IIT-B, IIM-B, 498-A

My experiences with legal terrorism

Suppressoin of Material Facts – Quashing

Courtesy: Sukant

Summary: Suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief.

How to use this judgment: This judgment can be used where-ever your wife is seeking relief from court but is suppressing material information from the court. In legal parlance, this is also termed as 'Coming with unclean hands'.  
Full Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE

CRR NO. 999 OF 2006

Md. Ashiruddin & Anr.

Vs.

State of West Begal & Anr.

For the Petitioner :Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lutful Haque

Ms. Ameena Kabir

For the State : Mrs. Krishna Ghosh

HEARD ON: 18.03.2008.

JUDGMENT ON:25.03.2008

KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J.:

1. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 300 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 dated 06.12.2005  under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned Additional  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, District Nadia.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is a retired Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner No. 2 is a Constable. The first wife of petitioner No. 1 died and thereafter he again married O.P. No. 2 Rojina Bibi on 25.06.2004 according to  Muslim Shariat Laws and both of them were leading conjugal life in village  Murcha, P.S. Khargram, District Murshidabad. O.P. No. 2 was a widow  at the time of her marriage with petitioner No. 1 and had a son and two  daughters out of her previous marriage. The petitioner No. 1 used to reside  in Krishnanagar where he was posted and the O.P. No. 2 was residing in  village Morcha. There was difference of opinion between the spouses.  O.P. No. 2 filed a case against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 498A/325  I.P.C. being Kotwali P.S. Case No. 95/2005 dated 06.4.2005. Charge sheet  was issued on 15.4.2005 being C.S. No. 80/2005 under Section 498A  I.P.C. The O.P. No. 2 complained of mental and physical torture. On  11.4.2005 O.P. No. 2 made an affidavit before the learned Sub-Divisional  Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar stating that she had no complaint  against her husband whatsoever. In the affidavit she stated that when she  went to Krishnanagar, a person took her signatures on some blank sheets and taking advantage of that filed a case against her husband. She also  stated that her husband never committed torture upon her physically or  mentally and that they had been leading a happy conjugal life. On 9th  June, 2005 the petitioner No. 1 was discharged by the learned S.D.J.M.,  Krishnanagar on the basis of affidavit made on 11.4.2005. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1 divorced to the O.P. No. 2 on 04.8.2005 and communicated  the same by registered post with A.D. dated 13.8.2005 and 18.8.2005, but,  the registered letter dated 18.8.2005 came back to the petitioner as  ‘refused’ by the O.P. No. 2. O.P. No. 2 filed a case in the Court of Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar on 29.8.2005 under Section 498A/34  I.P.C. against the petitioners, but, no effective step was taken thereof. The  O.P. No. 2 also filed a case in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Krishnanagar against the petitioner No. 1 under Section 125  Cr.P.C. being case No. 481 of 2004. The O.P. No. 2 also filed another case  under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. (G.R. No. 1343 of 2005) Hnaskhali P.S. Case  No. 281 dated 06.12.2005, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Ranaghat. The allegations raised against the petitioners are  false and concocted. The continuance of proceeding under Section  498A/34 I.P.C. in Hanskhali P.S. Case NO. 281 dated 06.12.2005 is  unwarranted and will be the abuse of the process of the Court. In view of  the discharge of the petitioner No. 1 from earlier case being Kotwali P.S.  Case No. 95 of 2005, the instant case being Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281  dated 06.12.2005 under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. cannot proceed and the  same is not maintainable. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has  filed the instant application praying for quashing of the proceeding under  Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the earlier case ended in discharge on 09.6.2005 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Krishnanagar in G.R. Case No. 408 of 2005, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 95 of  2005. Mr. Mukherjee submits that the divorce was effected on 04.8.2005  when the factum of divorce was communicated to O.P. No. 2 herein. Mr.  Mukherjee contends that same allegation as made in the earlier complaint  was raised against the petitioner No. 1 herein in the subsequent petition of  complaint which was sent to P.S. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on  06.12.2005 bearing Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 dated 06.12.2005. Mr.  Mukherjee contends that there is no allegation under Section 406 I.P.C. in  the instant case and, moreover, there is suppression of material facts in  the subsequent complaint being Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 date  06.12.2005. Mr. Mukherjee contends that when the petitioner No. 1 was  discharged in the earlier case which ended in his discharge on 09.6.2005,  the subsequent case on the same allegations bearing Hanskhali P.S. Case  No. 281 dated 06.12.2005 is not maintainable. Regarding the suppression of material facts viz. discharge of the petitioner No. 1 in the earlier case, Mr. Mukherjee has referred to and relied on the decisions reported in 2005  SCC (Cri)1322 [MCD Vs. State of Delhi and another] para 21 and  (2004)7 SCC 166 [S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. V. State of Bihar  and others] para 13.

4. Mrs. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner  No. 1 herein was the Sub-Inspector of Police and regarding the alleged  torture meted out to O.P. No. 2, there are medical reports and statements  of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is contended that it  is not clear whether there was divorce or not by way of Talaknama. As  regards the allegation of torture under Section 498A I.P.C. on the same  facts in the subsequent case, Mrs. Ghosh contends that the manner of  alleged torture upon O.P. No. 2 in the second case was different and there  is added period of alleged torture. Mrs. Ghosh contends that O.P. No. 2  was assaulted by the petitioner No. 1 as per allegation and in view of the  medical reports and the statements of the witnesses recorded under  Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no ground to quash the proceedings pending  in the learned Court below. Mrs. Ghosh contends that the petitioner No. 1  herein can raise such question in the Trial Court at the appropriate stage,  but, not in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. From the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 95 of 2005 dated 06.4.2005 G.R.  No. 408 of 2005 it appears that the occurrence of the alleged offence was  after the marriage till the date of lodging the F.I.R. i.e. 06.4.2005. It  further appears that the said case bearing No. 408 of 2005 ended in the  discharge of the accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The learned  Magistrate considered the affidavit filed by the defacto-complainant in the said case wherein it was stated that she was leading her conjugal life  happily with her husband. On hearing the defacto-complaint and  considering the contentions raised in the affidavit, the learned Magistrate  recorded the order of discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. Subsequently,  the instant case bearing Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 dated 06.12.2005  was started. The petition of complaint was sent to the P.S. under Section  156(3) Cr.P.C. and the F.I.R. was registered bearing No. 281 dated  06.12.2005. In the said petition of complaint the occurrence of the alleged  offence was after marriage extending up to 24.8.2005. It is, therefore, clear  that the period of alleged torture as per the subsequent complaint also includes the period of torture as raised in the earlier complaint which  ended in discharge of the accused. By filing the affidavit stating that she  was living happily with her husband which enabled the Court to record  order of discharge, the defacto complainant put an end to the allegation of  torture as raised in the earlier petition of complaint and, as such, the same  allegation over the same period cannot be reopened.

6. Secondly, in the second petition of complaint there is no whisper about the contention raised in the earlier complaint and the order of discharge made therein. Mr. Mukherjee in this connection has referred to the decision  reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1322 para 21 (Supra). The observation of the  Hon’ble Apex Court made in para 21 of the aforesaid decision is quoted  hereunder:-

“This apart, the respondent did not also disclose the fact in the criminal revision filed before the High Court that he has also been convicted in another Criminal Case No. 202 of 1997 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. Thus, the contesting respondent has come to the High Court with unclean hands and withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side. In our opinion, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. A person whose case is based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation”

The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the decision reported in (2004)7 SCC 166 para 13 (Supra) is quoted hereunder:- “As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case…”

7. Since in the subsequent petition of complaint there is no whisper about the earlier petition of complaint followed by the order of discharge of the  accused persons, such non-disclosure amounts to suppression of material  facts, inasmuch as, had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on  the merits of the case. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, I find  that it is a fit case for quashing of the proceedings in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application under Section 482  read with Section 300 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings of  Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 dated 06.12.2005 under Section 498A/34  I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Ranaghat stand quashed.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below immediately.

9. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.

( Kalidas Mukherjee, J. )

Judgment in PDF format can be downloaded from http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/877532/

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE
CRR NO. 999 OF 2006
Md. Ashiruddin & Anr.
Vs.
State of West Begal & Anr.
For the Petitioner :Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lutful Haque
Ms. Ameena Kabir
For the State : Mrs. Krishna Ghosh
HEARD ON: 18.03.2008.
JUDGMENT ON:25.03.2008
KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J.:
1. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 300 Cr.P.C.
praying for quashing of Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 dated 06.12.2005  under
Section 498A/34 I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned Additional  Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, District Nadia.
2. The petitioner No. 1 is a retired Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner
No. 2 is a Constable. The first wife of petitioner No. 1 died and thereafter  he
again married O.P. No. 2 Rojina Bibi on 25.06.2004 according to  Muslim Shariat
Laws and both of them were leading conjugal life in village  Murcha, P.S.
Khargram, District Murshidabad. O.P. No. 2 was a widow  at the time of her
marriage with petitioner No. 1 and had a son and two  daughters out of her
previous marriage. The petitioner No. 1 used to reside  in Krishnanagar where he
was posted and the O.P. No. 2 was residing in  village Morcha. There was
difference of opinion between the spouses.  O.P. No. 2 filed a case against the
petitioner No. 1 under Section 498A/325  I.P.C. being Kotwali P.S. Case No.
95/2005 dated 06.4.2005. Charge sheet  was issued on 15.4.2005 being C.S. No.
80/2005 under Section 498A  I.P.C. The O.P. No. 2 complained of mental and
physical torture. On  11.4.2005 O.P. No. 2 made an affidavit before the learned
Sub-Divisional  Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar stating that she had no
complaint  against her husband whatsoever. In the affidavit she stated that when
she  went to Krishnanagar, a person took her signatures on some blank sheets
and taking advantage of that filed a case against her husband. She also  stated
that her husband never committed torture upon her physically or  mentally and
that they had been leading a happy conjugal life. On 9th  June, 2005 the
petitioner No. 1 was discharged by the learned S.D.J.M.,  Krishnanagar on the
basis of affidavit made on 11.4.2005. Thereafter the petitioner No. 1 divorced
to the O.P. No. 2 on 04.8.2005 and communicated  the same by registered post
with A.D. dated 13.8.2005 and 18.8.2005, but,  the registered letter dated
18.8.2005 came back to the petitioner as  ‘refused’ by the O.P. No. 2. O.P. No.
2 filed a case in the Court of Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar on
29.8.2005 under Section 498A/34  I.P.C. against the petitioners, but, no
effective step was taken thereof. The  O.P. No. 2 also filed a case in the Court
of Additional Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Krishnanagar against the petitioner
No. 1 under Section 125  Cr.P.C. being case No. 481 of 2004. The O.P. No. 2 also
filed another case  under Section 498A/34 I.P.C. (G.R. No. 1343 of 2005)
Hnaskhali P.S. Case  No. 281 dated 06.12.2005, in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial  Magistrate, Ranaghat. The allegations raised against the petitioners
are  false and concocted. The continuance of proceeding under Section  498A/34
I.P.C. in Hanskhali P.S. Case NO. 281 dated 06.12.2005 is  unwarranted and will
be the abuse of the process of the Court. In view of  the discharge of the
petitioner No. 1 from earlier case being Kotwali P.S.  Case No. 95 of 2005, the
instant case being Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281  dated 06.12.2005 under Section
498A/34 I.P.C. cannot proceed and the  same is not maintainable. Under the
circumstances, the petitioner has  filed the instant application praying for
quashing of the proceeding under  Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the
earlier case ended in discharge on 09.6.2005 passed by learned S.D.J.M.,
Krishnanagar in G.R. Case No. 408 of 2005, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 95 of  2005.
Mr. Mukherjee submits that the divorce was effected on 04.8.2005  when the
factum of divorce was communicated to O.P. No. 2 herein. Mr.  Mukherjee contends
that same allegation as made in the earlier complaint  was raised against the
petitioner No. 1 herein in the subsequent petition of  complaint which was sent
to P.S. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on  06.12.2005 bearing Hanskhali P.S. Case
No. 281 dated 06.12.2005. Mr.  Mukherjee contends that there is no allegation
under Section 406 I.P.C. in  the instant case and, moreover, there is
suppression of material facts in  the subsequent complaint being Hanskhali P.S.
Case No. 281 date  06.12.2005. Mr. Mukherjee contends that when the petitioner
No. 1 was  discharged in the earlier case which ended in his discharge on
09.6.2005,  the subsequent case on the same allegations bearing Hanskhali P.S.
Case  No. 281 dated 06.12.2005 is not maintainable. Regarding the suppression
of material facts viz. discharge of the petitioner No. 1 in the earlier case,
Mr. Mukherjee has referred to and relied on the decisions reported in 2005  SCC
(Cri)1322 [MCD Vs. State of Delhi and another] para 21 and  (2004)7 SCC 166
[S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. V. State of Bihar  and others] para 13.
4. Mrs. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner  No.
1 herein was the Sub-Inspector of Police and regarding the alleged  torture
meted out to O.P. No. 2, there are medical reports and statements  of the
witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is contended that it  is not
clear whether there was divorce or not by way of Talaknama. As  regards the
allegation of torture under Section 498A I.P.C. on the same  facts in the
subsequent case, Mrs. Ghosh contends that the manner of  alleged torture upon
O.P. No. 2 in the second case was different and there  is added period of
alleged torture. Mrs. Ghosh contends that O.P. No. 2  was assaulted by the
petitioner No. 1 as per allegation and in view of the  medical reports and the
statements of the witnesses recorded under  Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no
ground to quash the proceedings pending  in the learned Court below. Mrs. Ghosh
contends that the petitioner No. 1  herein can raise such question in the Trial
Court at the appropriate stage,  but, not in the instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. From the F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 95 of 2005 dated 06.4.2005 G.R.  No.
408 of 2005 it appears that the occurrence of the alleged offence was  after the
marriage till the date of lodging the F.I.R. i.e. 06.4.2005. It  further appears
that the said case bearing No. 408 of 2005 ended in the  discharge of the
accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. The learned  Magistrate considered the
affidavit filed by the defacto-complainant in the said case wherein it was
stated that she was leading her conjugal life  happily with her husband. On
hearing the defacto-complaint and  considering the contentions raised in the
affidavit, the learned Magistrate  recorded the order of discharge under Section
245 Cr.P.C. Subsequently,  the instant case bearing Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281
dated 06.12.2005  was started. The petition of complaint was sent to the P.S.
under Section  156(3) Cr.P.C. and the F.I.R. was registered bearing No. 281
dated  06.12.2005. In the said petition of complaint the occurrence of the
alleged  offence was after marriage extending up to 24.8.2005. It is, therefore,
clear  that the period of alleged torture as per the subsequent complaint also
includes the period of torture as raised in the earlier complaint which  ended
in discharge of the accused. By filing the affidavit stating that she  was
living happily with her husband which enabled the Court to record  order of
discharge, the defacto complainant put an end to the allegation of  torture as
raised in the earlier petition of complaint and, as such, the same  allegation
over the same period cannot be reopened.
6. Secondly, in the second petition of complaint there is no whisper about the
contention raised in the earlier complaint and the order of discharge made
therein. Mr. Mukherjee in this connection has referred to the decision  reported
in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1322 para 21 (Supra). The observation of the  Hon’ble Apex
Court made in para 21 of the aforesaid decision is quoted  hereunder:-
“This apart, the respondent did not also disclose the fact in
the criminal revision filed before the High Court that he has also been
convicted in another Criminal Case No. 202 of 1997 by the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. Thus, the contesting respondent has come
to the High Court with unclean hands and withholds a vital document in order to
gain advantage on the other side. In our opinion, he would be guilty of playing
fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. A person whose case is
based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has
no right to
approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any
stage of the litigation”
The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in the decision reported in
(2004)7 SCC 166 para 13 (Supra) is quoted hereunder:-    “As a general rule,
suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from
obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts
to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. But the
suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been
suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case…”
7. Since in the subsequent petition of complaint there is no whisper about the
earlier petition of complaint followed by the order of discharge of the  accused
persons, such non-disclosure amounts to suppression of material  facts, inasmuch
as, had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on  the merits of the
case. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, I find  that it is a fit
case for quashing of the proceedings in the exercise of the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application under Section 482  read with Section 300
Cr.P.C. is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings of  Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281
dated 06.12.2005 under Section 498A/34  I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Ranaghat stand quashed.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below immediately.
9. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to
the parties as early as possible.
( Kalidas Mukherjee, J.

27 Responses to “Suppressoin of Material Facts – Quashing”

  1. JPK said

    Hi Brother,

    I am fighting an interim maintenance case where the wife has mentioned that she’s not working. I am looking for some judgements from Mumbai HC where the maintenance has been denied on ‘unclean hands’ ground. I have been searching for past two days, but not getting judgements from Bombay HC. I have others that I will eventually use, but since I am fighting the case in a district that falls under Mumbai HC jurisdriction, judgements from this HC would be very helpful.

    Thanks a lot!

    • JPK said

      Note: I have filed Section 9 of HMA (RCR) and the interim maintenance is being requested against my RCR application.

    • iluvshrutiverma said

      Hi JPK,

      Use the ‘unclean hands’ judgments from Supreme Court. They would be applicable as per article 142 of Constitution of India.

      Meanwhile, if I come across something from Mumbai HC, I would let you know.

      On a side note, if maintenance is being asked u/s 24, then you might consider withdrawing your petition u/s 9 (logic: if litigation itself isn’t there, then the question of ‘pendelite’ litigation does not arise).

      Regards

      • JPK said

        Hello Brother,

        If you have them handy, would it be possible for you to send following judgements related to unclean hands to me.

        I have got rest, but was not able to get exact links for following –


        II. AIR 2005 Alld. 187 Pushpa V/s State of U. P.

        VI. AIR 1985 Mad. 284 Rajambal V/s Murugappan

        Thanks!

      • iluvshrutiverma said

        Hi, i will try and look for these in my free time. Meanwhile, you you help others by posting the other judgments that you have found?

        Thanks

      • Ram Sharma said

        Hi,
        My wife filed section 9 after filiing 498A/406 ..These 2 cases are contradictory in nature… I was suggested that in court where 498A is running .. I should mention that she has filed section 9 which is contradictory ..so either section 498A or section 9 should be quashed .. how true is that ?? do we have any judgement to support that ??

        Thanks

      • iluvshrutiverma said

        Section 9 (RCR) is usually a pre-cursor to Crpc 125 (maintenance). RCR is a useless case as far as re-union is concerned but 5 – 7 years later, there might be problems (CPC order 21 rule 32) – but we shall see when that happens.

        Coming to your specific question – there are many people I know who think 498a and section 9 are contradictory – why will a wife want to stay with a ‘cruel’ husband. BUT in my opinion, they are not contradictory.

        498a is to punish you for the cruelty you have indicted on her and section 9 is for restitution of conjugal rights – to which she is entitled to because she is your wife.

  2. Amit said

    Hi Iluvshrutiverma,

    Can you please help me on the case “Use the ‘unclean hands’ judgments from Supreme Court”.I need a case from Supreme court as my lawyer is insisting for a case from Supreme court and not from Calcutta High court.

    Thanks in advance for your help.

    Amit

    • Ram Sharma said

      Can someone please give the judgement on “Unclean Hands” from SC? Does hidding that she was working before constitute as “Unclear Hands”.

      Thanks
      Ram

  3. Gopinadh said

    Greetings!

    I am looking for Ilushruti Verma advise on my 498a counter case which is getting rejected in the lower court. I want to send my documents and have your advise. Your kind assistance is highly appreciated please let me know email I need to send my documnets

    Best Regards

    • iluvshrutiverma said

      I am sorry but I will not be able to help over email. The only way to reach me is via my blogs – the reason being – whatever is written here once can be accessed by others also. So many people can benefit at the same time

  4. gopinadh said

    Hi Iluvshrutiverma,

    I am facing the problem in the court to resubmit the returned petition without getting numbered and They are also not rejecting just returning only. Magistrate is straight away telling that she would return it again though I complied, with simple reason ‘ date1, date2, date3 objections are not complied’. May you help me on how to resubmit it with some SC citation.

    Best Regards,
    Gopinadh.

    • iluvshrutiverma said

      Hi – may be she is talking about page numbers? I am sorry but I have a problem in figuring out the exact words used by the magistrate.

      • Gopinadh said

        Hi, I have filed private complaint against the advocate of my wife and 12 others(10 witness in my wifes 498A case against me and my parents + co brother in law and sister in law) and the petition is around 25 pages, I dont know hoe do I upload it here. However I am pasting here, my latest resubmission on 16-03-2011, complying to the magistrate return reasons

        First return reasons being a) file copies, pay batta
        Second return reasons- a) file police complaint and file acknowledgement b) Article 129 is not applicable in this court
        Third return reason- a) Police report is must

        During resubmission third time: I have invoked article 14 -equality before law and requested to allow the petition in the same fashion the court admitted 498a without police complaint. CALL AT BENCH.

        4th return reason:
        1. Articles 129 and 142 doesnt belong to this court.
        2. My wife lodged petition in the court and court has taken conginizance refered to police and police filed FIR and later chargesheeted. Hence not aplicable. ( this is strange return excuse, while they insisted on police complaint, I invoked article 14 hence returned with this reason, probably asking me to file against my wife as A1, why advocate?)

        Till this point I am party in person but hired local advocate on latest resubmission.

        Hence I have resubmitted on 16-03-2011 as follows: to which the petition is returned as stated in my intro mail.

        IN THE COURT OF II ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
        REPRESENTED ON: 16-03-2011
        1. COMPLIED.
        2. I am hereby requesting this honorable court to consider this as private complaint U/ S. CR.P.C 190 & 200 & Article 129 & Article 142 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r/w Article 141 & U/S I.P.C- 120A, 504, 107, 175, 196, 182, 211, 385, 499 & 173 r/w S. I.P.C 34 & 35, & U/S CR.P.C 468 W/S C.P.C– 151.
        Article 141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.— The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
        Article 142. (2) – Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
        Article 129 Supreme Court to be a court of record.—The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
        I am hereby humbly submitting to this Honorable Court that the judgment given by Hon. Supreme court of India by the bench HANSARIA B.L. (J) & KULDIP SINGH (J) in the case CHANDRA SHASHI Vs. ANIL KUMAR VERMA dated 14/11/1994, enclosed in Annex- X, Page 91, Para 16, “ 7 1994 Supp (3) SCC 509 : JT (1994) 6 SC 584 428 the larger cause of maintenance of purity in the portals of court inasmuch as if a fabricated document with oblique motive can be filed in the Apex Court, a serious view for the same has to be taken to maintain a modicum of fairness in courts below. This apart, the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching courts from doing so. Such a tendency is required to be curbed, which requires somewhat deterrent sentence.”
        3. Whilst the offenses U/S IPC 175, 196 and 182 are committed by A1 in this Hon. Court II JFMC, Rajahmundry itself and also as I am submitting recorded CD as an evidence divulging falsehood collective motivations of my in-laws and A1 for their offense U/S I.P.C 504, I would like to submit humbly to this Honorable court that there is no necessity to refer to the police.
        I would like to humbly further submit to this Honorable Court that though Murala. Aruna with her ignorance towards dire consequences of contempt of court lodged private complaint in this Honorable Court with the instigation of my in-laws, I would like to submit the Honorable Supreme Court Judgment on 08/07/1997 in the case of Advocate P.D. GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM MURTI & ANR by the BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA confirming advocates responsibility and influence on client while advising his client as indicated in- internal Page 4, Para 4, “It is acknowledged fact that a lawyer conducting the case of his client has commanding status and can expert influence of his client.”
        4. Noted. However, I would like to bring to kind notice of this Hon. Court II ADDL JFMC, that A1 was so unprofessional and unethical even in Hon. Court Lok Adalat, Rajahmundry on 08-03-2011 even tried to influence the bench initiating unwanted discussion and stating that his father is close to Sri. Late Meduri. Satyanarayana and the then Chief Minister Sri. Late N.T.Ramarao and also mentioning that A2 is income tax officer and also further stating sarcastically, that I have lodged several complaints against him including Articles in the constitution Of India which are meant only for Hon. Supreme Court of India ignoring Article 141, preventing peaceful compromising environment, whereas I have requested the Honorable Bench since A1 is the main problem to conspire and break my family, myself and my wife may be given chance for the family counseling in the absence of A1. The Honorable court considered the same and arranged the family counseling where my wife demanded me to come and stay in Rajahmundry and I have expressed my inability to do so since I cant leave my old parents at this age when they require my presence, care and attention, whereas Honorable Lok Adalat Court given us another date to attend family counseling.
        I would like to humbly to submit to the Honorable court that in the same case of Advocate P.D. GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM MURTI & ANR by the BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA, Page 6, Para 4, “We are concerned with the professional conduct of P.D. Gupta as a lawyer conducting the case for his client. A lawyer owes duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court as well as to the opposite party in the conduct of the case. Administration of Justice is stream which has to be dept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of Justice is not something which concerns the Bench only.”
        I would not hesitate to add that, “While conducting the case advocate functions as officer of the court and he owes duty to the society and profession. The unprofessional irresponsible behavior of A1 calling me sadist in the family court since I lodged complaint against him and further intentional interference in the family counseling session in Hon. Court Lok Adalat is not only just influencing my wife taking her as shield to escape from the offenses he committed in this Honorable Court but he is also depriving my kids from their pleasant childhood.”
        I would like to bring to the kind notice of this Honorable court that I am not filing this complaint for the little cause of just defending my case, but for the larger interest of preserving 498A law the dowry provisions which are meant to combat menace of dowry deaths and to protect deprived women, which is possible only if the people with falsehood motivations instigating to misuse this law creating social catastrophe and breaking families are punished with deterrent sentence for clogging stream of justice. Looking forward for your kind assistance and valuable advice, if any changes required I am willing to incorporate the same in order to allow this complaint in this Honorable Court in the interest of equity and justice, else I will put in irreparable loss and injury.
        5. Delay Condoned Petition filed along with Representation and Judgment on Advocate P.D. GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM MURTI & ANR by the BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA.
        6. Call at Bench.
        Be pleased to consider.

        Rajahmundry, Basavaraju. Rama Krishna
        16-03-2011. Advocate for Petitioner

  5. Ram Sharma said

    Along with Charge-Sheet, fake jewelry bills were submitted. What actions could be taken against the jeweler? Where all I can complain regarding this?

    Thanks
    Ram

    • iluvshrutiverma said

      complaint to the department of revenue – that the jeweller is selling articles without proper receipts (paying sales tax, excise tax) – i know that the articles were never bought or sold BUT still complain – let the jeweller get into trouble, the jeweller would be a well known person of the wife – once jeweller gets into trouble, wife and family will feel the heat

      secondly, complain to senior police officials that they have submitted fake bills to frame u in a false case, follow up using RTI about action taken

  6. Gopinadh said

    Again returned with following reasons:
    1. Previous dated objections are not complied.
    2. Article 129 is not maintainable in this court.
    3. Proof of reciept of police complaint
    4. Give notice to the accused and submit the proof.

    I have resubmitted as follows today:

    IN THE COURT OF II ADDL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: AT RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
    REPRESENTED ON: 11-04-2011. Total Pages 64
    1. COMPLIED.
    2. I am hereby humbly submitting to this honorable court that observations of Supreme Court are obiter dicta of the Supreme Court binding all the courts within territory of India and I am hereby respectfully requesting this Honorable Court to consider this private complaint U/ S. CR.P.C 190 & 200 & Article 141 & Article 142 & Article 129 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & U/S I.P.C- 120A, 504, 107, 175, 196, 182, 211, 385, 499 & 173 r/w S. I.P.C 34 & 35, & U/S CR.P.C 468 W/S C.P.C– 151.
    The provision Article 141 of the Constitution declares that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and authorities in India. Thus increasing the scope of the binding nature of its decisions, it has been construed that not just the ratio but even the obiter of a Supreme Court judgment is binding on the High Court and all authorities of India.
    I am hereby humbly submitting in addition to Annex X, Doctrine of Binding in Annex-A.1 Hon Supreme Court observations on Article 141 on 16-05-1989 between PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAGHUBIR SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.ETC. “This is specially true of the Supreme Court, for as the highest Court in the entire judicial system the law declared it is, by Article 141 of the Constitution, binding on all courts within the territory of India.” (Page 7, Line 16).
    I am hereby humbly submitting the Hon. Supreme Court observations in Annex-A.2 in Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005 Between Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 19/07/2005 “But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins’ weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears.” (Page 4, Line 18)
    I am hereby humbly submitting welcoming Supreme Court observations by the Delhi Sessions Court indicating binding of subordinate courts to higher courts in the Judgment by Hon. Justice Kamini Lau, in Annex-A.3 Quoting misuse of dowry provisions is legal terrorism, in Crl. Revision No. 354/09 between Uma Devi Vs Sunil Garg. Also, THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SOUTH,PATIALA HOUSE COURT in Criminal Revision No. 88/2008/2002, observed as:
    “It is settled legal position that vague and bald statement7 cannot be the foundation for framing of charge. Since a tendency has emerged to rope in other family members of the husband in cases of 498-A, concrete allegations with regard to the date, the place, the manner, the act of cruelty should be present in the evidence in order to frame a charge for offence under Section 498-A. Because of the present propensity to rope in innocent persons, the Trial Court has to be vigilant while framing charge for offence under Section 498-A. “
    I am hereby humbly submitting Hon. High Court of Andhra Pradesh observations by THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY Annex-A.4 stating “To Discourage this unhealthy practice”, in Criminal Petition No. 6642 of 2007 on 22-11-2007 as follows in para 8:-
    “Before parting with the petition, I feel it desirable to observe that there is rampant misuse of S.498-A IPC. False complaints are given against kith-and-kin of the husband, including the married sisters and their husbands; unmarried sisters and brothers and married brothers and their wives. There are instances where even young children, aged below ten years, were also implicated in the offences of this nature. My experience, while sitting in matrimonial Bench revealed that several families are ruined; marriages have been irretrievably broken down and chances of reconciliation of spouses have been spoiled on account of unnecessary complaints and the consequent arrest and remand of the husbands and their kith-and-kin.”
    I would like to humbly submit observations in the judgment in Annex-A.5 of Hon’ble Judges: B.S.A. Swamy and G. Yethirajulu, JJ.AAO No. 1039 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD between Saritha Vs R Ramachandra On: 09.07.2002 as follows in paragraphs 5 & 6:-
    “5. During hearing, we came to know that the appellant filed a criminal case against the respondent and his entire family under Section 498-A IPC. From the conduct of the appellant we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant being at fault wants to misuse the process of law and harass the respondent and his family members for the sin of marrying her. We never expected that women would be of such a character in this country. Even though the respondent expressed so much magnanimity towards her, without ill-will or rancor and extended his arm to lead a happy marital life, the appellant just threw away the offer with her little finger. The criminal Court shall take up the case for trial on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same within on month from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of dismissal of the criminal case as a foisted one and the allegations are far from truth, it is always open to the respondent to take appropriate criminal action on the appellant as well as her parents for implicating them in a false case and making them to come all the way from New Delhi to Hyderabad to attend the Courts.
    6. This Court would like to go on record that for nothing the educated women are approaching the Courts for divorce and resorting to proceedings against their in-laws under Section 498-A IPC implicating not only the husbands but also their family members whether they are in India or abroad. This is nothing but abuse of beneficial provisions intended to save the women from unscrupulous husbands. But it has taken a reverse trend now. In some cases this type of action is coming as a formidable hurdle in reconciliation efforts made by either well meaning people or the Courts and the sanctity attached to the mandate that the Courts shall always try to save the marriage through conciliatory efforts till the last, are being buried deep-neck”.
    The observations of The Hon. High Court of Andhra Pradesh magnanimously suggesting the mis-use of dowry provisions should be discouraged by lodging criminal cases against the instigating people, including in-laws. In my case, A1 who is close to my in-laws family, secreted my RCR notice received by him from my counsel misguiding this Hon. II JFMC court throwing away my readiness for family counseling just to fabricate false evidence, colluding with my in-laws using court to settle their scores by giving illegal-criminal advises and even prevented reconciliation in Lok Adalat by taking N.T Rama Rao, Meduri. Satyanarayana and S.G.Rama Rao relation and thereby emphasizing A2 is income tax commissioner in order to influence the Hon. Lok Adalat Court, indicates dirty behavior of A1 abusing process even in reconciliation, which is quite obvious when my wife was demanding me come to Rajahmundry during conclusive counseling session in Hon.Lok Adalat Court, but only in the absence of A1.
    3. Earlier I have invoked my constitutional right Article 14 to kindly allow this petition like CC 133/2010 on 18-02-2011 this honorable court observed that court has taken cognizance in CC 133/2010 without police complaint. Hence when the offenses U/S IPC 175, 196 and 182 are committed by A1 in this Hon. Court II JFMC, Rajahmundry itself and also as I am submitting recorded CD as an evidence divulging falsehood collective motivations of my in-laws and A1 to settle scores for their offense U/S I.P.C 504, I would like to submit humbly to this Honorable court that there is no necessity to refer to the police, since my intention is just seeking justice by bringing the facts to the notice of this honorable court but not to create terror like A1.
    4. I would like to humbly submit to this honorable court that A1 is trying to influence family court, calling me sadist and even in Lok Adalat prevented peaceful reconciliation without even before this petition is allowed, it is deeply frightening to me to give notice to such an influenced Advocate backed up by A2 Income Tax Commissioner, since it is suicidal like giving AK 47 rifle to this legal terrorist to kill myself which can be clearly understood by the latest offense committed by him U/S IPC 173- prevention of summons, or other proceeding or preventing publication thereof. If A1 is not prosecuted for his offenses at this point of time with immediate effect he will enjoy right to break more families, to suffer innocent children and old senior citizens, for no reason but just for his mere personal benefit by colluding with irresponsible people like my in-laws with false motives and criminal attitude.
    5. Whilst this petition is returned on different dates with mainly legal technical compliance of the legal system involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties, I am hereby respectfully also seeking Natural Justice from this Honorable court and kindly grant me the a ‘full and fair opportunity’ of being heard, by considering Hon. Supreme Court observations in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2009(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6382 of 2007) between Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. ..Appellants Versus State of U.P. and Anr. ..Respondent, Annex-A.6, Para 7, page 3 in “whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice”.
    The latest offense committed by A1 and A2 U/S IPC 173 is the continuance of abuse of process furtherance to his fabricated evidence to lodge false case against me and my parents, which is depriving me from my constitutional right of liberty of life, Article 21 and effecting my civil life very badly even drove my old parents bed ridden since the date of NBW issuance without summons, creating fear in them, deprived their life of liberty also in their old age. In Para 8 of Annex-A.6 Hon. Supreme Court observed that, “The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle.”
    “The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to “vocate, interrogate and adjudicate”. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414], the principle was thus stated:
    “Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. “Adam” says God, “where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat”
    In Para 18, Page 12 Hon. Supreme Court observed, that,
    “Garner Administrative Law (8th Edn. 1996. pp.271-72) says that slight proof that the result would have been different is sufficient. On the other side of the argument, we have apart from Ridge v. Baldwin (1964 AC 40: (1963) 2 All ER 66, HL), Megarry, J. in John v. Rees ( 1969 (2) All ER 274) stating that there are always ‘open and shut cases’ and no absolute rule of proof of prejudice can be laid down. Merits are not for the court but for the authority to consider. Ackner, J has said that the ‘useless formality theory’ is a dangerous one and, however inconvenient, natural justice must be followed. His Lordship observed that ‘convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms’.”
    While the Hon. Supreme Court observed, “The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice”, and also “says that slight proof that the result would have been different is sufficient”, I have already submitted documentary evidence of fabrication by A1 and the recorded CD indicating my in-laws oblique motivations for the kind considerations of this Hon. Court and hereby praying to kindly safeguard my relief even with remote possibility else I will be put in irreparable loss and injury.
    6. Enclosures:
    a. Annex-A.1 Hon Supreme Court observations on Article 141 on 16-05-1989 between PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAGHUBIR SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.ETC.
    b. Annex-A.2 Hon. Supreme Court observations in Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005 Between Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 19/07/2005
    c. Annex-A.3 Delhi Sessions Court Judgment welcoming Hon Supreme Court Observations by Hon. Justice Kamini Lau, Quoting misuse of dowry provisions is legal terrorism, in Crl. Revision No. 354/09 between Uma Devi Vs Sunil Garg.
    d. Annex-A.4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY Judgment on 22-11-2007 in Criminal Petition No. 6642 of 2007 Between Kamireddy Mangamma and others State of AP represented by the Public Prosecutor
    e. Annex-A.5 of Hon’ble Judges: B.S.A. Swamy and G. Yethirajulu, JJ.AAO No. 1039 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD between Saritha Vs R Ramachandra On: 09.07.2002 as follows:
    f. Annex-A.6 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2009(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6382 of 2007) between Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. ..Appellants Versus State of U.P. and Anr. ..Respondent

    7. Call at Bench.
    Be pleased to consider.

    Rajahmundry,
    11-04-2011. Advocate for Petitioner

    • iluvshrutiverma said

      1. Previous dated objections are not complied.

      2. Article 129 is not maintainable in this court – file a complaint against the judge to the registrar of this court as well as high court saying “This judge refuses to maintain constitution of India” – if you follow this properly, the judge might get into trouble :)

      3. Proof of reciept of police complaint

      4. Give notice to the accused and submit the proof – send notice to the opposite party, attach proof of ‘sending’ – the opposite party will refuse to take the notice, then tell the court that they should send ‘dasti summons’

      • Gopinadh said

        4. Giving notice to Advocate, is suicidal as I explained in my resubmission. He will go for defamation directly diluting the flavor of the complaint and it will throw me to defence. He fabricated that I am absconding concealing my RCR notice in the court itself and hence I have filed Article 129, 142 r/w 141

  7. Gopinadh said

    Finally I have seeked ‘natural justice’ in re-submission – 5. Whilst this petition is returned on different dates with mainly legal technical compliance of the legal system involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties, I am hereby respectfully also seeking Natural Justice from this Honorable court and kindly grant me the a ‘full and fair opportunity’ of being heard, by considering Hon. Supreme Court observations in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2009(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6382 of 2007) between Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. ..Appellants Versus State of U.P. and Anr. ..Respondent, Annex-A.6, Para 7, page 3 in “whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice”.
    The latest offense committed by A1 and A2 U/S IPC 173 is the continuance of abuse of process furtherance to his fabricated evidence to lodge false case against me and my parents, which is depriving me from my constitutional right of liberty of life, Article 21 and effecting my civil life very badly even drove my old parents bed ridden since the date of NBW issuance without summons, creating fear in them, deprived their life of liberty also in their old age. In Para 8 of Annex-A.6 Hon. Supreme Court observed that, “The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle.”

    • Gopinadh said

      Any help is highly appreciated… again returned with same reasons… any citation would be of great help to resubmit

  8. gowri said

    i want bt brinjal case full detail and judgement.or i want whos petitioner and whos respondent.please reply me.how can identyfy this case

  9. Pal said

    I do not know where she is working.

    I want to find from legal means if my wife is working anywhere.

    a .Can we use the following judgement http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/MA-18032009-14.pdf to make RTI to get the details of her PF submission on behalf of her company ?

    b. If she remains as a temporary employee of some company and keeps changing jobs then cannot we trace her ?

  10. pal said

    i have not got any reply from you this. i am eagerly waiting for your response my savior

  11. Durgesh Rathore said

    498A/34 yadi ladki ke dwra jhuta aarop lagay gay hai to kiya kya ladka us ladki sa talaknama pas kr sakta hai

    • iluvshrutiverma said

      Yes, it is more than that… once the 498a is proven to be false, you can put counter case on her for defamation and mental agony too

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers

%d bloggers like this: