaNaI kolaI tovha tu yao natr maI toqao jaavauna pahIlao Asata isamaalaa itcao saasarkDcao laaok laaqaa bau@yaanaI maarhaNa
krt
haoto.
%yaavaoLI
maI
va
p`ivaNa
prdoSaI yaanaI saaoDvaa saaoDva kolaI. ifyaa-dIcyaa jabaabaa p`maanao va efAayaAar p`maanao EaI ABaya rivad` gaaOD yaacaa maarhaNa saaoDvanyaa saazI gaaOD yaacaa
kaozo
hI
]llaoK
naahI,
prdoSaI
yaacao
jabaabaamaQyao va ifyaa-dIcaI Aa%yaa yaacao jabaabaa maQyao
gaaOD
yaacaa
kaozohI
ksalaahI
]llaoK
naahI.
mhNajao tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 10 vaajata daOnD yaoqao ASaI kahI GaTnaa GaDlaolaI naahI
6…….mauL ifyaa-dIcyaa vatInao saaxaIdar r@tacao naato
Asalaolao EaI saunaIla ramadasa sauya-vaSaI
yaacaa jabaaba tarIK 6.10.2010 pahta %yaanaI jabaaba naaodvalaolaa Aaho kI ifyaa-dI naamao isamaa hInao malaa faona k$na saaigatlao kI tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI isamaacyaa
saasarkDIla
laaokanaI
vaotaL
nagar
yaoqao jaa]na maarhaNa kolaI Asao %yaanaa EaInaaqa
12
nanavaro yaanaI saaigatlao….. mhNajao tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 10 vaajata daOnD yaoqao
ASaI kahI GaTnaa
GaDlaolaI naahI.
7……..mauL ifyaa-dIcyaa vatInao saaxaIdar r@tacao naato Asalaolao EaI manaaohr baapu saaLuKo
yaacaa
jabaaba daOND paaolaIsa kaayaa-lalyaat naaoadvanyaat Aalaa tarIK 6.10.2010 caa paahtaa poja naM 2 phIlaa prICod idnaak 4.10.2010 raojaI ra~I 11.30 vaajata isamaacyaa Aa%yaanao malaa faoNa k$na kLivalao kI ra~I 10.00 vaajata isamaacao saasau saasaro nanad vaotaL nagar yaoqao Aalao haoto va %yaanaI isamaasa maarhaNa kolaI va tIna laaK $pyao maaigatlao.. Remaining all other allegation are the carbon copy of the FIR .
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND CR.P.C. PROVISION BY THE IO OF DAUND POLICE STATION :The State of Maharashtra through I.O. of Daund Police Station has called accused No.3 and 4 who are ladies
for recording their
statements . Rather than recording the statement, he has removed the gold ornaments of senior citizen lady of Accused No.3 and put her in the police custody without medical examination and without lady police constable. The State of Maharashtra through I.O. of Daund Police Station has to explain the necessity to arrest the accused and putting them in the police custody, without investing the facts of the case thoroughly and scrupulously, thereby the IO of Daund Police Station has violated Constitutional Provision and misused his powers, rights, authorities as a public Servant .
ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT SECTION 498A IPC
13
Indian Penal Code - Section 498A, IPC ….Introduced in the Penal Code by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983 ..(Act No. 46 of 1983) 498A. 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 purposes 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. I.
Analysis of the section shows that this law deals with four types of cruelty:
II.
Any conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide,
III.
Any conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the life, limb or health of the woman,
iv
Harassment with the purpose of forcing the woman or her relatives to give some Property,.or ……..Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to yield to the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is a criminal offence. It is a cognizable,
a) Even considering the allegation that, tuJao Aa%yaanao lagna
vyavasqaIt k$na idlao naahI lagnaamaQyao p`apcaIk saamaana idlao naahI Asao mhNauna iSacaIgaaL va maarhaaNa k$lna ~aasa dovau laagalao
in the charge
14
sheet, or FIR or in the statement of original complainant, is happened to be true allegation [ THOUGH THE ALLEGATION IS TOTALLY
FALSE,
CONCOCTED,
FRIVILOUS,
UNTRUE
&
DISHONEST ] do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below: i)
The original complainant filed an criminal misc. application bearing No. 271 of 2010 before the Hon’ble J.M.F.C. at Daund under section 18,19,20,21,22 of DV Act, where she has contended and made same to same and identical allegation against all the accused as per FIR No. 170 of 2010 or RCC No. 380 of 2010. The Orliginal complainant deposed and admitted before the Court that, Aamacao lagna vyavasqaIt par pDlao %yaat doNao GaoNao Asao vyavahaar Jaalao naahI lagna Jaalao natr sa %yanaarayanaacaI pujaa Jaalao natr maI maahorI Aalao…. ha
majakur
Aaroapp~`at
naahI……The
original
complainant further deposed, admitted and contended before JMFC that, jyaa idvaSaI maI efAayaAar naaodvalaa %yaaavaoLI maI maaJaI Aa%yaa laIlaavatI nanavaro va daOnD nagarprIYadocao nagarsaovak EaI p`ivaNa prdoSaI maaJao baraobar haoto./ Thus no demands were made by the accused considering that, the original complainant is belonging from poor family and almost orphan. The Original
Complainant
has
incurred
expenses
for
marriage a sum of Rs.39,140.00,. Firish list Sr.No.23 to 25 cash memos/bills are attached by the IO with Charge sheet.
On the other hand, the Accused has incurred
marriage expenses more than eight lakh rupees i.e. Gold Ornaments for Rs.4,00,000/--, Reception, transport, cloths and etc Rs.4,00,000/-- and the Original complainant has received maintenance more than Rs. 2,40,00/-- from
15
Dec.2010 till March 2015 from the Accused which is 5 time more than the expenses incurred for marriage by the Original Complainant. Charges framed by this Hon’ble Court on 13.02.2015 u/s 498a and 323 of IPC bearing Ex. 102 do not disclose any offence, and clearly shows the dishonesty of the original complainant and IO of Daund Police Station.
Accused further state that, the Remand
Report filed by the IO with Charge sheet, clearly shows that, the IO of Daund Police Station was full of drunk with alcohol as he was presuming that, he will get good amount from the accused,
Mr. R.S. Mane has demanded Rs.two
lakh for withdrawing FIR on 13.10.2010, when he has arrested the accused and put them in the police Custody. The Remand report shows, that, the accused were arrested on 13.10.2010 but the IO has asked police custody for 15 days from 14.10.2010.
This shows dishonesty of IO and
misuse of powers, rights and authority as public Service., The FIR registered under the pressure of the local political leader Mr. Praveen Pardeshi and State of Maharashtra through the IO of Daund Police Station has filed false, frivolous, dishonest, charge sheet under the pressure of local political leader Mr. Praveen Pardeshi. Therefore allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. The Dist Court of Pune has categorically observed in the case No. CR. Misc. Application No.278 of 2013 that, the accused are involved in a false criminal case by the complainant,
& Mr. Praveen
Pardeshi has influenced the Daund Police Station.
This
observation is quite sufficient to discharge the accused, considering the charges are groundless and made with oblique motive to grab money and property from the accused persons.
16
ii)
The nature of harassment happened to the complainant is not disclosed by the complainant and by the police investigation report. As which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by them is neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet. Thus the allegation are sadly vague kaona%yaa AaroapInao kaya iSavyaa idlyaa kaonaI ksao kovha kazoo maarlao yaacaa kahaI hI ]llaoK naahI. ~asa idlaa mhnajao kaya kolao yaacaa kahI hI ] llaoK naahI.
Cr PC-161 statements, only taunting taken
place on the house hold items saying house hold items are not given no specific items were demanded hence allegation do not attract section 498A and 323 IPC. The charges framed by the Hon’ble Court on 13.02.2015 bearing Ex. No.102
do not disclose any specific offence, also to that,
the accused has filed an application bearing Ex.No.99 clearly stating that, the charges can be framed under protest, as accused Honor & Respect the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, who has passed order in Cr. Revision Application No. 408 of 2012 that, the original complainant shall be cross examined.
the Hon’ble Court approved the
request of the accused. Accused further state that, the APP and the Original complainant has filed an application bearing Ex. 107 and 108 stating that, charges should not be framed against the accused.
This itself shows the
contradiction and intention of the Original complainant and the IO of their dishonesty and doing perjury, which causes wastes of Govt. money, wastage of Courts valuable time and Harassment to the accused for grab of money and property. Thus
THE
ALLEATIONS
ARE
TOTALLY
FALSE,
CONCOCTED, FRIVILOUS AND DISHONEST. AND FIR
17
REGISTERED WITH OBLIQUE MOTIVE TO EXTRACT MONEY AND PROPERTY FROM THE IN LAWS. iii)
No physical harassment incidents are reported any where hence allegation do not attract section 498A IPC.. The original complainant deposed, admitted and contended before JMFC Daund Court in the Criminal Misc. Application filed u/s 12 18 19 20 21 22 of Domestic Violence Act-2005 that maI 498A cyaa kosa iSavaaya dusarI kaonatIhI kosa kolaI naahI…. tarIK 28.03.2010 raoajI maaJao Aa%yaanao saasayaasa faona kolaa haota va maI tarIK 29.03.2010 raojaI prIxaokrta maahrI Aalao….. sadr ifyaa-dI maahorI jaatanaa
55
ga`^macao
saaonyaacao
maaozo
magaLsau~ 15 ga`^macao lahana magaLsau~ 18 ga^ma saaonyaacaa har 70 ga`^ma saaonyaacyaa baagaDyaa va raoK r@kma $pyao 10 hjaar naolao punha laIlaavatI nanavaro yaanaI maaho eip`la va AagaYT 2010 maQyao $pyao
15000.00
p`maaNao
dvaaKanyaa
krta
va
prIxaokrta naolao prtU sadr ifyaa-dInao lagnaamaQyao 30 to 40 hjaar $pyao Kca- kolaa ASaI ibalao daKla Asao. kovaL mauL ifyaa-dI garIba va Anaaqa Aahot mhNauna saamaaijak baaQaIlakI mhNauna %yaanaa AaraopInaI savaao-taoprI madt kolaI pNa %yaacao caagaulapanaacaa gaOrfayada sadr ifyaa-dInao Gaotlaa. Thus it is clear that, the relation between the original complainant and the accused
were
cordial
till
29.03.2010,
the
Original
complainant came to her maternal home on 29.03.2010 till 6.10.2010 there was no any dispute between the original complainant and the accused Hence, it is very clear that, there was criminal conspiracy between the IO Mr. R.S. Mane of Daund Police Station, Corporator of Daund Nagar Parishad Mr. Praveen Pardeshi, Aunt of the Original complainant Mrs. Lilavati Nanaware and the Original
18
complainant to exact money and property from the accused. Hence allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. And 323 of
IPC.
THE
ALLEATIONS
ARE
TOTALLY
FALSE,
CONCOCTED, FRIVILOUS AND DISHONEST. AND FIR REGISTERED WITH OBLIQUE MOTIVE TO EXTRACT MONEY AND PROPERTY FROM THE IN LAWS.
iv)
The Original complainant further alleged that, tsaoca
tulaa maula haoNaar
naahI
ek vaYaa-cao Aat
maula Jaalao naahI tr tulaa saaoDuna dovau Asao mh\Nauna maaJaa CL k$ laagalao %yaa natr malaa idvasa gaolao %yaanatr tulaa maulagaa Jaalaa pa\hIjao tsaoca kaPyauTr vyavasaaya vaaZvanao saaZI maahorahuna tIna laaK $pyao Gaovauna yao Asao mhNauna saasarkDIla laaOk ~aasa dovau laagalao tsaoca malaa to ]paSaI TovaU laagalao tasaoca malaa maaJaI Aa%yaa EaImatI ilalaavatI baabaurava
nanaavaro
rahnaar
vaotaL
nagar
taluka daOND ijalha pUnao yaacao baraobar sapksaaQauna idlaa naahI … There is no allegations reported saying that demands were continued during the complainant’s
stay
with
the
accused
the
state
of
Maharashtra through the IO of Daund Police Station has not investigated the facts, whether the allegation is really true and correct. He has not visited the cyber café maintained by the accused No.1. The IO has not seen when the accused approached to the Police Commissioner of Pune to obtained License to run the business of cyber café, how many computers are in the shop. As accused submit that, there was 10 computers in the shop and shop is purchased at the cost of the Accused No.2 who was drawing handsome
19
salary being working as a class I officer in the reputed company of VSNL. Thus 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.
maUlagaa Jaalaa pahIjao
vagaOro sava- inaraQaar Aaraop Aahot va maUlaIcaa vaapr
saasarkDIla
laaokaakDUna
pOsaa
va
imaLkt
imaLvanyaacaa ha KTaTaop sadr ifyaa-dIkDuna caalau Thus
Aaho.
do
not
attract
the
section
498A.
The
complainant in making false allegations and habitual to talk lie and make false allegation shows fraud and cheating nature.
THE
ALLEATIONS
ARE
TOTALLY
FALSE,
CONCOCTED, FRIVILOUS AND DISHONEST. AND FIR REGISTERED WITH OBLIQUE MOTIVE TO EXTRACT MONEY AND PROPERTY FROM THE IN LAWS.
V]
Further submit that while original complainant
describing the harassment caused by the accused in case MC. No.271 of 2010 on the file of Hon’ble J.M.F.Court, at Daund , The JMFC Daund Court delivered the judgment on 3 rd February 2012 clearly recorded observation that, Aja-darakDo %yaacao baaolanyaa iSavaaya va Ajaa-iSavaaya kahI hI naahI. puzo poja na.11 prICod 14 maQyao inarIxana naaodvalao Aaho kI tarIK 4.10.2010 raojaI jaaba donaar ho Aja-dar
daOnD
%yaacaokDuna CLvanaUk
yaoqao Aja-darasa
kolyaacao
rhat
Asatanaa
maanaisak
kagadaop~I
ikvaa
puravao
puravyaa huna idsauna yaot naahI.
yaovauna va
SaarIrIk saaxaI
This reveals the
dishonesty of the original complainant and IO of Daund Police Station in procuring the false allegations against the accused. Thus the allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC . For preventing abuse of court and law the RCC No.380 of 2010
20
pending before this Hon’ble Court deserve to be withdrawn or quashed or the accused to be discharged being allegation are groundless.
THE
CONCOCTED,
ALLEATIONS
FRIVILOUS
AND
ARE
TOTALLY
DISHONEST.
FALSE,
AND
FIR
REGISTERED WITH OBLIQUE MOTIVE TO EXTRACT MONEY AND PROPERTY FROM THE IN LAWS.
vi] The Original Complainant has filed complaint under D.V. Act – 2005 u/s 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 on 27 th December 2010 before the JMFC Court at Daund. The complainant has stated in her application under Para 12 in page No.3 that, the Accused No.2, 3 and 4 earns more than 1.50 lakh rupees per month on account of salary and rent from the properties self acquired by accused No, 2,3,and 4 respectively.
The Original complainant further
stated that, and produced documentary evidences before JMFC Daund Court bearing Ex. No. 19 to 23 that, Accused No.2 has his own bungalow at Vishal Nagar, Jagtap Dairy, Pune. Accused No.4 has a flat at Neeta Park, Vishal Nagar, Jagtap dairy, Pune and accused No.3 has a flat and shop at Mahalaxmi Complex and Avenue Alpine Housing Society at Vishal Nagar, Jagtap dairy, Pune
Original Complainant has herself contradicted her
contentions made in the complaint stating that,
the accused
persons demanding Rs. 3,00,000/-- from her for enhancing business of cyber cafe , where as the original complainant stated that, the accused No.2 3 and 4 have huge properties and good amount of source of income. The Original complainant demanded independent flat at her maternal home at Daund and demanded Rs.two lakh and Rs. Fifteen thousand as maintenance. sadr ifyaa-dInao kaoTa-puzo maanya va kbaUla kolao kI maI maaJao maaganaImaQyao daOnD yaoqao rhanyaacaI maaganaI kolaI Aaho va maaJaI daOnD yaoqao rhanyaacaI [cCa Aaho. This
21
reveals the dishonesty of the original complainant and IO of Daund Police Station in procuring the false allegations against the accused. Thus the allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC . For preventing abuse of court and law the RCC No.380 of 2010 pending before this Hon’ble Court deserve to be withdrawn or quashed or the accused to be discharged being allegation are groundless. CONCOCTED,
THE
ALLEATIONS
FRIVILOUS
ARE
AND
TOTALLY
DISHONEST.
FALSE,
AND
FIR
REGISTERED WITH OBLIQUE MOTIVE TO EXTRACT MONEY AND PROPERTY FROM THE IN LAWS.
ADDITIONS MADE AFTER THOUGHTS IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 161 OF Cr.P.C. The Original Complainant registered FIR u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. on 6.10.2010 at 02.00pm, and then she has recorded her statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. where she has added that malaa haonaayaa jaacaabadla maI maaJao Aa%yaasa icazyaa laIhuna kLivalao haoto. These documents do not have postal covers moreover, the contends of the letters and FIR are totally different.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY 1. The Accused submit that, the accused are law abiding and respectable persons and accused No.2 was holding Sr. Officers post in the hierarchy of VSNL. Accused No.4 was working with wipro company as Associate and receiving handsome salary. The Story of the original complainant is falsified, vague and filed with oblique motive to extract money and property from the Accused person. The trial for the same to same and identical allegation as per FIR dated 6.10.2010 or CC No.170 of 2010 and RCC No.380 of 2010 is held before the JMFC,
22
Daund court in the Criminal Misc. Application
No. 271 of
2010. The Original Complainant has filed complaint under D.V. Act – 2005 u/s 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 on 27 th December 2010 before the JMFC Court at Daund. The complainant has stated in her application under Para 12 in page No.3 that, the Accused No.2, 3 and 4 earns more than 1.50 lakh rupees per month on account of salary and rent from the properties self acquired by accused No, 2,3,and 4 respectively.
The Original
complainant further stated that, and produced documentary evidences before JMFC Daund Court that, Accused No.2 has his own bungalow at Vishal Nagar, Jagtap Dairy, Pune. Accused No.4 has a flat at Neeta Park, Vishal Nagar, Jagtap dairy, Pune and accused No.3 has a flat and shop at Mahalaxmi Complex and Avenue Alpine Housing Society at Vishal Nagar, Jagtap dairy, Pune
Original Complainant has
herself contradicted her contentions made in the complaint stating that, the accused persons demanding Rs. 3,00,000/-from her for enhancing business of cyber café.
Therefore,
conducting trial on the same facts, or contends, or allegation would be double jeopardy.
In this context, the accused
reliance on Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2006. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that “ IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SECTION 300 [1] OF CR.P.C. IS WIDER THAN ARTICLE 20[2] OF THE CONSTITUTION.
WHILE
ARTICLE
20[2]
OF
THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA STATE THAT, “””””NO ONE CAN BE PROSECUTED AND PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENCE OR EVEN FOR A DIFFERENT OFFENCE BUT ON THE SAME FACTS.”””””” SECTION 300[1] OF CR.P.C. STATE THAT, NO ONE CAN BE TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR THE SAME OFFENCE OR EVEN FOR A DIFFERENT OFFENCE BUT ON THE SAME FACTS””””””””
23
ABUSE OF COURT AND LAW. 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 do not attract section 498A IPC. No documentary evidence is available to show that dowry is demanded. Admitted fact is that no dowry is given to applicant and making an allegation that dowry is demanded is abuse of court and law. Therefore, this is misuse of court, and law by filing false, concocted, frivolous, dishonest criminal case with oblique motive to extract money and property.
ii) Continuous demand or continuous harassment is not reported and complainant continued to live with her maternal relatives at her maternal home, Original complainant did not feel mental cruelty as per REF [2] hence allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Therefore, this is misuse of court, and law by filing false, concocted, frivolous, dishonest criminal case with oblique motive to extract money and property.
iii) This allegation is not present in complaint. Further submit that while complainant describing the harassment caused by the applicant in case RCC 380 of 2010, on the file of Hon’ble Family Court, Pune , did not report that this incident is happened. This reveals the dishonesty of the petitioner in procuring
the
false
allegations
against
the
accused
is
24
happened to be true these allegations do not attract Section 498A IPC Therefore; this is misuse of court, and law by filing false, concocted, frivolous, dishonest criminal case with oblique motive to extract money and property.
Iv]The complainant do not have any physical cruelty such that complainant received injuries which would attract section 498A IPC Therefore, this is misuse of court, and law by filing false, concocted, frivolous, dishonest criminal case with oblique motive to extract money and property.
v) The complainant is M.Com graduate and has three year working experience in the field of education; she has collected her experience certificate in Nov. 2009.
However, the
complainant stated that, she has filed false case as per guidance of her advocate. Thus cruelty under dowry demand does not attract 498A Therefore, this is misuse of court, and law by filing false, concocted, frivolous, dishonest criminal case with oblique motive to extract money and property. The other grounds would be urged at the time of hearing.
P R A Y E R:-
Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to:-
a) Pass an order of discharge of applicant (A1) in the proceedings CC.No170 of 2010 & RCC No.380 of 2010 on the file of this Hon’ble Court.
25
And
a) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the eyes of law. Accused
Advocate
Place :- Pune Date :-
26
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 brotherinlaw 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
27
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 sisterin-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
28
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 at Bangalore 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 are made on in-laws. k) No investigation carried out on forcible abortion allegation at Bangalore and failed to confirm whether forcible abortion taken place or not. No medical reports are submitted or collected by the Respondent No.1. l) Investigation did not disclose and collect the documentary evidences to support the allegation that complainant brother purchased house hold items for the complainant
29
family at Bangalore. m) Despite no supporting evidence is available with the police on the complainant allegations, police opposed granting the anticipatory bail to sister of the applicant. n) Police supplied false information to this Hon’ble Court, through the Remand Case Dairy and the Charge Sheet, by saying that crime happened in the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 5) The other grounds would be urged at the time of hearing. PRAYER Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to:a) Pass an order of discharge of applicant (A1) in the proceedings CC.No.xxx/2008 on the file of this Hon’ble Court. And b) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in
30
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE J.M.F.C. SHRI P.S. KULKARNI SAHEB, DAUND COURT AT DAUND, DISTPUNE [MAHARASHTRA STATE] R.C.C. NO. OF 200 IN C.C. NO. OF 200. ………………..Complainant V/s Accused.
LIST OF CITATION PERUSED BY THE ACCUSED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION, ARE AS UNDER :Sr.No.
DETAILS OF CITATION
Ex/Annexure No.
NUMBER AND DATE
Advocate Place :- Pune Date :-
31
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE J.M.F.C. SHRI P.S. KULKARNI SAHEB, DAUND COURT AT DAUND, DISTPUNE [MAHARASHTRA STATE] R.C.C. NO. OF 200 IN C.C. NO. OF 200. ………………..Complainant V/s Accused.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS List of documents on behalf of accused, The documents listed herein below are very vital and important to decide the case on merit, hence same may kindly be read in evidences. Sr.no.
Details of documents
No. and date
Advocate Place :- Pune Date :-
Ex. No.
32
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE J.M.F.C. SHRI P.S. KULKARNI SAHEB, DAUND COURT AT DAUND, DISTPUNE [MAHARASHTRA STATE] R.C.C. NO. OF 200 IN C.C. NO. OF 200. ………………..Complainant V/s Accused.
PAPER BOOK. SR.NO. 1 2 3
PARTICULARS Discharge application u/s 245 of Cr.P.C. Affidavit in support of application List of documents are the true copies of their respective
EX. PAGE NO. NO. From to 1 1 2 3
17
TOTAL PAGES
33
4
originals. List of citation
4
TOTAL PAGES FROM 1 TO
ADVOCATE.
