REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
I N D E X
S.No.PARTICULARS PAGES
1.NOTICE OF MOTION.
2.URGENT APPLICATION
3.MEMO OF PARTIES.
4.LIST OF DATES & EVENTS.
5.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 OF THE CR.P.C. ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT.
6.Exhibit mark for order on charge P-1
COPY OF THE ORDER ON FRAMING OF CHARGE DATED Date of order framing charge PASSED BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT.
7.Exhibit mark for FIR copy P-2
TRUE TYPED AND TRANSLATED COPY OF FIR NO. FIR number.
8.Exhibit mark for charge sheet P-3
COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET UNDER SECTION 173 CR.P.C.
9.APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. FOR STAY ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT.
10.APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT.
11.VAKALTNAMA.
DELHIREVISIONIST
THROUGH
DATED
Date of signing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address,
New Delhi-110013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
MEMO OF PARTIES
Revisionist's name
Add: Revisionist's addressREVISIONIST
VERSUS
Respondent's name
Respondent's address: RESPONDENT
DELHIFILED BY
DATED
Date of signing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address,
New Delhi-110013.
Matter is pending before the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Trial court judge's name, Ld. Special Judge/NDPS/ASJ/NE, Trial court complex, Delhi, in FIR No. FIR number under Section 302 of the IPC registered at Police Station Police station, Delhi, in the case titled as Complainant's name in case title Vs. Accused's name in case title, which is fixed for Next date of hearing before trial court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's name: RESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Hon'ble Joint Registrar,
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi.
Sir,
It is most respectfully prayed that the accompanying petition may kindly be treated as an urgent one in accordance with the Rules of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
The ground of urgency is that setting aside of the order on framing of charge dated Date of order framing charge passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Trial court judge's name, Ld. Special Judge/NDPS/ASJ/NE, Trial court complex, Delhi, in FIR No. FIR number under Section 302 of the IPC registered at Police Station Police station, Delhi, in the case titled as Complainant's name in case title Vs. Accused's name in case title, is prayed for.
DELHIREVISIONIST
THROUGH
DATED
Date of signing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address,
New Delhi-110013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Revisionist's name
Add: Revisionist's address,
Delhi.REVISIONIST
VERSUS
Respondent's name
(NCT of Delhi): RESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397/399/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED Date of impugned order PASSED BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT OF Trial court judge's name, LD. SPECIAL JUDGE/NDPS/ASJ/NE, Trial court complex, DELHI, WHEREBY THE LD. TRIAL COURT WAS PLEASED TO FRAME THE CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE I.P.C. AGAINST THE REVISIONIST IN CONNECTION WITH CASE FIR number REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION Police station, DELHI, IN THE CASE TITLED AS STATE VS. Revisionist's name.
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 order passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Trial court judge's name, Ld. Special Judge/NDPS/ASJ/NE, Trial court complex, Delhi, in FIR No. FIR number under Section 302 of the IPC registered at Police Station Police station, Delhi, in the case titled as Complainant's name in case title Vs. Accused's name in case title, whereby the charge was framed against the revisionist under Section 302 of the IPC; hence, the order on charge is 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, that the allegations levelled by the complainant do not attract the commission of the offences for which the revisionist is being charged.
4.That the present revision petition 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
B.That it has been further stated by the complainant that
C.That thereafter, after hearing arguments, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to frame the charge against the revisionist under Section 302 of the I.P.C., 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 the present petition.
5.That the order of the Ld. Trial Court framing the charge against the revisionist is erroneous, inasmuch as the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that there is no legally admissible evidence against the revisionist connecting him with the commission of the alleged offence even prima facie; besides this, the complaint has been filed in order to exert pressure upon the revisionist.
6.That the Ld. Trial Court erred in framing the charge against the revisionist, inasmuch as the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that there is a catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various other High Courts whereby it has been categorically held that before a person can be held liable for acts alleged to have been done, there must be some material against him.
7.That aggrieved by the aforesaid order on charge framed by the Ld. Trial Court, the revisionist prefers to file the present revision petition on, amongst others, the following grounds:-
- : G R O U N D S : -
I.That the Ld. Trial Court has not considered the contention of the revisionist that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to 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 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 Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the revisionist, inasmuch as the Ld. 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 Ld. Trial Court was required to evaluate the material and determine whether the ingredients of the offences charged were made out.
III.That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the revisionist, inasmuch as the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the facts in view of the decisions pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases where the proceedings had been instituted mala fide in order to harass the revisionist, without even substantiating the same; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed such FIRs, and the case of the petitioner is well covered by that case law. However, the same is reproduced hereunder :-
That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. etc. v. Shri P.P. Sharma and Anr. etc. considered the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashing an FIR in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Ors.
Paragraph 107 of the said judgment enumerates 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 or 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, and 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 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 the 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 fides, 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 Revisionists.
IV.That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist, as the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the complaint in question is not spontaneous. A long-drawn complaint can only be deliberate, calculated and fabricated, and no action can be taken on the basis of such a complaint. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Datar Singh v. The State of Punjab as well as Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors.
V.That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charges, as the Ld. Trial Court failed to 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 could be held sufficient to rope the Revisionist within the four corners of Section 302 of the IPC. The Ld. 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 Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist, as the Ld. Trial Court failed to 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 allegations are taken to be true verbatim.
VIII.That, as such, in the absence of allegations constituting the essential ingredients of the offences under the aforesaid section, the accused cannot be charged for the aforesaid offences.
IX.That in the facts and circumstances of this case, there are no prospects of conviction of the Revisionist, and in these circumstances the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not such that, if gone unrebutted, it could 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, 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 is 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, and 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, continuing the criminal proceedings against the Revisionist will be an abuse of the process of the Court.
XII.That it is in the interest of justice that, since the allegations levelled by the complainant do not constitute any offence under Section 302 of the IPC, the charge is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
XIII.That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the case of the Revisionist is well covered by the law settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled State v. 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 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, as there was not a single whisper of allegations against the Revisionist attracting Section 302 of the IPC.
XVI.That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Revisionist has been named with mala fide intentions by the prosecution.
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 over the veracity of the complainant, and as such the aforesaid charge framed against the Revisionist 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 therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may discharge the Revisionists, although the same may be at a preliminary stage.
9.That there is nothing on the record to connect 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 is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Revisionist.
10.That the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides, and the same has been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon the Revisionist and with a view to spite her due to 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 on this point has been laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, none of the allegations constitute any offence under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code.
12.That in the present case, the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, and/or the proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance upon the Revisionist and of spite towards him due to a private and personal grudge.
13.That the Revisionist has no other alternative remedy but to approach this Hon'ble Court under 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 the 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 impugned order.Year of the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated Date of impugned order.Year of the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Trial court judge's name, Ld. Special Judge/NDPS/ASJ/NE, Trial court complex, Delhi, whereby the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to frame charge against the Revisionist for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. FIR number registered at Police Station Police station, Delhi, in case titled as Complainant's name in case title Vs. Accused's name in case title, and to discharge the Revisionist from the above-noted case, in the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, in the interest of justice.
Such other and further orders may also 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.
DELHIREVISIONIST
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address, New Delhi.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. APPLICATION NO. Application number OF Year of the application and revision petition
IN
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF Year of the application and revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's nameRESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / REVISIONIST UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the Revisionist has filed the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which is pending before this Hon'ble Court for adjudication. The contents of the same are true to the knowledge of the Revisionist and, for the sake of brevity, are not being reproduced herein; the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this Application.
2.That the Revisionist has a good prima facie case in his favour and is likely to succeed therein. In the event the relief claimed in the present application is not granted, the Revisionist will suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
3.That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Revisionist.
4.That the Revisionist has no other efficacious remedy except to file the present revision.
P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to grant a stay of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Trial court judge's name, Ld. Special Judge/NDPS/ASJ/NE, Trial court complex, Delhi, in FIR No. FIR number under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Police station, Delhi, in case titled as Complainant's name in case title Vs. Accused's name in case title, till the final decision of the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition, in the interest of justice, equity and the circumstances of the case.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of this case in accordance with Section 397 of the Code and may act in accordance with the said provisions.
Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Revisionist and against the Respondents.
Prayed accordingly.
DELHIREVISIONIST
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address, New Delhi.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. APPLICATION NO. Application number OF Year of the application and revision petition
IN
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF Year of the application and revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's nameRESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE Documents for which certified copies exemption is sought.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the Revisionist has filed Annexures along with the Criminal Revision in support of the petition, and the Annexures so filed are true, correct and compared copies of the originals.
2.That the Revisionist shall apply for obtaining the certified copies of the Annexures and undertakes to file the same as soon as they are made available by the concerned Copying Agency.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Revisionist may kindly be exempted from filing the certified copies of the Annexures, in the interest of justice.
DELHIREVISIONIST
THROUGH
DATED: Date of signing
ADVOCATES
Off.: Advocate's office address, New Delhi.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF Year of the application and revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's nameRESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
AFFIDAVIT
I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, Delhi, 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 vernacular, and having understood the same, I state that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this Date of verification day of Month and year of verification, that 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. APPLICATION NO. Application number OF Year of the application and revision petition
IN
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF Year of the application and revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
Respondent's nameRESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
AFFIDAVIT
I, Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, Delhi, 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 application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for exemption from filing certified copies have been read over and explained to me in vernacular language, and having understood the same, I state that the facts set out therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification of Month and year of verification; the contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part thereof is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. APPLICATION NO. Application number OF 2016.
IN
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. Revision petition number OF 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
V E R S U S
THE STATE: RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, 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 am therefore competent to swear this Affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been read over and explained to me in vernacular language, and having understood the same, I state that the facts set out therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification of Month and year of verification; the contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part thereof is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT