IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, Place/district of the trial court
Crl. Revision Petition No. Revision petition number of Revision petition year
IN THE MATTER OF:
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's nameRESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
Under Section: 379 IPC
P.S.: Police station
I N D E X
S.No.PARTICULARS / PAGES
1. Memo of PartiesPage number
2. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. along with affidavitPage number P-1
3. Copy of the order dated Date of impugned trial court order passed by the Ld. Trial CourtPage number P-2
4. Copy of FIR No. FIR number under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Police stationPage number P-3
5. Copy of F.D.R.Page number P-4
6. Copy of RC No. Vehicle registration certificate numberPage number P-5
7. Copy of the superdari application filed before the Ld. Trial CourtPage number P-6
8. Copy of the order dated Date of superdari order passed by the Ld. Trial Court on the superdari applicationPage number P-7
9. Copy of the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking permission to sell the carPage number
10. VakalatnamaPage number
Place/district of the trial courtFILED BY
DATED
Date of filing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address,
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, Place/district of the trial court
Crl. Revision Petition No. Revision petition number of Revision petition year
IN THE MATTER OF:
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's nameRESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
Under Section: 379 IPC
P.S.: Police station
MEMO OF PARTIES
Mr. Revisionist's name
S/o Sh. Revisionist's father's name
R/o Revisionist's residential addressREVISIONIST
VERSUS
Respondent's name and designation, Respondent's stateRESPONDENT
Place/district of the trial courtFILED BY
DATED
Date of filing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address,
The matter is pending before the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Name of trial court judge, Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Place/district of the trial court, in FIR No. FIR number under Section 379 IPC registered at Police Station Police station, in the case titled Case title (e.g., State Vs. Unknown), which is fixed for Date of next hearing.
IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, Place/district of the trial court
Crl. Revision Petition No. Revision petition number of Revision petition year
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Revisionist's name
S/o Sh. Revisionist's father's name
R/o Revisionist's residential addressREVISIONIST
VERSUS
Respondent's name and designation, Respondent's stateRESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
Under Section: 379 IPC
P.S.: Police station
REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTIONS 397/399/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED Date of impugned trial court order PASSED BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT OF SH. Name of trial court judge, LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, Place/district of the trial court, WHEREBY THE LD. TRIAL COURT WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 451 Cr.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.That the revisionist is a law-abiding citizen and has full faith in the administration of justice. That the revisionist has sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.That the revisionist has been constrained to file the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the order dated Date of impugned trial court order passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Name of trial court judge, Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Place/district of the trial court, in FIR No. FIR number under Section 379 IPC registered at Police Station Police station in the case titled Case title (e.g., State Vs. Unknown), whereby the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking permission to sell the car; the said order is accordingly impugned in the present petition.
3.That the question of law arising in the present revision petition is whether the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the revisionist ought to have been discharged in view of the contradictory statements made by the complainant in FIR No. FIR number, and further, whether the allegations levelled by the complainant do not attract the commission of the offences with which the revisionist stands charged.
4.That the present revision has been filed by the revisionist, and the brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the present revision may be summed up as under:
A.It has been stated that
1.That the captioned FIR bearing No. FIR number of 2015 was registered at the instance of the applicant/owner at Police Station Police station under Section 379 IPC on Date of FIR registration in relation to the theft of the Vehicle make and model bearing No. Vehicle registration number.
2.That during the course of investigation, the officials of Police Station Police station recovered the said car, and in consequence thereof, the applicant moved an application before this Hon'ble Court for release of the aforesaid car on superdari, which application was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated Date of superdari order.
3.In pursuance thereof, the applicant furnished all relevant documents and surety for an amount of Rs. Surety amount (₹)/- for release of the car on superdari, as per the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court, while taking the said car on superdari.
4.It is most humbly submitted that the said car bearing No. Vehicle registration number is almost ten years old, requires frequent maintenance and repair, and its market value is fast depreciating.
5.That the captioned matter is still at a preliminary stage and will take considerable time to reach its conclusion. In view thereof, the applicant, who is the owner of the said car, would suffer immensely on account of the said delay. Pertinently, all the requirements for release of the said car on superdari have been completed to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court, and if permission to sell the said car is granted to the applicant, it would cause no prejudice to the prosecution.
6.Furthermore, in view of the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 638, it is submitted that the vehicle can be permitted to be sold without any condition of superdari. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has further held that photographs of the vehicle can be used as secondary evidence during trial and that there is no requirement of physical production of the vehicle.
7.That the applicant is willing to place photographs of the said car on record so that they may be used in evidence in place of production of the said car before the Hon'ble Court during the trial.
8.It is submitted that with the passage of time, the said vehicle has lost its roadworthiness, and if permission to sell the said car is not granted, the applicant would suffer grave loss, as the car would have to be kept in a stationary condition.
9.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, coupled with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the car may be released to the rightful owner (applicant), and at the time of release, photographs of the said vehicle may be taken so that during the course of trial, actual production of the vehicle is not insisted upon and the photographs suffice for the purposes of evidence during the stage of evidence.
B.That it has been further stated by the complainant that
C.That thereafter, upon hearing arguments, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to frame the charge against the revisionist under Section 302 IPC, and accordingly the charge was framed on Date of framing of charge, and the order of framing of charge against the revisionist is impugned in this petition.
5.That the order of the Ld. Trial Court framing the charge against the revisionist is wrong, inasmuch as the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that there is no legally admissible evidence against the revisionist connecting him with the commission of the alleged offence, even prima facie; besides, the complaint has been filed only in order to exert pressure upon the revisionist.
6.That the learned Trial Court erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court failed to consider that there is a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various other High Courts wherein it has been categorically held that before a person can be held liable for any act, there must be some material on record against him.
7.That aggrieved by the aforesaid order on charge framed by the learned Trial Court, the Revisionist has preferred to file the present revision petition on, amongst others, the following grounds:
- : G R O U N D S : -
I.That the learned Trial Court has not considered the contention of the Revisionist that, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind to determine whether or not there is a ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused; and since the framing of charge affects a person's liberty, the need for proper consideration of the material warranting such an order cannot be over-emphasised. It is difficult to discern any element of deception in the entire case.
II.That the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the facts involved in the said case and did not apply its judicial mind while framing the charge against the Revisionist. The learned Trial Court was required to evaluate the material on record and to find out whether the ingredients of the offences charged were made out.
III.That the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the facts in the light of the decisions pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases where proceedings were instituted mala fide in order to harass the Revisionist without even substantiating the allegations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the FIR in such matters, and the case of the petitioner is well covered by that case law. The same is reproduced hereinunder:
"The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. etc. v. Shri P.P. Sharma and Anr. etc. Mr. Mathur drew our attention to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing the FIR in the case of [State of Haryana and Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Ors.](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/)
Paragraph 107 of the said judgment itemises the guidelines as follows:
1.Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2.Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code, except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3.Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4.Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5.Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that, on the basis of such allegations, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6.Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings, and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7.Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide, and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.
In the present case, guidelines Nos. 5 and 7 are material for the purpose of discharging the Revisionist."
IV.That the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that this is not a spontaneous complaint. A long-drawn complaint cannot but be deliberate, calculated and fabricated, and no action can be taken on the same, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of [Datar Singh v. State name in cited judgment of Punjab](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1746557/)
as well as [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors.](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1263837/)
"
V.That the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charges, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that there is no prima facie case against the present Revisionist, and the prosecution has miserably failed to place on record any incriminating evidence against the Revisionist which would be held sufficient to rope the Revisionist within the four corners of Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court ought not to have accepted all the prosecution statements as gospel truth in the facts and circumstances of this case.
VI.That the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to place on record any evidence that a case under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the Revisionist, and the Revisionist is entitled to discharge at the stage of framing of the charge itself.
VII. That it is respectfully submitted that there are no specific allegations against the Revisionist, and no case under Section 302 of the IPC has been made out against him, even if the said allegations are taken to be true in verbatim.
VIII. That, as such, in the absence of allegations constituting the essential ingredients of the offence under the aforesaid section, the accused cannot be charged for the aforesaid offence.
IX.That, on the facts and circumstances of this case, there are no prospects of conviction of the Revisionist; in these circumstances, the learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not such that, if gone unrebutted, it can result in the conviction of the Revisionist, and on this ground also the Revisionist was entitled to discharge. It was held in the case reported as JT 1996 (7) SC, in Satish Mehra v. Delhi, that where the Court is almost certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
X.That it would be against the fundamental principles of the legal system if an innocent person were implicated in a false case in this manner. Evidence can be sifted and weighed for the limited purpose of considering the question of charge. The impugned order does not even indicate that such an approach was followed.
XI.That the outcome of the investigation casts doubt over the veracity of the complainant; as such, the aforesaid charge framed against the Revisionist is liable to be quashed. Upon scrutiny, even the basic allegations making out a case thereunder are not contained in the FIR. In such a situation, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Revisionist will be an abuse of the process of the Court.
XII. That it is in the interest of justice, since the allegation levelled by the complainant does not constitute any offence under Section 302 of the IPC, that such charge is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
XIII. That the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the case of the Revisionist is well covered in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as State Versus Someshwar, that the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the charges; and in the absence of any evidence, the Revisionist, without admitting anything, submits that in view of the settled law as submitted above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
XIV. That the Revisionist has no other alternate remedy available to him but to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of the present petition.
XV. That the Ld. Trial Court committed a serious illegality in framing the charge against the Revisionist under Section 302 of the IPC, inasmuch as there is not even a whisper of any allegation against the Revisionist attracting Section 302 of the IPC.
XVI. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Revisionist has been named by the prosecution with malafide intentions.
XVI. That the Ld. Trial Court committed a serious illegality in framing the charge against the Revisionist on the basis of vague and general allegations made by the prosecution against the present Revisionist.
XVII. That the outcome of the investigation casts doubt upon the veracity of the complainant, and as such, the charge framed against the Revisionist as aforesaid is liable to be quashed.
8.That the legal position is well settled that the process of the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose, and where, in the opinion of the court, the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, and consequently no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue, the court may discharge the revisionist, even though the proceedings may be at a preliminary stage.
9.That there is nothing on record connecting the present Revisionist with the commission of the alleged offences. The allegations made are blatantly absurd and inherently improbable, such that no prudent person can reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Revisionist.
10.That the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide, and the same have been instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance upon the Revisionist and with a view to spite her, on account of a private and personal grudge.
11.That where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the present case, no allegation constitutes any offence under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code.
12.That in the present case, the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and/or the proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance upon the Revisionist and with a view to spite her, on account of a private and personal grudge.
13.That the Revisionist has no other alternative remedy but to approach this Hon'ble Court in its Extraordinary Jurisdiction.
14.That the aforesaid case has been registered falling within the territorial and supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, and as such, the present revision is maintainable in its present form.
15.That the Revisionist craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to raise such other and further grounds as may be available to him at the time of hearing of the present petition.
16.That the Revisionist has not filed any similar Criminal Revision Petition in the above-noted matter, either before this Hon'ble Court or before any other Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, against the order dated Date of order framing charge passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the order dated Date of order framing charge passed by the Ld. Trial Court, i.e., Sh. Judge's name of the trial court, Ld. Special Judge/NDPS/ASJ, Trial court complex/locality, whereby the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to frame the charge against the Revisionist for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. FIR number, registered at Police Station Name of the police station, in the case titled as Case title (e.g., State Vs. Unknown), may kindly be quashed, and the Revisionist may kindly be discharged from the above-noted case, in the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, in the interest of justice.
Such other and further orders may also kindly be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
Place of filingREVISIONIST
THROUGH
DATED: Date of filing
ADVOCATES FOR THE REVISIONIST
Office: Advocate's office address
IN THE COURT OF Name of the court/ district in the cause title
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF Year of the revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Revisionist in the above-mentioned case, and as such I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. have been read over and explained to me in the vernacular language, and having understood the same, I state that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification. The contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT