IN THE COURT OF THE IX METROPILITAN MAGISTRATE,
CRLMP. NO. AAA of 2010
C.C NO. BBB of 2008.
… Applicant / Petitioner(A1).
… Respondent / Complainant.
WRITTEN ARGUMENT SUBMISSION
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOR,
Humbly submits, applicant/petitioner is the Accused (A1) in the above said court case. Applicant is approaching this Hon’ble Court with this discharge application, under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, to get discharged from the proceedings in CC. No. BBB/2008 of this Court on the below grounds:
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT:
1. Humbly submit, plain reading of charge sheet reveals that defacto complainant, complainant herein, lived with applicant/petitioner (A1) at their matrimonial home in Bangalore City, Karnataka Sate and no part of the alleged allegations happened in Hyderabad, Andra Pradesh State. Further submit that as per charge sheet, alleged allegations happened in Karnataka State only and during the investigation, even without visiting the crime place i.e., Bangalore City, respondent completed investigation in Andra Pradesh State and filed the charge sheet in this Hon’ble Court. The criminal proceedings in CC.No.BBB/2008 on the file of this Hon’ble Court are abusing the process of law by non-complying with the sections 177 to 181 and 156 of criminal procedure codes (CrPC) and the charge sheet is not maintainable as described below:
a. As per section 177 of CrPC, the criminal case can be tried only, where cause of action arose and in the present case, as per the charge sheet and as per the complainant the cause of action arose only in Bangalore City i.e., at the matrimonial home of the complainant at Bangalore City, Karnataka State, hence this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to try this case, where it is pending. Further submit that it is admitted version of the complainant in her affidavits submitted in MC.No.CCC/2009, on the file of Hon’ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District and in Transfer Petition No.D/2010, on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that both the applicant and the complainant lived only at Bangalore and further submit that the petitioner did not claim that both lived anywhere other than Bangalore City, hence only Bangalore City courts has jurisdiction to try this case. Hence pray this Hon’ble Court to discharge the petitioner on this sole ground. Applicant put reliance on the below list of judgments from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in support of this ground.
i. Manish Ratan and Ors. Vs State of M.P and Anr. Reported in 2007 volume-1 SCC 262.
ii. Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another reported in 2004, SCC Crl-2134.
iii. Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728
iv. Bhanu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan 7 Anr in CASE NO: Appeal (crl.) 587 of 2008 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 79 of 2006).
v. Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. in W.P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, Decision on 10.10.2007.
b. As per section 156 of CrPC, police has the power to investigate any cognizable case, which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Section 156 CrPC read as:
Section 156 of CrPC: Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases:
1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
2) No proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one, which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
In present case, plain reading of the charge sheet reveals that alleged allegations were not happened within the territorial jurisdictional limits of kukatpally police station and also provide information that alleged offence happened in the jurisdiction of Bangalore City only. Whereas the kukatpally police furnished the false information in the charge sheet by saying that offence happened in their police station limits and investigated the case in their jurisdiction and filed the charge sheet in this Hon’ble Court, is contrary to the provisions of the section 156 of CrPC and charge sheet is not maintainable in law. Applicant put reliance on the below list of judgments from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in support of this ground.
i. Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728
ii. Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. in W.P (Crl.). No.1266/2007, Decision on 10.10.2007.
c. Kukatpally police failed to transfer the FIR to the concern police station having the jurisdiction for investigation as per the law. Further submit that in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that Section 170 Cr.P.C specifically provides that if, upon investigation, it appears to the Officers In-charge of the Police Station that crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the Police Stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed.
d. Respondent furnished false information in the charge sheet, Para-1, saying alleged allegations happened at Hyderabad whereas the plain reading of the charge sheet reveals that no part of the alleged allegation happened in Hyderabad.
2. Further submit the proceedings of the case in this Hon’ble Court without having jurisdiction would result in miss carriage of justice being the witnesses and the evidence in support of the applicant exist at Bangalore City only. The supporting witnesses of the applicant, includes women, are residents of Bangalore City and applicant is also resident of Bangalore City. Either the applicant or his supporting witnesses does not have any relatives or friends in this area and have threat from the complainant side people. The accused supporting witnesses are resident of Bangalore City and they do not have any relatives or friends in this area hence witnesses may not prefer to travel 700KM that to another state jurisdiction would result in great inconvenience to defend the criminal case and would result in miss carriage of justice. Further submit that accused and their supporting witnesses have life threat in this jurisdiction and would cause great inconvenience to defend the case in this jurisdiction.
ARREST AND CHARGES U/s 3 & 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT IS ILLEGAL:
3. Further submit, as per complaint version the property items viz, Rs.40,00,000/- worth agriculture land, 80 Kasulu gold and Rs.3,00,000/- cash were given to complainant by her parents. Further submit there were no demands from accused and F.I.R is registered under section 498A only. Further submit that as per the complainant’s affidavit submitted in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the Transfer Petition No.D/2010, it is said that these said property items were given to the complainant by her parents as Sridhan property as per complainant parent’s family tradition. No demands were reported by any of the witness or by the complainant reveals marriage is happened with out the element of dowry. Arresting the accused under section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sending to jail with out having evidence is illegal and also provide information that respondent is misused police powers to harass the accused under the influence of complainant. As per complaint these items were given to complainant by her parents, whereas as per charge sheet version these items were given to A1. Considering that the said property items were given to A1 and are with A1, no documentary proofs are collected in support of the allegation though the allegation is contradicting to the complainant and without application of mind respondent sent the petitioner to jail without checking the truthfulness of the complainant. Further submit that upon respondent believing that property items are given to A1 there will not be any requirement to the A1 to harass the complainant to sell the property to get money from complainant. Further submit marriage is happened without the element of dowry and saying that A1 demanded additional dowry and harassed the complainant saying dowry is not enough is absurd. Further submit that none of the witnesses supported the allegation that complainant was demanded for additional dowry or did harassment to the complainant for giving less dowry. Further submit that the witnesses of the case are none other than the blood relatives of the complainant. Only one independent and non blood relation witness is present and this witness statement does not disclose any offence done by the applicant.
NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF F.I.R ALLEGATIONS:
4. The FIR allegations were not supported by any of the witnesses (LW2 to LW6), including the blood relatives of the complainant and FIR allegations were not present in CrPC-161 statement of the complainant recorded by the police during the investigation. Details are furnished below:
FIR-Allegations on A1 Supporting Witness (LW2-LW6) Presence of FIR allegation in the 161 Statement of complainant
A1 use to harass the complainant to get rid of her saying given dowry is less and A1 lost an alliance of worth 1 crore rupees. NONE NO
A1 demanded complainant to give money by selling her property given to her at the time of her marriage by her parents. NONE NO
Complainant was restricted to make phone calls. NONE NO
Complainant in-laws used to call A1 to advise A1 on phone. NONE NO
A1 used to suspect complainant character even if she speak with her brother NONE NO
Complainant got pregnancy of 4 weeks and A1 publicized saying she is carrying 3 months pregnancy NONE NO
A1 forced the complainant to consume pregnancy abortion tablets by herself. NONE YES
Note: All the allegations in the FIR on A1 are mentioned in the table.
NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGATIONS IN CrPC-161 STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT:
5. The CrPC-161 statements of the complainant were not supported by any of the witnesses (LW2 to LW6) including the blood relatives of the complainant, details are furnished below:
Allegations in the CrPC-161 statement of complainant. Supporting Witness (LW2-LW6) Presence of allegation in FIR.
Complainant was harassed physically by A1 saying that house hold items are not enough. NONE NO
Complainant was manhandled by A1 saying that she bought less dowry. NONE NO
A1 suspected complainant pregnancy and forced to abort her pregnancy NONE NO
A1 suspected complainant character and forced complainant to abort pregnancy. NONE NO
On 22nd May-2008 gold ornaments were taken from complainant and she was thrown out off house by A1 and A3. NONE NO
Complainant got pregnancy of 4 weeks and is tested in hospital before 20th Mau-2008 at Bangalore City. NONE YES
On 20th May 2008, complainant was forcibly consumed pregnancy abortion tablets and was locked in house. YES
Note: All the allegations on A1, in CrPC-161 statement are mentioned in the table.
6. Further submit that as per complainant’s CrPC-161 statement, on the day of her marital life joining, she was harassed saying that brother of the complainant (LW4) purchased house hold items were not enough and also harassed saying that given dowry is not enough. None of the witnesses (LW2 to LW5) CrPC-161 statement says that accused did physical harassment to the complainant. Whereas in the affidavit filed by the complainant in MC. No.CCC/2009, on the file of Hon’ble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not report such incident occurrence while complainant is describing the cruelty that she was subjected by accused. Further submit that in the entire affidavit complainant did not make even single allegation on additional dowry demand made by accused.
7. Further submit that no investigation is carried by the respondent on the forcible pregnancy abortion allegations. As per respondent information to A1, through the Right To Information Act reply letter to the accused, no investigation is required on pregnancy allegation being allegation is not attracting the sections of the case registered on A1. Further submit that this allegation is not part of the affidavit filed by complainant in M.C. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, in which complainant is alleging that cruelty is one of the ground to live separately from husband/petitioner.
CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN WITNESSES AND COMPLAINANT
8. Further submit that witness statements contradicts with complainant and also contradicts with other witness as described below:
a. As per complainant property items were given to her by her parents as sridhan, whereas LW1 to LW5 say that property items ware given to A1.
b. As per complainant’s parents, complainant was harassed by A4 & A5 at their house on the day prior to the matrimonial house joining day at Bangalore. Whereas either complainant (LW1), or her brother (LW4) statement to police, do not report such incident happened at in-laws house. Further submit that as per complainant’s brother (LW4) statement, the reason for leaving the in-laws house on 25th May-2008 is A1 could not come and join them at in-laws house on 25th May-2008.
c. As per complainant’s parents (LW2&LW3) and witness (LW5), complainant was harassed by A1 during the period Nov-2007 to Dec-2007 at Bangalore City. Whereas either complainant or her brother (LW4) did not report such incidents occurrence.
d. As per witnesses LW2 to LW5 statements, only taunting happened on the less house hold items purchased by the complainant brother (LW4), no physical harassment is reported. Whereas complainant says that physical harassment is happened to her.
e. Complainant’s brother (LW4), the eye-witness did not report in CrPC-161 statement that additional dowry is demanded by A1 on the marital life joining day. Whereas complainant reported that additional dowry is demanded by A1. Further submit that none of the witnesses from LW2 to LW5 support the complainant’s allegation on additional dowry demand.
f. As per complainant and her brother (LW4) statements to the police did not say that her pregnancy is aborted in hospital, whereas complainant parents (LW2&LW3) says that pregnancy is aborted in hospital, she was bleeding and also said that complainant was joined in hospital.
g. As per complainant at the time when complainant was necked out off house, A1 took her gold ornaments from her, whereas the eye witness, i.e., brother (LW4) of the complainant statement did not report such incident occurrence.
h. Complainant parents (LW2&LW3) say that their son (LW4) purchased house hold items for Rs.70,000/- whereas their son (LW4) reports he purchased for Rs.60,000/-. Further submit that they failed to reveal list of house hold items purchased.
i. As per complainant no facility to make phone calls, whereas complainant says in the complainant that A1 suspected her even when she spoken with her brother (LW4) is contradicts with her admitted statement that no phone facility to speak with her relatives. Further submit that complainant’s parents (LW2&LW3) did say that complainant called them on phone.
9. Further submit that none of the F.I.R, charge sheet and complainant’s CrPC-161 statement allegations attracting section 498A IPC. None of the allegations in complainant’s CrPC-161 statement are not part of the affidavit filed by complainant in M.C. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Family court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District in which complainant is alleging that cruelty is one of the ground to file the petition. Further submit that while complainant is describing the cruelty caused by A1 in her affidavit filed in Hon’ble Family court, the harassment on house hold items were not reported. Further submit that in the entire MC. No.CCC/2009 petition, there is no single allegation made on additional dowry demand while describing the cruelty happened to her by A1. No repeat of 498A case cruelty allegations in M.C. No. CCC/2009 while describing the cruelty happened to her reveals that the complainant allegations are false.
10. As per complainant version, she was restricted to call her relatives during her stay at matrimonial home. Considering this statement true, it is evident that the statements of the witnesses (LW2 to LW5) stand no value. The possible witnesses could be the neighbors of the complainant at matrimonial home. Respondent failed to meet the neighbors to record their statements and failed to do investigation properly to real the facts.
ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT SECTION 498A I.P.C:
11. The allegations, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence under IPC 498-A or make out a case against the accused as described in the application and in support of the this ground various judgments from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are cited for reference. The complete details are as follows:
SECTION 498A IPC:
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
“ Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means –
a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
Under Explanation (a): the cruelty has to be of such gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.
Under Explanation (b): cruelty means harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section.
While interpreting the provisions of Section 304-B, 498-A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498-A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of Section 498-A, IPC.
The mental cruelty is explained by the Supreme Court of India by laying the following definition of “mental cruelty” in V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs.D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710: “the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together”. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put with such conduct and continue to live with the other party.
The supreme court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2003 MANJU RAM KALITA vs. STATE OF ASSAM decided on 28/05/09 answered the question in negative. Speaking for the bench his lordship honorable Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J held that :
"Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be established in the context of section 498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined / inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously / persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.”
In Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414, the Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue held that mental or physical torture should be "continuously" practiced by the accused on the wife. The Court further observed as under:
"Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impart of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not."
In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078; the Supreme Court held that "cruelty" has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498A I.P.C and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another.
Supreme Court in Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 has referred to this aspect of `cruelty' like this:-
“The cruelty must be of such a character as to cause `danger' to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Clearly danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension”.
Similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 wherein it was observed that offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry.
In the decision reported as Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18, the Bombay High Court had observed that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A IPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands.
It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498-A IPC and afore-noted judicial pronouncements that pre-condition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498-A, IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121. In said case, it was observed that cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
F.I.R ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT 498A IPC:
a. Even considering the allegation that applicant (A1) used to harass the complainant saying A1 lost an alliance of worth Rs. 1,00,00,000/- rupees and also beaten the complainant to get rid of her is happened to be true allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below:
i. As per CrPC-161 statements of complainant and witnesses no such incident occurrence is disclosed.
ii. It is not reported that the physical harassment incident is repeated or is exercised repeatedly and complainant lived with A1 reveals A1 did not fell danger to life and did not report any physical injury hence as per REF  to REF  neither physical nor mental harassment happened.
iii. As per complainant petitioner married while A1 has offers better than complainant alliance reveals that petitioner is not greedy of money.
iv. As per complainant affidavit submitted in the case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, says that only ill-treatment is done by the accused and his relatives and no physical beating details are reported. This reveals the dishonesty of the petitioner in procuring the false allegations against the applicant.
b. Even considering the allegation that applicant (A1) used to harass the complainant to give money by selling her property, is happened to be true allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below:
i. Complaint do not disclose the kind harassment details that she was subjected to, whereas as CrPC-161 statement of the complainant do not say that she was harassed to give money by selling her property. No specific harassment is disclosed even after investigation. Hence it can not be said that allegation attracts 498A IPC. Further submit that to meet the alleged demand what kind of harassment is caused by the A1 is not disclosed even in the respondent investigation report.
CrPC-161 STATEMENT ALLEGATIONS OF
COMPLAINANT DOES NOT ATTRACT 498A IPC:
c. Even considering the allegation that applicant (A1) harassed the complainant saying the house hold articles purchased by the complainant’s brother (LW4) at Bangalore are not enough, is happened to be true allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below:
i. Applicant asked the complainant to join him and no demands were made by the applicant. During the initial 6 months period, i.e., before the complainant date of joining with applicant at Bangalore City, no allegations either on demands or on harassment are reported reveals no demands from applicant side.
ii. The nature and details of the harassment happened to the complainant is not disclosed either in complaint or in respondent investigation report. As per eye-witness, i.e., brother (LW4) of complainant and the complainant parent’s CrPC-161 statements i.e., his parents (LW3&LW4), only taunting taken place saying house hold items are less, no specific items were demanded hence as per REF allegation do not attract section 498A-IPC.
iii. No physical harassment proofs, attracting the section 498A IPC, are submitted hence as per REF  & REF  allegation do not attract section 498A IPC.
iv. Further submit that complainant continued matrimonial life with applicant at Bangalore reveals complainant did not feel mental cruelty hence as per REF  allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Further submit that complainant brother (LW4) left to his native place also reveal there was no danger or threat to complainant from the applicant.
v. There is no allegation reported saying that demands were continued during the complainant’s stay with the applicant hence as per REF , REF  & REF  allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Taunting on the house hold items which even did not force the complainant leave matrimonial house, such incident do not attract the section 498A IPC.
vi. Also complainant did not allege that either applicant (A1) or other Accused demanded any specific house hold items from either complainant or from complainant’s brother (LW4) and also failed to reveal the list of house hold items were purchased by the complainant’s brother (LW4), reveals the allegation is vague in nature.
vii. This allegation is not present in complaint. Further submit that while complainant describing the cruelty happened to her in her affidavit submitted in the case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of 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) demanded additional dowry at the time of dispute on house hold items, is happened to be true this allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below:
i. Mere demand of property is not amount to cruelty as per explanation (b) of the section 498A IPC, hence allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Either continuous demand or harassment is not reported to meet the illegal additional dowry demand hence as per REF , REF  & REF  allegation do not attract section 498A IPC.
ii. No documentary evidence is available to show that additional dowry is demanded. Admitted fact is that no dowry is given to applicant and making an allegation that additional dowry is demanded is absurd.
iii. Continuous demand or continuous harassment is not reported and complainant continued to live with applicant at Bangalore reveals complainant did not feel mental cruelty as per REF  hence allegation do not attract section 498A IPC.
iv. This allegation is not present in complaint. Further submit that while complainant describing cruelty happened to her in the affidavit of the case MC. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not report that additional dowry demand incident is happened.
e. Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1) suspected complainant’s character by saying one year required to get pregnancy and complainant got pregnancy in six months and forced the complainant to consume pregnancy abortion tablets on 20th May-2008, is happened to be true this allegations do not attract Section 498A IPC as described below:
i. As per complainant version the cause of action for forcible abortion is not the dowry demand or additional dowry demand, hence allegation does not attract section 498A IPC as per REF .
ii. As per complainant version applicant forced her to abort her pregnancy whereas no physical cruelty is reported. During the dispute also applicant did not subjected the complainant to any physical cruelty such that complainant received injuries which would attract section 498A IPC as per REF , REF , REF  and REF .
iii. The complainant is B.Sc graduate and has one year working experience in medical domain though no medial reports are submitted in support of the forcible abortion provide information that allegation is false and even no medical report on pregnancy termination confirmation report at Bangalore is submitted.
iv. Kukatpally police refused to investigate the allegation on forcible pregnancy abortion even after applicant requested them and replied saying allegation does not attract 498A IPC hence no need of investigation. Pregnancy abortion did not happen at Bangalore till complainant left matrimonial home. Supporting documents are in Annexure -P/7.
v. Applicant filed criminal complaint against the complainant under sections 312 IPC, 506, 120B, 384 and 500 of IPC at Bangalore City; Hon’ble Court in Bangalore City took the cognizance and ordered for investigation.
vi. Further submit that while complainant describing the cruelty and harassment caused by the applicant in the affidavit filed in the case MC.No.CCC/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not report that this incident is happened.
f. Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1) and his brother-in-law (A3) necked out the complainant out off matrimonial home, is happened to be true as per REF  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 , REF  and REF  incident do not attract section 498A IPC. Further submit that as per complainant brother (LW4) CrPC-161 statement he is the eye-witness of the incident but he did not say that complainant gold ornaments were taken from her by A1. Further submit that police did not register the case under applicable sections for this allegation. Further submit that complainant admitted version in her affidavit in MC. No.CCC/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, says applicant was physically not present at the time complainant was leaving the matrimonial home and also said that even on phone applicant was not available reveals that this incident occurrence is not possible.
12. Further submit that allegations in FIR and in charge sheet are vague in nature with out disclosing information details like place and date of harassment occurrence to the complainant and nature of the harassment is caused to complainant by the accused. Details of vagueness of the allegations is as below:
Complainant was harassed saying house hold items purchased are not enough. Investigation does not real how, when, by whom harassment is done by the accused. Also investigation do not disclose which house hold items were purchased by the complainant brother and what is the demand of the accused
Additional dowry is demanded No details on how much dowry that accused demanded. No specific dowry demands from accused are revealed.
A1 publicized saying complainant is carrying three months pregnancy. No details of this allegation in the investigation like with whom and when it has been publicized by the A1.
In-laws advised A1 to harass complainant on phone. No details from which number in-laws called A1 and upon receiving phone call what kind of harassment happened is done by A1.
13. Respondent refused to record the statements of neighbors, with whom most of the time complainant spend time by going to marriage parties, birthday parties, shopping and by playing with their children at Bangalore City and failed to record the doctors statement did the abortion to the complainant and failed to collect the pregnancy related documents from hospital in Bangalore City. Further submit that despite respondent failed to collect the telephone calls list of A4 & A5 in support of complainant allegations charge sheet is filed on in-laws and improper investigation failed to bring the facts on record.
14. Further submit that the allegations in the charge sheet are new and different from complaint allegations and these new allegations were not communicated to the accused to defend by the accused by producing supporting evidences which provide information that said allegations are false. Improper investigation is leading the accused to face the malicious criminal case trail in this Hon’ble court. Applicant made complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad about the improper investigation and requested to collect documentary evidences from Bangalore City that provides information that alleged allegations are false. Deputy Commissioner of Police replied by saying that the documentary evidences submitted by the applicant already provide information that said allegations are false. The reply, under Right To Information Act, from the Deputy Commissioner of Police is ANNEXURED in the petition.
In the above said circumstances Hon’ble court may be pleased to discharge of applicant (A1) from the case CC. No. BBB/2008 in the interest of justice and to secure ends of justice.
Counsel for petitioner: