IN THE COURT OF HONLBL ADDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
1. XX.XXXXXXX (A1) / Petitioner
AGE 34 YEARS OCC/ ENGINEER R/O MUMBAI MAH
1. The State Of Karnataka Rep By SHO KRPS (R1)
AGE 33 YEARS OCC/ ENGINEER R/O MUMBAI MAH
(ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT /Respondent No 2) (R2)
PETITION U/S 239 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH,
The Petitioner humbly submits, via the discharge petition, that he is the original Petitioner no 1 in C.C XX/2019 on the file arising from the FIR No.xx/18.Respondent No.2 (R2) implead in this petition as (R2) in the said FIR No.xx/18.The petitioner further prays that the contents of the document of the prosecution document of the instant case,are to be read into this petition, in the interest of Justice.
On the Outset, it is submitted that the Charge sheet filed by Respondent no.1(R1) and the criminal proceedings in xxx at court are clear abuse of process of law under the following grounds the petitioner is liable to be discharged.
? GROUND #1 ? CHARGE SHEET / COMPLAINT NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF SECTION 212 OF Cr.P.C.
1. The Complainant (R2) has just stated words there was a demand for dowry without any specific overt act as well vague allegations so as to harass the petitioner, there is no mention of the value of dowry demanded, when it was demanded, how it was demanded, where it was demanded which are the pre-requisite even from the police final report to take cognizance, leave about for framing of charges from the very wording of Sec 212 of Cr.P.C but the same is lacking in this charge sheet filed.
Section 212 C.R.P.C 1973: Particulars as to time, place and person.
The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the petitioner notice of the matter with which he is charged.
2. Dowry is always materialistic and cannot be vague or unknown but in this case neither it is quantified nor has been explained and for the mere wording dowry as per
THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, (Act No. 28 of 1961)
Definition of `dowry? In this act, `dowry? means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly the prosecution has failed the basic meaning of what the petitioner has been charged with as what did the petitioner petitioner demand in terms of property or valuable security or any material is still unknown and repeated occurrence of vague words like more dowry demanded and as per dowry demand have only been used with no mentioning of location ,time ,date as per requisite of sec 212 Cr.P.C.
3. In the present case apart from bald vague allegations no evidence has been provided on all the charges with the basic details like when, where and how (Date, time, Location) missing and nothing has prevented the complainant (R2) / witness to mention specific dates, time, location of the alleged offences which just concludes that it has been an fictious, false and malafide intent of the prosecution to just lay the charges and abuse the process of law by just harassing the petitioner.
Even Hon?ble Udupi Session Judge Sri. C.M.JOSHI in the present suit Crl.Mis.Case No.355/2018 while granting the anticipatory bail to petitioner specifically stated ?The complainant in the present case did not mention specific dates when she was subjected to physical and mental harassment; nothing prevented the complainant to disclose about previous complaint?
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported judgments in support of his ground for discharge:
a) Judgement of Hon?ble High court of Andhra Pradesh by Hon?ble Dr.Justice B.Siva Sankar in Madhu Ahmed V/s State of Telengana decided by Criminal Petition No 31 of 2019.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble High court Of Delhi by Hon?ble Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva in Hari Kishen Sharma V/s State & ANR decided on 24th Sep 2018, CRL.M.C. 692/2014.
c) Judgement Order Of Hon?ble Session court of Udipi by Hon?ble Judge Sri. C.M.Joshi in Crl.Mis.Case No.355/2018.
? GROUND #2 ? FIRST COMPLAINT (MISSING) FILED WITH OMISSION OF ANY ALLEGED EVENTS AS PER THE FIR.
4. The Complainant (R2) first sent a missing complaint that too via email wherein nothing was mentioned as such as the second complaint (FIR) which clearly depicts that the FIR was an afterthought and Material Improvement of the false cases and even the Hon?ble Judge Sri. C.M.Joshi mentioned in the Anticipatory Bail ?Nothing prevented the complainant to disclose the event or acts, so the matter needs proper Investigation? to the petitioner in the present case. It is well settled legal proposition that the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such a magnitude so as to materially affect the foundation of trial.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported Judgements in support of his ground for discharge:
a) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme court of India available in S. Govidaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme court of india available in Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab, (2013) 12 SCC 796.
c) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme court of india available in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.
? GROUND #3 ? LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO HON?BLE COURT:
5) As Per the Submittal by the complainant (R2) in FIR ?During Marriage Talks the petitioner demanded dowry (place, date, time not mentioned), during marriage complainant family gave dowry (mode, place, date, time not mentioned) ? how did the prosecution concluded that the allegation were committed in their local jurisdiction; No part of the allegations if even taken on the face value has 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 petitioner is liable to be discharged from the case.
6) It is submitted across by the complainant (R2) that Incident of demand for dowry, harassment and other events nothing has been proved that the matter rose in the jurisdiction of the court, the complainant (R2)has just sent one liners that she was married ,she stayed in Mundkur for a week then she left for Mumbai and then she left for New Zealand to be with husband, just a series of uncertain allegations without any iota of evidence to confidante the story, the report is silent on how all these bring jurisdiction of the case in Karkala and better to be answered by the prosecution.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported judgements in support of his ground for discharge: a) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr decided on 17 August, 2004 – Criminal Appeal 904 of 2004.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in Manish Ratan & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Anr decided on 1 November, 2006 – Criminal Appeal 210 of 2000.
? GROUND #4 ? RESPONDENT (R2) FREQUENT CHANGES IN STATEMENTS & CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS TO HARASS THE PETITIONER & FAMILY STARTING FROM MISSING COMPLAINT TO FINAL 161 Cr.P.C STATEMENT
7) Respondent No.2 (R2) first filed missing complaint of the entire petitioner family and that too via email with no mentioning of events leading to dowry etc. The petitioner with family had to approach the Session?s court for relief as the Respondent no.1 (R1) was threatening and abusing the petitioner with dire consequence of putting them behind bars and that to for a missing complaint.
8) Respondent No.2 (R2) filed FIR complaint on 26th Nov 2018 with new events, additions and charges which were just material Improvement?s from her previous complaints.
Excerpt from 161 Cr.P.C Complainant (R2) Statement:
9) Respondent No.2 (R2) supplementary 161 Cr.P.C statement submittal states ?That on 26/11/2018 while submitting the FIR complaint in the police station in Gadibeedi some of the events were mistakenly/ falsely stated by me. (kelawaada vichara tapaadi namodisi needitu)? this itself sums up the entire case as false fictious and only done with malafide intention to harass the petitioner for travelling from Mumbai to Mangalore.
10) It is Submitted that the Respondent No.2 (R2) files a self attested to be true written complaint to which the Respondent No.1 (SHO) Investigation Officer records it under Sec 154 and triggers the harassment to the petitioner and now when the charge sheet is filed (R2) states an additional statement that some events stated in the FIR attested by herself is mistaken/false and added new events without proof, the prosecution itself has failed to prove if anything in this case is true but only fabricated ever-changing story of complaints.
11) Respondent No.2 (R2) has made many changes and added new events from her earlier FIR complaint to her charge sheet 161 Cr.P.C complaint statement:
a) It is submitted that the allegation made in the FIR complaint by (R2) states that petitioner after one week of marriage demanded more dowry with physical & mental harassment (No date, time, location) and this said fact was not informed to home by (R2) but only 6 months ago when (R2) went back to her Mothers place then only she informed the said facts to her home but in charge sheet 161 Cr.P.C statement by (R2) she stated that one week after marriage petitioner demanded more dowry with physical & mental harassment (No date ,time, location) she informed the said facts to her home and the parents pacified and told her to continue her married life and all the witness 161 Statements W1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ..W10 have stated the same fact that ?(R2) one week after marriage demanded more dowry with physical & mental harassment (No date, time, location) and this said fact was informed to them which in itself is contradictory to (R2) FIR Statement making this whole case false, concocted, forged, fabricated and planned.
b) A new event/charge was added by the complainant(R2) in the charge sheet 161 Cr.P.C statement stating? my husband (petitioner-A1) hit me with his hand for this I have not attended any hospital and no treatment was done, this material improvement just to lay a charge was never mentioned in any of her previous complaint?s again the same facts why (moment), when (date & time) and where (location) missing making it highly probable to be just an fabricated afterthought to materially improve the prosecution case just to lay 323 I.P.C and if included what process made (R1) to charge the offence in the charge sheet is itself dubious.
c) Respondent No.2 (R2) supplementary statement in the charge sheet filed on 21.05.2019 as per the submittal states ?That on 26/11/2018 while submitting the FIR complaint in the Police station with Gadbeedi some of the events / thoughts by mistake/false was stated by me and stated (?kelawaada vichara tapaadi namodisi needitu?) and in the end the (R2) stated ?my husband will become alright and move along that is the reason there was delay in filing complaint? it contradicts the earlier statement of (R2) of urgency to file an FIR in gadbeedi ,it itself shows that this whole case is an fictitious afterthought, materially improved with malafide intention of (R2)/ her family to harass the petitioner to file the case in Udupi when the respondent (R2) and petitioner both are residents of Mumbai.
All these changes of statements, documents, changes in dates in police acknowledgement, no, date, time location on any incidents raising serious doubts on the investigation right from the missing complaint harassment & abuse is enough to conclude the outcome as fallacious and fabricated.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported Judgements in support of his ground for discharge: a) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in Umakant & Anr vs State Of Chhatisgarh decided on 1 July, 2014 stated ?if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the petitioner and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the petitioner should be adopted?.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India available in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh .vs Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijje And Ors decided on 7 August, 1990 stated? The court may for this limited purpose to sift the evidence, as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or broad probabilities of the case.
? GROUND #5 ? INORDINATE & UNEXPLAINED GROUNDLESS DELAY IN FILING THE FIR
12) It is submitted that and unclear why was there a delay of almost 6 months in registering the FIR complaint and a delay of almost 3 years in filing dowry case just a mere statement that I was thinking my husband will be alright is unexplained, without reasons and incomplete to conclude.
13) No Specific explanations have been explained by the complainant (R2) for filing the missing complaint and the casual approach of sending email of missing complaint to an out of state police portrays the genuineness and seriousness of the Respondent (R2) who is the wife of the Petitioner with no display of concern ,anxiety other than mere harassing the petitioner & family.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported judgements in support of his ground for discharge: a) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in Apren Joseph Alias Current . vs The State Of Kerala decided on 1st Sept 1972 stated ? Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained.”
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in Ravinder Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab decided on 31 August, 2001.
? GROUND #6 ? NO EVIDENCE ADDUCED TO SUPPORT VAGUE ALLEGATIONS IN THE CHARGESHEET
14) It is submitted that the mere reading of the complaint with no information or evidence as to details of occurrence of the offence to attract any provisions of IPC 498A, None of the statement could relate the role of witness as how (mode), where (location), when (dates) and quantify (what kind of demand dowry- cash, valuable , property) just a mere statement ?a demand for dowry during marriage talks? is a mere vague and omnibus charge in a real life sense for the attraction of provision of IPC 498A.
15) It is submitted that, no evidence whatsoever is adduced in support of and to attract the key ingredient of the section 498a, 323,506 and DP 3, 4 IPC. All allegations are bereft of details and thereby vague in nature.
16) It is Submitted that no evidence has been provided by the Respondent (R2) for any of the offences as per the charge sheet to prove the case but a concocted story which has been materially improved right from the missing complaint and if the events were true the complainant (R2) who had filed the FIR on her instance with a delay of almost 6 months would have not stated in her charge sheet statement that she in Gadbeedi had filed the FIR and some events were untrue and now whatever she restates is true, the prosecution itself unsure what events are true and what not.
17) All witness are interested witness who are blood relatives or friends of Respondent No 2 and for most of them have just Xerox copied the statements, No material proof have been added by them to support their statements and most events stated are just hearsay & contradictory. Petitioners put their reliance on below reported judgements in support of his ground for discharge:
a) Judgement of Hon?ble Punjab & Haryana High Court available in Krishan Jeet Singh vs State Of Haryana decided on 3 October, 2002 – Where there is no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be proved.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in Ran Singh and Anr vs State Of Haryana decided on 30th January 2008 – Need Material Evidence to prove dowry demand.
c) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors decided on 3 March, 1977 – that at the stage of framing charge the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the petitioner. As framing of charge affects a person’s liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized.
d) Judgement of Hon?ble Calcutta High Court available in Surajmal Banthia And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal decided on 21 March, 2003 – General allegations are not sufficient to procure 498-A.
e) Judgement of Hon?ble Punjab & Haryana High Court available in Sher Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab decided on 4 January, 2002 – Vague allegations are not acceptable.
f) Judgement of Hon?ble Andhra High Court available in Bomma Ilaiah vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Public decided on 9 January, 2003 – Where evidence on record neither disclosed that there was cruelty on part o the petitioner which was of such a nature as was likely to drive victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or mental or physical health nor showed that she was harassed by petitioner with regard to any demand for additional dowry, section 498-A could not be attracted in such circumstances.
g) Judgement of Hon?ble Orissa High Court available in Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra vs State decided on 28 August, 2003 – Conviction not sustainable in the absence of evidence of ?torture? or ?harassment?
? GROUND #7 ? AFTER PETITIONER SUBMITTAL FOR FAIR INVESTIGATION & PROOF TO INVESTIGATION OFFICER (R1) THE RESPONDENT (R2) MADE CHANGES TO 161 Cr.P.C CHARGESHEET STATEMENT
18) Petitioner appealed and also sent proofs to (R1) Investigation Officer under the heading of Fair Investigation and statement and CDR Request on 30/01/2019 & 2/2/2019 through registered post, again new set of Fair Investigation and action on guilty was requested on 16/4/2109 & 15/5/2019 , Many changes were made after proof were given to (R1) Investigation Officer some of them are:
a) As submitted, In FIR Respondent No.2 (R2) stated ?My family / house members were forced to bear the entire cost of marriage therefore my parents incurred the entire cost of marriage?, The Charge sheet (R2) statement ?My parents spent 30 Lacs in marriage and got marriage done with great pomp and show. No mention of Petitioner forcing the complainant and family to bear the entire cost of marriage i.e. due to Petitioner sending proof of Respondent No.2 (R2) accepting that the petitioner had asked if (R2) requires monetary help for the marriage expenses and no demand was done to bear the entire cost of marriage and the Petitioner had requested (R1) Investigation Officerto take action on (R2) for providing false information /fabricating false evidence but the Investigation officer (R1) did not take any proof from the petitioner for investigation but only helped (R2) to change her charge sheet statement.
b) As submitted, In FIR Respondent No.2 (R2) stated ?Rs 10, 00,000 was given as dowry (when, how, location are all unknown)? this was changed in Charge sheet (R2) statement ?Rs 10, 00,000 gift was given? this also doesn?t attract provision of IPC 498A or DP Act 4.
Further it is submitted that all the allegations are false; Under Section 8(B) (2) (c) of the DP Act 1961 and Karnataka dowry Rules It is mandatory for the dowry prohibition Officer to collect evidence for the person committing the offence under the act. This statutory requirement was not complied with by the prosecution at the time of filing the Final Report.
Secondly as per prosecution charge sheet Submittal?Rs 10, 00,000 has now been termed as gift by the respondent no 2 (R2) which as per Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 cannot be included as it states ?Nothing in Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 shall apply to presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom?.
In Mr. Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao And . vs State Of A.P (mentioned in below list Para-15), the Hon?ble High Court Of Andhra Pradesh held that ?There is considerable force in the submission of Sri K. Jagdishchandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that, since Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filed eight years after the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year?.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported Judgements in support of his ground for discharge: a) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of india available in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 (3) SCR 388.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Jharkand High Court available in V.P. Dhanesh vs State Of Jharkhand decided on 23 September, 2003.
c) Judgement of Hon?ble Andhra High Court available in Mr. Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao And … vs State Of A.P. decided on 18 November, 2006.
? GROUND #8 ?ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW BY WAY OF MAKING VAGUE & OMNIBUS ALLEGATIONS
19) It is submitted that, the allegations regarding physical and mental harassment for dowry are vague bereft of any critical date, time and place which is mandatory to be considered to go into charge to be laid on the Petitioner; this was noted by even by Hon?ble Session Judge Sri. C.M.JOSHI in the present suit Crl.Mis.Case No.355/2018 while granting the anticipatory bail to petitioner specifically stated
?The complainant in the present case did not mention specific dates when she was subjected to physical and mental harassment, Nothing prevented the complainant to disclose about previous complaint? this was after (R2) had complained ,made changes and added new complaint which is just an afterthought and maliciously implicated in this vexatious case to destroy peace of mind ,dignity, reputation so that (A1) would suffer mentally and physically by attending police and courts in KarkalaUdupi wherein the petitioner (A1) and respondent (R2) are both residents of Mumbai which even the Hon?ble Session Judge Sri. C.M.JOSHI has acknowledged.
20) All the Charges in 173 Cr.P.C section 498a,323,506 are baseless without evidence & the basic details of time, location, date has not been supplied with the constant changes in complaints right from first missing complaint has not only raised serious doubt on the Investigation, Police Records and to basic eyes does not held to attract any above charges ,in a catena of Judgements from both Supreme Court ,Hon?ble High Courts Of India and in this matter/present suit Hon?ble Session Judges Sri.T.Venkatesh Naik & Sri C.M.Joshi Udupi Session court have raised serious questions on the complaints by prosecution.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported Judgements in support of his ground for discharge:
a) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India available in Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr decided on 13 August, 2010.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India available in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr decided on 17 October, 2012.
c) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India available in Varala Bharath Kumar vs The State Of Telangana decided on 5 September, 2017.
d) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India available in K. Subba Rao . vs The State Of Telangana decided on 21 August, 2018.
? GROUND #9 ? PROVIDING PROOF TO RESPONDENT (R2) TO MAKE CHANGES TO CHARGESHEET STATEMENT
21) It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 never conducted proper Investigation and the investigation report does not comply with sections of IPC, Karnataka State Police Manual and DP Act thereby following consequences were resulted:
a) The Investigating Officer (R1) failed to collect possible documentary evidences for all the complaint Allegations in contrast to the documentary evidence information was provided by petitioner to prove that the allegations were false. Respondent (R1) failed to prove the sections applied as basic question (when, how and where) has never been sufficed and when the Request for Fair Investigation / Proof provided to (R1) Investigation Officer those proofs were made available to (R2) to make changes in her Charge sheet 161 Cr.P.C Statement so false case can be laid on the petitioner. The Respondent No.1 (R1) threatened the petitioner to put him behind bars for a missing complaint which itself shows the bias towards the petitioner reasons only known to (R1) as mentioned in Crl.Mis.Case No.287/2018.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported Judgements in support of his ground for discharge:
a) Judgement of Hon?ble Andhra High Court available in Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana decided on 11 September, 2015.
? GROUND #10 ? INSTITUTING A LITIGATION WITH MALAFIDE INTENTIONS
22) That the filing of the complaint, unleashed by Respondent No.2,with an uncontained malicious vendetta, after an unexplained delay of around 6 months despite having any admissible justification or documentary evidence or independent witness and frequent changes in complaint statement right from missing complaint to charge sheet 161 Cr.P.C statement in front of Hon?ble Trial Court and more so be dismissed on all above grounds as it is nothing but a vivid creation of an afterthought and ripe to declare a manifestly malafide litigation with ill will towards the petitioner.
23) The prosecution still cannot answer what prevented the complainant (R2) to make those allegations available in the first missing complaint and why was a series of complaint?s being registered when (R1) Investigation officer was able to trace the missing personnel?s with a single phone call and which concluded that the missing complaint was a false complaint with malafide intentions to harass the petitioner and his family as they were resident of Mumbai Maharashtra and complaint was intentionally done in Udupi Karnataka as the interest of the Respondent (R1) to conclude fair investigation is seriously doubted and all complaints are nothing but an afterthought.
Another disputed fact is due that vague allegations and not mention of specific dates is the exact reason why Hon?ble Principal Session Judge Udupi District has granted Anticipatory Bail to petitioner No 1 under 438 Cr.P.C.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported judgments? in support of his ground for discharge: a) Allegation Category 7 from judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors decided on 21st Non 1990.
b) Judgement Of Hon?ble Session?s Court Udupi under 438 Cr.P.C by Hon?ble Judge Sri. C.M.Joshi in Crl.Mis.Case No.355/2018.
? GROUND #11 ? APPROACHING THE COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS
24) It is submitted that the respondent (R2) has approached this court with unclean hands & false claims of demand for dowry and harassment but nowhere has mentioned (R2) has always demanded and threatened the petitioner for illegal demands for her family which until 6 months back was regularly accomplished but as the petitioner no 1 was unemployed and could not succumb to the monetary pressure these false case were laid by (R2); withdrawal of huge sums of money from the Joint Account of petitioner (A1) & respondent (R2) six months back to the mother of (R2) was provided and similar receipts of further withdrawal after the FIR 0131/2018 of dowry demand & harassment laid by (R2) was provided to the Respondent No.1 (R1) Investigation Officer but not taken in the Investigation by the prosecution which only raises serious doubt about the intention of the prosecution / (R1) Investigation officer and concludes that demand of dowry or additional dowry is not the reality of the case as (R2) herself had access to those valuable securities which she transferred to her parents and what prevented (R1) Investigation officer to not include it in the Investigation under Cr.P.C 91/161 is questionable.
25) The Respondent No.1 (R1) / Investigation Officer himself has prepared the FIR Summary report as per his convenience as when the Respondent (R2) has submitted in her FIR complaint that her parents were forced to spend 3, 00,000 for marriage expense (R1) in FIR summary report states 30, 00,000 this itself proves the truthfulness of police reports and authenticity of Investigation and the nature of this fabricated flimsy case.
? GROUND #12 ? IMPROPER BIASED & MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER RIGHT FROM FIRST MISSING COMPLAINT
26) As per Submittal, Fair Investigation and Fair Trial in a Criminal case have been as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India which is guaranteed to every person, the fundamental right to life and liberty. The Petitioner have already highlighted, while elaborating on the various grounds taken in about paras, the fundamental lapses and inadequacies with unknown reasons favouring respondent (R2) to misuse the laws so as to harass the petitioner & family.
27) The petitioner also submitted mocking messages of respondent No.2(R2) which was sent to the petitioner on the same day when the petitioner was threatened by (R1) to attend the police station for an email missing complaint sent by (R2) other than that (R1) threatening to put the petitioner behind bars for missing complaint no action on (R2) was taken ; why fair investigation was not done, why no proper procedure was followed & why petitioner?s proof or statement not taken in the investigation as CRPC 91/161 can only be answered by the prosecution.
28) The Prosecution failed to answer and question?s on the motive of series of complaints :
a) Why the Respondent (R2) filed a missing email complaint from Mumbai on the entire petitioner?s (A1) family with no mention of events as per FIR 0131/2018 or what prevented her from doing so and what was the outcome of the missing complaint as (R1) Investigation Officer traced the missing personnel with a single phone call.
b) Procedure?s followed by the (R1) in the missing complaint is questionable, botched & motivated (no notice?s, no check with the Maharashtra state police etc), In common eyes it was just a case of harassment so a false case?s can be laid as the Respondent (R1) Investigation Officer threatened the entire petitioner family to be put behind bars for a missing email complaint.
c) Even the complainant Respondent (R2) had not attended in person to the Karkala rural police station to give the missing complaint as she stated in her missing email complaint being resident of Mumbai, but what triggered (R1) Investigation Officer of Karkala rural Police Station to conclude that it was a genuine person?s complaint or not some fake prank or false email as the complainant person/email was unknown to Karkala Rural Police Station.
d) Reasons for (R1) Investigation officer threatening to put the petitioner with his family behind bars for missing complaint or was it a preplanned event with monetary motive to trap the petitioner (A1) & his entire family in false cases in Karkala as the petitioner (A1) and his entire family are resident of Mumbai .
e) With the same understanding the petitioner (A1) sent an email of Fair Investigation & Proof dated 25/01/2019 which till present date no action/proof taken in Investigation record as per Sec 91/161 Cr.P.C i.e if the start of the investigation is biased ,botched & motivated how do you expect the Investigation police reports to be unbiased.
f) Respondent (R1) Investigation Officer once satisfied that the missing personnel?s were not missing took another series of complaints from the same Respondent (R2) is it not a pre biased approach with reasons known to (R1) the petitioner (A1) & family had visited many times in person with complaint and proof but till now it has not been taken in records but here the Police official went out of his way to act on an email written complaint just sums the case as out of ordinary with vested interests or reasons best known to prosecution.
In Ratilal veljibhai Kasundra case (mentioned in below para) ?Article 21, undoubtedly, vests in every petitioner the right to demand a fair trial. This right, which is fundamental in nature, casts a corresponding duty, on the part of the State, to ensure a fair trial. If the State is to ensure a fair trial, it must ensure a fair investigation. Logically extended, this would mean that every victim of offence has the right to demand a fair trial meaning thereby that he or she has the right to demand that the State discharges its Constitutional obligation to conduct a fair investigation so that the investigation culminates into fair trial. The State has, therefore, the duty to ensure that every investigation, conducted by its chosen agency, is not motivated, reckless and that the Investigating Officer acts in due obedience to law?
In Babubhai case (mentioned in below list para-31)? Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law.
Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner.
Where non- interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere?. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon case (mentioned in below list para-31)? An petitioner is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in the society. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation?.
In Nara Chandrababu Naidu case (para 129) ?It is the primary duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the matter in order to unearth the truth. Fair and proper investigation ensures the identification of perpetrator of the crime. It is the statutory duty of the Investigating Agency to conduct investigation on its own lines without any interruption form any corner?.
In Rajesh Gutta Case (mentioned para -31)?In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant?s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation?.
The entire above ratio are directly applicable to the instant case. As is evident from a simple comparison of the complaint and the witness statements L.Ws. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 is an exact replicate of the complaint in toto, which all were recorded in the same date. On perusal one would find no traces of a thorough, procedural and methodical Investigation done by the Investigation Officer as prescribed u/s 161 Cr.P.C and as upheld by the Hon?ble High Court of Karnataka in Gurunathagouda S/O Ninganagouda … vs The State Of Karnataka case.
It is Submitted that, if such are the facts of witness statements which are just replicate of one sheet of paper copied into ten with just a change of name and address even the relationship in some are copy pasted with not even an ounce of effort taken by the (R1) Investigation officer to correct it is the Investigation report submitted to this Hon?ble court and some are just hearsay with no visible basis, support or material ,it is indiscernible and impalpable with what legal basis the Investigation Officer has filed the charge sheet against Petitioner. It is abundantly visible that the Investigation officer doesn?t have a proper understanding or doesn?t want to follow IPC, Cr.P.C procedure on what allegations attract 498a, DPA-3, 4, 323 and 506 and which not, doesn?t have a catena of Judgements Of Hoble Supreme Court of India &Hon?ble High Court Of Karnataka that categorily define the and establish given explanations and definitions for the word ?cruelty?as envisaged under IPC 498A.
Explanation.?For the purpose of this section, ?cruelty? means?
(a) any wilful 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.
It can be safely concluded that the Investigation was monetarily motivated, botched up, improper, incomplete and with malicious intent or half knowledge which was not sufficient to investigate a case of sections laid out in the Charge sheet & which was conducted with fallacies or a series of fallacies in all aspects.
Petitioners put their reliance on below reported judgements in support of his ground for discharge:
a) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India available in Babubhai v/s State Of Gujrat & Ors decided on 26 Aug 2010.
b) Judgement of Hon?ble Supreme Court of India available in Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs State Of Punjab & Ors decided on 22 October, 2008.
c) Judgement of Hon?ble high court of Andhra Pradesh available in Rajesh Gutta v/s State of A.P decided on 1 March 2011.
d) Judgement of Hon?ble high court of Karnataka in Gurunathagouda S/O Ninganagouda … vs The State Of Karnataka decided on 1 March 2019.
e) Judgement of Hon?ble high court of Andhra Pradesh available in Nara Chandrababu Naidu v/s State Of Telangana decided on 9 Dec 2016.
f) Judgement of Hon?ble high court of Gujrat available in Ratilal Veljibhai Kasundra v/s State of Gujarat & Others decided on 12 Jan 2017.
Hence in the view of the aforesaid legal grounds which are well supported by the facts and circumstances, culled entirely from the documents submitted and relied by the prosecution itself, its crystal clear that no prime facie case is made out, attracting the said sections of IPC and DP Act ,it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon?ble court that:
1. The false petition of the respondent No.2 (R2) may be rejected in its entirety and the petitioner discharged from this litigation implicated from Nov 2018.
2. Heavy Exemplary cost be imposed on both the Respondents for bringing their mutually conspired, botched up investigation to this Hon?ble court and malicious intended false case, as applicable under Cr.P.C 250 or any other relatable provision of Law with the interest of justice, equity, fair trial for the fraud committed on this Hon?ble Court.
3. Any other Order/Guidelines/Directions may also be passed on the respondent No.1 along with the Head of the department ,as this Hon?ble Court of may deem fit, proper and according to the facts and the circumstances of this false case with a direction to bring about truthful, effective and meaningful improvements in their Investigation Procedures.
4. Any other Order/relief/Direction may also be passed in favor of the petitioner against the respondent as this Hon?ble Court may deem fit, just proper, according to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENT SHALL EVER PRAY
Be pleased to consider