The quash petition

The following is the text of the quash petition filed on my behalf. This petition was admitted but is at an impasse thanks to the overload of false cases and the “honest and diligent” court clerks who help keep the file at the bottom. An identical petition on behalf of my brother was dismissed. My brother is stuck in India for 16 months, while his passport sits in a locker in the court.

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION

(Under Section 482 Of Cr.P.C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT

HYDERABAD

Crl.P. No. of 2006

Between:

Challa Uma Gayathri W/o (name removed)

Age: 29 years, Occ: Student

(address removed)

Petitioner

And

State of Andhra Pradesh

Represented through Public Prosecutor,

AP High Court, Hyderabad .. Respondent /Complainant

The address for service of all notices, processes etc., on the above named Petitioner is that of her counsel (name removed), Advocate, (address removed).

  1. The above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Criminal Petition to this Hon’ble Court to quash the Proceedings in Crime No. 1125 of 2005 dated 28.12.2005 of Saroornagar Police Station, Hyderabad Ranga Reddy district.
  2. The Petitioner submits that she was falsely implicated in the above criminal case based on the complaint made by her brother’s wife Mrs. P.Malathi and registered in the above crime No.1125/2005 under Sec. 498A IPC.
  3. The petitioner respectfully submits that the Proceedings in the above Crime cannot be permitted to be continued and have to be quashed in limine for the following amongst other-,

-:Grounds:-

1. The Petitioner submits that the present complaint is a clear case of abuse of the process of court and not in the interests of securing justice;

2. The Petitioner submits that the complaint is filed by the said Malathi on frivolous grounds and with all false allegations.

3. The Petitioner submits that the complaint requires the police to ensure that the Accused do not escape from India and not to punish them;

4. The Petitioner submits that the allegations are totally bald and not referring to any specific date or event;

5. The Petitioner submits that it is the case of the complainant that the family members of the complainant contacted the Accused and their replies were harsh, and not the defacto complainant herself, whereas the provisions of Sec.498A IPC requires that the defacto complainant ought to have been subjected to cruelty.

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means:-

  • any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  • harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand

6. The Petitioner submits that the acts stated to have been committed by the Accused does not fit into the definitions of cruelty as explained in Sec.498A IPC that is the alleged acts against accused not constituting alleged offences for want of satisfying ingredients of offences and hence continuance of the said complainant is an abuse of process of law;

7. The Petitioner submits that no allegations much less of specific nature to remotely connect accused with alleged offence. The Accused also shown to have went back to USA after a brief stay of just 10 days immediately after marriage and that there is no complaint of any harassment during this short stint of stay either;

8. The Petitioner submits that the act of cruelty, if it really exists, is said to be performed against the relatives of the defacto complainant in the USA and outside the territory of India and as such the provisions of Sec.498A IPC cannot be attracted;

9. The Petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

10. The Petitioner submits that the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused,

11. The Petitioner submits when the complaint is read in totality there is no complaint against the petitioner herein and no punishment is sought against her;

12. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing;

The Petitioner humbly submits that for what is stated above, the petitioner is not liable for the prosecution under Sec. 498A IPC, and hence the complaint is false, misconceived and the impugned proceedings amount to a clear will to harass the petitioner. There is no prima facie case is made out disclosing the alleged offence, and that there are no bonafides to file the above complaint and hence liable to be quashed. Unless appropriate orders are granted, the Petitioner will be put to grave prejudice and irreparable loss.

It is therefore necessary in the interests of justice that this Hon’ble Court is pleased to quash the Proceedings in Crime No. 1125 of 2005 registered at PS Saroornagar, Hyderabad Ranga Reddy District against the Petitioner and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

It is also necessary in the interests of justice that this Hon’ble Court is pleased to grant stay of further proceedings in the Crime No. 1125 of 2005 registered at PS Saroornagar, Hyderabad Ranga Reddy District including personal appearance pending disposal of the above Crl.P. and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Hyderabad,

Date: Counsel for the Petitioner

Advertisements

4 Responses to The quash petition

  1. shiva says:

    Hi there,

    My bro. is in the same boat. How long is the quashing process? Would they not let your brother travel abroad at all? Plz advise

  2. ilovemyex says:

    Hi, Shiva! There is no point trying to quash the FIR. Our previous lawyer misguided us. If you already have a charge sheet it might be useful to try to quash the charge sheet, but I am told it takes a good amount of time (up to a couple of years) even to quash a case. It could vary depending on which state you are in.

  3. cool says:

    Hi,

    Why do you think, that there is no point in quashing an FIR? In my case though, the police did filed the charesheet, but only two days after we got the orders from the HC to stay the proceedings. So in my case, will quashing of chargesheet would apply?

    The 498A complaint and case was made in Karanataka and we are fighting it on following grounds there in HC,
    1. After 2 years of marriage plus 1.5 years of separation, the my wife has filed this case with false allegations only at the illadvise of her parents to extract money.

    2. We never lived in Karanataka after marriage but only in Pune where I am working for past 8 years. Though a kannadiga, I am born and bought up in Maharastra. Thus a domicile. So jurisdiction cannot be entertained.

    3. The complaint by my wife states that “My husband and his parents have called me on 30th June 2007 and 1st July 2007 and threatened me for life if you interfere in my second marriage”. However, later in the chargesheet, the police made the statement that “The husband’s parents called the wife and asked for more dowry”. Both these statements are contradicting.
    In fact on 2nd of July 2007, my wife called me on my mobile from her mobile and threatened me for life if I venture into second marriage. I have the recording and transcripts for the same.

    4. In another statement it is mentioned that “The husband whenever use to come to our house, he use to bully me.” This again does not come under the cruelty definition of 498A, i.e., harrassment with a specific demand.

    Note: One important point we have in our stay order from HC is, it is mentioned that the petition should be either decided within 3 months or whichever earlier. So I think we have a time limit.

    Now there is some indication that my wife have is trying all best to even manipulate the judge and clerks to dismiss our petition and get the case continuing in the lower court. Since we know that possibility, we are already prepared to go further in Supreme Court.

    Please, please advice me for anything that could be of help.

    Thanks,
    cool

  4. bic says:

    your only grounds for quashing might be jurisdiction (domicile) if both you and your wife lived elsewhere and the premise of the complaints are somewhere else. Everything else must be contingent on trial. That’s how it works.

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

%d bloggers like this: