IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, (SOUTH) SAKET, AT

DELHI

SESSION CASE NO __/2023

IN
FIR NO.458 OF2021_
P.S.:- NEB SARAI,
FOR THE OFFENCES
U/S 304-B, 498-A, 406 OF IPC.

RANJANA JHA,
W/O:- LATE SH. ANIL KUMAR JHA,
R/O :- S.P. Kothi FLAT NO. 302, MINTO ROAD HOSTEL,
DELHI-110002. PETITONER

VERSUS
STATE OF NCT,
REP. BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER,
DELHI POLICE. ……RESPONDENT

PETITION BY AND ON BEHALF OF PETTIONER UNDER

SECTION 227 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR
DISCHARGE FROM THE OFFENCES AS ALLEGED UNDER
SECTION 304-B, 498A AND 406 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE W.R.T
FIR BEARING NO. 458 OF 2021 REGISTERED WITH P.S.;-
NEBARAI, DELHI POLICE AND CONSEQUENT CHARGESHEET
DATED…………… FILED UNDER SECTION 173 OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER,
DELHI POLICE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the Petitioner through present petition under section 227

of Cr.P.C. hereby seeking benign indulgence of this court
thereby seeking for discharge from the present criminal
 proceedings whereby he is arraigned as accused no… by the
Investigating Officer, Delhi Police vide charge sheet/Police
report dated……….. filed before the Ld. Court of M.M. (South),
Saket at Delhi, under section 173 of Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with FIR No. 458 of 2021, registered
with P.S.:- Neb Sarai, Delhi Police for the offences punishable
U/S. 304-B, 498 and 406 IPC. It is submitted that Ld. Court
of Metropolitan Magistrate, South, (Saket) vide order dated
………………. now committed the case to Sessions Court,
(South) Saket Delhi.

2. The petitioner hereby submits that the charge sheet/Police

report dated ………… filed by the investigating Officer of FIR
No. 458 of 2021, P.S.:- Neb Sarai, which was registered on the
information/statement as furnished by Informant is sheer
abuse of process of laws as the same was filed in blatant
violation of provisions of code of criminal procedure thereby
attempting to implicate the petitioner in false charges and
accusation that cannot be sustainable in the eyes of laws.

FACTUAL MATRIX :-

A. That it is submitted that the Informant had maliciously

furnished false and concocted information/statement
before the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, Hauj Khas,
Distt:- South, Delhi resulting into registration of FIR No.
 458 of 2021 with P.S.:- Neb Sarai, under section 304B,
498 A 406 r/w section 34 IPC thereby arraigned the
petitioner as accused person with sole motive to implicate
her on false charges and accusations. The

B. That it is not out of context to mention herein that during

the pendency of investigation of afore numbered FIR, the
petitioner approached the Sessions Court for grant
anticipatory bails vide ABP No…………, under section 438
of Code of criminal procedure whereby the petitioner
were duly enlarged on anticipatory bail on merits of her
case.

C. That after grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner has

joined the pending investigation and appraised all the
facts acquainted by her and fully cooperated the
investigation officer to unveils the truth involved in the
case under investigation. However, the Investigating
Officer with oblique motive and extraneous consideration
had arraigned the petitioner as an accused of this case
and recommended for trial solely on the statement of
witnesses recorded during investigation and proposed to
be examined during trial.

D. The Petitioner submits that She is law abiding citizen of

country and public servant under Govt. of Bihar and did
not dare to commit any crime whatsoever, what to talk
the offences of serious nature as alleged in the FIR and
consequent Charge sheet/Police report. It is submitted
that not a single piece of any direct evidence have
been surfaced during investigation of this case nor
single incriminating material has been found that
could be inferred that even prima facie case has been
made out against the petitioner under any stretch of
imagination. Hence, in the circumstances of the case,
the petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the
present criminal proceedings and therefore approaches
this Hon’ble Court through present petition for
discharge on following grounds amongst others.

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. :--

Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of

the case and the documents submitted therewith,
and after hearing the submissions of the accused
and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge
the accused and record his reasons for so doing”

State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March,

1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1489, 1977 SCR (3)
113
The Hon`ble Apex Court held that :-
“it is wrong to say that at the stage of flaming charges the court
cannot apply. its judicial mind to the consideration whether or
not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the
offence by the accused. As observed in the latter case, the order
framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and
therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether
the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot
blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused
be. asked to face a trial. In Vadilal Panchal's case. (supra)
section 203 of the old Code was under consideration, which
provided that the Magistrate could dismiss a complaint if after
considering certain matters mentioned in the section there was
in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding with the
case.. To art extent section 227 of the new Code contains an
analogous power which is conferred on the Sessions Court. It
was held by this Court, while considering the true scope of s.
203 of the old Code that the Magistrate was not bound to accept
the result of an enquiry or investigation and that he must apply
his judicial mind to the material on which he had to form his
judgment. These decisions show that for' the purpose of
determining whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against an accused the court possesses a
comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which.
it can determine the question whether the material on
the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a
conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. We are
therefore in agreement with the view of the High Court that the
material on which. the prosecution proposes.to rely against the
respondents is wholly inadequate to sustain the charge that
they are in any manner connected with the assault on the
complainant. We would, however, like to observe that nothing in
our judgment or in the .judgment of the High Court should be
taken as detracting from the case of the prosecution, to. which
we have not applied our mind, as against accused Nos. 1 to 9.
The case against those accused must take its due and lawful
course.”

Imtiaz Ahmed vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November,

1996 Equivalent citations: 1997 CriLJ 1844 The High Court of
Madhya Pradesh :-

The exercise of framing of charges against the accused is an

important step in a criminal trial. It is neither mere observing of
a formality nor a mechanical process. Rather the order, directing
framing of charges, is a pre-trial judicial pronouncement of the
existence of a prima facie case against the accused for making
him to face trial on a particular charge. It substantially affects
his liberty. Though it is not always necessary that the order,
directing framing of charges, should be a detailed one but the
application of mind, by the trial Court, to the allegations and
material against the accused should always be apparent from
 such an order. Nevertheless, the above does not mean that the
trial Court is to undertake a roving enquiry at the stage of
framing of charges. At this stage the enquiry has to be for a
limited purpose only.

GROUNDS

1. NO CREDIBLE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT

FURNISHED EITHER AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION
OF FIR OR DURING THE INEVSTIGATION THEREBY
TRYING TO ABUSE THE PROCESS OF LAW BY WAY OF
MAKING VAGUE & OMNIBUS ALLEGATIONS BY FAMILY
MEMBERS OF DECEASED.
A. It is submitted that the bare reading of FIR, statement of list of
witnesses and consequent Charge sheet/Police report
dated……………… ample demonstrate that the allegations as
levelled by the Informant against the petitioner, by stating the
facts and circumstance in the FIR and statement recorded
during investigation which was otherwise never exists, with
sole motive to implicate her under false charges and
accusation for oblique motive. It is submitted that informant
and his family members had further made false and
manipulated statement to be recorded during investigation
before Investigating Officer of this case only to false implicate
the petitioner. The relevant extract from the FIR and statement
recorded by the Investigating Officer is reproduced below,
where it can be seen like in broad daylight, there is not shred
of material proposed to be adduced as evidence during the
trial.

FIR and Statement recorded under section 161:-

i. That so far the statement pertaining to “Stridhan”
made by the informant in the FIR in question, it
is humbly submitted that admittedly, the dowry
has not been demanded by the petitioner or her
family members before or at the time of
solemnisation of marriage and articles, if any,
had been given by the family members to the
deceased by way of gift (Stridhan) are voluntarily
out of love and affection towards the deceased.
That it is submitted that the entire events of
marriage were celebrated in happily and cordial
atmosphere and not an iota of differences either
of sides, (Bride or Groom) were occurred during
the celebration of marriage.

ii. That it is submitted that after celebration and

completion of the entire customs and rituals of
marriage, the petitioner came to Purnia wherein
She is living happily and in cordial atmosphere
with the petitioner.
iii. That the allegations containing demand of car
and it`s non-fulfilment lead to harassment of
deceased by the petitioner are completely
baseless and concocted and therefore the
petitioner herein vehemently denied. It is
worthwhile to mention herein that during the
short span of marriage of 06 months, the
deceased as per her own whims and caprice
voluntarily had gone to her Maika (at
Panchghachia) which itself negate the entire
story of prosecution that she has been subjected
to cruelty in any manner as alleged prior to
occurrence . The duration of stay of deceased at
her matrimonial home (Purnia) and at her Maika
during her marriage are as follows :-

S. Date Place Period

No of stay
.
1. 23.04.2021 to Panchghachia 06
29.04.2021(Solemn days
isation of marriage)
2. 29.04.2021 to Purnia
21.05.2021

3. 21.05.2021 to Panchghachia
 25.05.2021
4. 25.05.2021 to Purnia
26.07.2021
5. 26.07.2021 to PanchGhachia
22.08.2021
6. 22.08.2021 to Purnia
28.08.2021
7. 28.08.2021 to PanchGhachia
25.09.2021
8. 25.09.2021 to Purnia
04.10.2021
9. 04.10.2021 to date Delhi
of occurrence

iv. It is submitted that the informant himself

departed from his previous statement dated
21.10.2021 wherein he stated in the FIR that “ on
refusal of fulfilment of demand of car, the
petitioner and her sons namely Abhishek
Ananad, subjected cruelty to deceased and she
informed the informant and his father about
alleged cruelty on 02.06.2021” made before the
Executive-Magistrate, Tehsildar, HaujKhas,
South an, however in his statement dated
20.02.2022 recorded by the Investigating Officer
that the other alleged persons persuaded the
petitioner that “he must not plan for child now,
 and thus through Video Call, Abhishek
threatened to commit suicide and force Komal
(deceased) to consume anti pregnancy pills and
aborted pregnancy on 02.06.2021 ”. That it is
submitted that the date 02.06.2021 as
mentioned by informant somehow very crucial,
which uncovered the entire prosecution story as
bunch of lies and fabrication and malicious
attempt to implicate the petitioner on false and
baseless charges.
v. That it is submitted that interestingly, the one of
the LW`s namely Ashutosh Kumar, who
happened to be brother of informant and can be
termed as interested witnesses made statement
before the Investigating Officer on that same very
day i.e. on 20.02.2022 whereby he alleged that
on persuasion of other alleged persons, the
petitioner through video call forced Komal
(deceased) to consume anti pregnancy pills and
aborted pregnancy on 02.06.2021. It is admitted
case of prosecution, that as per CDR location, the
petitioner was in Purnia on 02.06.2021. It is
submitted that witness has failed to explain the
reasons or occasions that lead the petitioner to
force the deceased through video call despite he
was physically present at Purnia where the
 deceased is living at that time. It is submitted
that no such occurrence has been happened as
the deceased was never conceived and got
pregnant during her short span of marriage. The
entire version of prosecution is only bunch of lies
for oblique and malicious reasons.
vi. That it is submitted that the prosecution has
miserably failed to produce any material on
records that the deceased was pregnant at the
relevant point of time. It is submitted that since
the deceased was not pregnant and therefore the
question of consummation of anti pregnancy pills
never arose what to talk of administer it by force
or conspiracy.
vii. That so far the other list of witnesses is
concerned, they belong to same family and
relatives by blood having common motives to
implicate the petitioner in false charge or extort
money by initiating false criminal proceedings.
viii. That the allegation containing demand of car and
clothes on 19.10.2021 by the petitioner from
father of deceased are blatant lies as the local
festival namely Kojegra were not celebrated owing
to some unforeseen happening in the petitioner`s
family since long ago unknown to the petitioner.
ix. That it is submitted that despite the List of
witnesses proposed to be examined during trial
from………. To………. Belong to one family by
blood relative and discounted as interested
witnesses never supported the version of
Informant. The father of informant namely
Kapileshwar Choudhary initially made vague
statement that the petitioner used to harass her
daughter on one pretext or others. The charge
sheet dated ……as filed by the Investigating
Officer even did not explain as to the
circumstances of demand of car by the
petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations
with respect to demand of car was so vague and
devoid of merit that it failed to explain as to what
model of car has been demanded by the
petitioner or his mother. It is also worthwhile to
mention herein that the petitioner was in Delhi
for relevant period of time.

x. That it is submitted that the deceased had

informed the informant and his father about the
cruelty or harassment, whether physical or
psychological or in any manner, on refusal of
fulfilment of demand car whatsoever as
perpetrated by the petitioner to deceased.
 However, it is submitted that there is no
allegations with respect to her confinements or
she has been prevented from to reach of outer
world and moreover the informant and his
relative did not take any significant steps either
to prevent the cruelty or to save her from the
alleged perpetuated cruelty or harassment except
the counselling within the four wall as alleged.

xi. That the allegations made in FIR either with

respect to disputes pertaining to property which
is otherwise owned by the petitioner`s mother or
administration of anti-pregnancy pills are
completely baseless, false and denied by the
petitioner. None of witnesses including the blood
relatives of the deceased substantiate the
allegations and no evidence has to be found in
support of this allegations. The admitted facts
that deceased was ready and willing to join the
husband and also requested him to join at Delhi
specifically established that both of them wanted
lead their matrimonial life happily. While inviting
the deceased at Delhi, No demand of dowry
whatsoever as alleged by the Informant were
made by the petitioner, what to talk of cruelty,
and therefore it is safely concluded that the
allegations made in the charge sheet is
whimsical and therefore liable to be dropped
against the petitioner.

a. Mrs. Laxmi Devi and Kapileshwar Jha :-

It is submitted that except for furnishing
the bald and vague statement, not a
single instant of specific allegation
pertaining to cruelty or demand in
connection with dowry was alleged. The
Hon`ble High Court of Delhi in the matter
of Satbir Dalar & Ors. Versus State (Govt.
of NCT) in Crl. Rev. P No. 678of 2015 vide
Judgement dated 14th February 2019
held that mere bickering at matrimonial
amount did not amount to cruelty under
section 498-A or to attract the provisions
of dowry death.
b. That it is admitted case of prosecution
that last connectivity between the
petitioner and deceased was on
27.06.2021 and this Hon`ble Court may
take judicially notice about the facts the
persons who is residing 1500 k.m. far
away from the deceased and had no
connectivity even through telephonic
 conversation would not be able to subject
the cruelty in any manner.

B. That it is also not out of context to mention herein that the

Investigating Officer of the present case in derogation of basics
rules of investigation and for the reasons best known to him
did not investigate the veracity and credibility’s of statements
of proposed prosecution witnesses. This facts itself made it
ample clear that the statement made by the proposed witness
are only blatant lies.

C. It is submitted that none of the allegation`s contained in FIR is

part of the charge sheet and none of the witnesses statements
supports the prosecution stories and therefore it is established
that the allegation contains in the FIR absolutely false,
baseless and didn`t contains an iota of truth. It is further
submitted that despite no offences made out against the
petitioners, the police had continued the investigation against
the petitioner and filed the charge sheet contains completely
different and with new allegations to that of FIR without
having sufficient evidences. Even charge sheet allegations are
not supported by the witnesses of the present criminal case. It
is submitted that witnesses from…………. to……….are none
other than the blood relatives of the deceased and can be
termed as interested witnesses. Furthermore, the
 statement of independent witness does not disclose the any
alleged offences and the witnesses statements contradict each
other. It is submitted that absolutely no evidence is available
for allegations either in FIR or Chargesheet and therefore the
petitioner is liable to be discharged from the present criminal
proceedings under section 227 of CR.P.C. Details of describes
is below as under
D. It is further submitted that despite no offences made out
against the petitioner, the police had continued the
investigation against the petitioner and filed the charge sheet
contains completely different and with new allegations to that
of FIR without having sufficient evidences. Even charge sheet
allegations are not supported by the witnesses of the present
criminal case. It is submitted that witnesses from………….
to……….are none other than the blood relatives of the
deceased and can be termed as interested witnesses.
Futrhermore, the statement of independent witness does not
disclose the any alleged offences and the witnesses statements
contradict each other. It is submitted that absolutely no
evidence is available for allegations either in FIR or
Chargesheet and petitioner are liable too be discharged from
the present criminal proceedings under section 227 of CR.P.C.
Details of describes is below as under
2. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SURFACED OR
INCRIMINAITNG MATERIAL FOUND OR COLLECTED
DURING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED TO BE ADDUCED
TO SUPPORT THE CHAGRESHEET OR PROSECUTION
STORIES

A. It is submitted that the prosecution is not able to adduce

the evidence of any nature against the petitioner during
the trial in support of and to attract the key ingredient of
section 304-B, 498- A and Section 406 of Indian Penal
Code. All the allegations are bereft of details and thereby
vague in nature. It is trite in laws that for framing of
charges not only suspicion but grave suspicion is
required. The Hon`ble High Court of Delhi vide it`s order
dated 14th February 2019 in Crl. Rev. P. No. :- 678 of
2015 specifically held in para no. 21 that “To constitute
an offence under Section 304B and Section 498A
IPC, it not mere bickering which would amount to an
offence but it should be harassment of such a nature
that would drive a woman to commit suicide.”

It is submitted that none of the witnesses has cited

a single instance of harassment or cruelty to the
deceased of a nature that would drive a woman to
commit suicide or cause bodily harm. Moreover, one the
 essential ingredient to attract the provisions of S 304 B
IPC that soon before the death, the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment and cruelty as defined
under Section 498A should be of such a nature as is
likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave
injury.

B. It is submitted that none of the witness’s statement

under section 161 of Cr.P.C. support the allegation of
prosecution. It is further submitted that allegations
contained in the chargesheet/police report were not
supported by proposed witnesses as 05 out ………….
Proposed witnesses are none other than the blood
relatives of the deceased and informant who are thereby
to be discounted as interested witnesses Even going by
the allegations read from their 162 Cr.P.C statements, it
is evident that they are not eye witnesses to any of the
incident or allegation as alleged by Informant in the
present criminal case. The rests of the witnesses are
independent witnesses whose statement do not disclose
the commission of any offences whatsoever as alleged in
the charge sheet /police report filed by the Investigating
Officer of this case.
C. That it is submitted that the allegations pertaining to
conference calls to victim and demands of dowry are
absolutely false, baseless and concocted and no evidence
are found by the Investigating Officer during
investigation. It is submitted that no independent
corroborative evidence is proposed to be adduced during
the trial to substantiate the aforesaid allegations. It is
humbly submitted that even if this allegation would not
be rebutted or uncontroverted after conclusion of trial,
even then the prosecution will miserably fail to
substantiate the allegations, and under these
circumstances the proceedings is liable to be dropped at
this stage of trial.

D. It is submitted that the allegations made in FIR that

deceased`s husband`s family members i.e. Mother, sister
and brother-in-laws (Petitioner) advised on phones to
perpetrate the offences against the deceased is absolutely
false and denied by the petitioner. None of the witnesses
as per 161 Cr.P.C. statements support the version of
Informant`s allegations even the parents/blood relatives
of the informant. It is submitted that the Investigating
Officer failed to investigate in order to reveal the truth
from husk of false allegations that are routinely
impleaded the in-laws of deceased in the present false
criminal proceedings.
 E. The petitioner is sister-in-laws of deceased and is
permanent citizen of Delhi and never shared any house
hold item with deceased at any juncture of time. They
were maliciously implicated into this vexatious case, with
an evil intent to destroy their peace of mind, reputation
and dignity in the societies they live in with single,
baseless allegations of instigation to the husband of
deceased which cannot attract the provisions of 406 IPC
by any stretch of imagination as laid down by the catena
of judgment pronounced by Hon`ble Apex Court

3. IMPROPER INVESTIGATION

It is submitted that the Investigating Officer did not

conduct the investigation in neutral and impartial manner
and conducted complete improper investigation thereby
leading to many unanswerable question in it`s
chargesheet/police report filed before the Ld. M.M. Court,
South, Saket at Delhi

A. It is submitted that the I.O. of this case conducted the

investigation and filed the investigation report which
completely over looked the facts that only accused
no.1 and deceased lived together in Khanpur at Delhi.
The I.O. did not consider the facts that the petitioner
 or in-laws of deceased i.e. whether mother-in laws and
sister-in-laws has ever lived with the deceased.
Moreover, the investigating officer failed to collect the
possible evidence with respect to allegation as levelled
against the petitioner which would reveals the
falsification of allegations contained in FIR as well as
innocence of the petitioners that they were not
involved in the commission of offences as alleged.

B. That it is submitted that the registration of FIR is

nothing but vivid creation of afterthought and ripe to
declare a manifestly malafide institution of criminal
proceedings and ill-will towards the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the FIR as unleashed by the
informant`s with an uncontained malicious vendetta
despite having any admissible justification or
independent supporting or corroborative evidence and
under these circumstances, the proceedings is liable to
be dropped against the petitioner even at pre-trial
stage.

F. It is submitted that all the independent witnesses

from……….. to…………. Alongwith CDR details testified
that the petitioner has no connection either with
deceased or even her husband namely Abhishek Anand
 since June 2021. This disclosure by prosecution
witnesses themselves aptly glorifies the malicious intent
on the part of Informant`s that he had suppressed the
material facts to the investigating officer with sole and
evil motive to maliciously prosecute the petitioner.

G. It is submitted that fair investigation and fair trial in a

criminal case have been read as part and parcel of Article
21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees to every
persons, the fundamental right to life and personal
liberty. The petitioner have already enumerated while
elaborating on the various grounds in the para as stated
supra, the fundamental lapses and glaring inadequacies
in the investigation performed by the Investigating Officer
in this instant case.

The Hon`ble Supreme Court in Babhubhai versus

State of Gujrat & Ors. In Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of
2010 arising out of SLP No. 2077 of 2010 vide judgement
dated 26th August 2010 categorically held that “Not only
the Fair trial but fair investigation is also part of
constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21
of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation
must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the
minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating
agency cannot be permitted to conduct an
investigation in tainted and biased manner, Where
 non- interference of the Court would ultimately
result in failure of justice, the court must interfere ”.

The Hon`ble Court further while reiterating the principle

held in Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Meghalaya &
Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3275 further held that “This Court
considered a large number of its earlier judgments to the
effect that investigating agencies are guardians of the
liberty of innocent citizens. Therefore, a heavy
responsibility devolves on them of seeing that innocent
persons are not charged on an irresponsible and false
implication. There cannot be any kind of interference or
influence on the investigating agency and no one should
be put through the harassment of a criminal trial unless
there are good and substantial reasons for holding it.”

The Hon`ble Court of Andhra Pradesh in Rajesh Gutta Versus

State of A.P. held that the Police Officer has to question the \
victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record
the same. The First duty of the investigating Officer is to find
out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless
otherwise the complainant`s version appraised by the
investigating officer with the facts and circumstances of the
case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the
witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation
includes examination of the of the witnesses,
confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials
collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version
of the person who is aggrieved because he said
complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper
examination cannot be called as statement recorded during
investigation.

This ratio is directly applicable in the instant case. As is

evident from a simple comparison of the FIR and the witnesses
statements of Lws ………….. is exact replication of the
Complaint dated………. Which were incidentally recorded
on…………by respondent no.1

In addition of the above, as can been seen from case diary

entries, the statement of proposed witnesses obtained at
PanchGhachia …………………and all of them testified as
…………
It is submitted that nowhere does these statements disclose
any offences attracting the provisions of IPC 304-B, 498-A 406
IPC allegedly against accused/petitioner.
It is submitted that material available on records and
replicated statement of witnesses and considering the totality
of circumstances which can be noted as nothing but hearsay
in nature or from the statement of independent witnesses, it is
indiscernible and not clear what was the legal basis for the
investigating Officer to file the charge sheet against the
petitioner. It is abundantly vivid that the Investigating Officer
does not have proper understanding on what allegations
attract the provisions of 304B, 498 A, 406 IPC and which do
not have actual knowledge of a catena of Judgement of
Hon`ble Apex Court and several High Courts that categorically
defined and established what would qualify for both the
explanations given for “Cruelty” as envisaged under 498 A IPC.
Explanation – For the purpose of this section, “Cruelty”
means-
(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury o danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman, or

(b)Harassment of the woman where such harassment is

with a view to corroding her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.

Therefore it can be safely concluded, thereby, that the

investigation was amply motivated, botched up, improper
and incomplete and reeks of malicious intent or half-
knowledge which was not sufficient to investigate a case of
304-B, 498A and 406 IPC and which was conducted with
fallacies of size.
 PRAYER

Hence in view of the aforestated legal grounds which are

aptly supported by facts and circumstances, culled entirely
from the documents and material submitted and relied on
by the prosecution itself in the present criminal
proceedings, it is crystal clear that no prima facie case is
made out attracting the section 304B, 498A and 406 IPC
and as such it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon`ble
Court that :-

A. Pass an order to the effects that the petitioner be

discharged from the present criminal proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 458 of 2021, P.S.:- Neb Sarai
and chargesheet dated………….. filed before the Ld.
Court of MM,-06, South, Saket Delhi.
And/or
B. Pass an appropriate order as may be deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
necessary in