You are on page 1of 4

In the present case

Accusation of illicit relationship with cousin has been made up against the client :

Since the wife could not have possibly produced credible evidences of her husband being
married to another woman, she therefore resorted to creating malevolent and aberrant proofs
that falsely gave an impression of my alleged involvement with his cousin sister by saying
that he even started posting their pictures on facebook.

The credibility of the wife in this case can be questioned on the basis of the following :

Facebook hacking incident:

Statement by our client :

The Cyber Crime cell, on prelim investigations found my complaint to be correct and
accordingly registered my complaint (No 9465/RACP/Cyber Cell/ EOW/Crime
Branch, New Delhi) with their office. (APPX U). Detailed investigations were
carried out on my complaint and vide the status report of the ACP, Cyber Crime Cell,
Delhi, the emails were found to have been created and originated from the IP address
of Vikram Vir Singh Duggal, who incidentally is the brother of my wife. (APPX

With respect to application of Section 498A of IPC :

There was no mental torture done to the wife as the client firstly was never in an illicit
relationship with his cousin and they were merely close cousins and there is no
evidence to prove that a marriage happened between the cousin and the client ,
therefore the story is completely made up and has no basis to stand in this court of

The following case talks about initimate relation and how it does not lead to mental torture
under section 498A of IPC.

In another case Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs State Of Gujarat on (9 September, 2013) court
observed and it viewed that just because the husband had an intimate relation with another
person, even though he was married and failed to discharge of his martial obligations, would
not amount to cruelty and not so severe mental cruelty that it leads the wife to commit suicide
to fall under Section 498a of IPC. Mental cruelty varies from person to person where some
meet with courage and some suffer in silence and some end their life. Although under this
section if a woman commits suicide within 7 years of marriage then her husband or relative
of husband is held liable for cruelty but the burden of proving the same that the offence
occurred under Section 498a of IPC is on the prosecution.

Another incident that proves that the wife of our client has made up the story and that Section
498A should not stand because of the statements made by the deputy who escorted the wife
on 15th july 12. And further the medico reports would help the client in proving that there was
no physical assult by the clientand the story is made to implicate the client falsely and to
defame him..

On 15 Jul 12, my mother in law called up my parents and relatives alleging that I had beaten
up my wife and thrown her out of the house. My wife also alleged that I had beaten her up in
front of the entire unit and thrown her out of the unit premises, an allegation, which was
entirely false and baseless. Statement by No 63664, Deputy Ldr Tshering
Topgyal, of 1 VIKAS, QRT ldr, who escorted my wife that day, is att (APPX F), which
refutes her claim.

On behest of my wife, a medico legal report was prepared by the Safdarjang Hosp
accordingly. The MLC report, however, refuted my wifes claim of her physical aslt by me,
which proves my wifes intent to defame and implicate me falsely. Moreover, my wife neither
informed either the Stn HQs or the Delhi Area Provost Unit (DAPU), of any such incident, as
is the norm in such cases, which clearly showed her pre-conceived and malafide intent, to
incriminate me in a criminal case, rather than resolve the matrimonial discord.

On the wife of the client not having any money , since the wife has admitted to have the
ICICI bank account and ATM card and therefore the available balance proves that the wife
had access to money and withdrew on several occasions , therefore the statement of the wife
of being pennyless or with ith little amount for daily use is false and made up.

my wife withdrew the subject amount from her ATM Card, leaving only a paltry amount of
Rs 105.97/- for me to fend for myself, being fully aware that an instalment amount of Rs
9435/-gets electronically debited by the bank on the 1 st of every month (1st Sep 12 in this
case), on account of car loan that had been availed by me from the ICICI Bank. (APPX P).
With respect to Section 406 :
There is no criminal breach of trust as the flat purchased by the client was out of the loan
taken by the client from AGIF, the payment of instalments of which started on July 2013.

purchased a flat in Zirakpur, for which I have availed a loan of Rs 2500000/ from the AGIF.
The monthly instalments for the same is Rs 29264/-, which would commence in Jun 13, and
thus has a bearing on my net salary. AGIF loan Allotment letter is att. (APPX A10)

And with respect to jewellery it is submitted by our client that it was all kept in the locker
with was a jointly owned locker of the wife and the client. (Didnt find anything on it apart
from the statements.)

According to Section 405 I.P.C., the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a
person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it,
dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes
it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be
discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such
discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus in the commission of the
offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved.

The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which
dominion or control is acquired by the accused.
The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the
terms of the obligation created.
The Superintendent & remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. S.K. Roy )

None of the above have been done by the client.

In the present case, from a plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant, extracted
above, it is clear that the facts mentioned in the complaint, taken on their face value, do not
make out a prima facie case against the client for having dishonestly misappropriated any
property as the entire property is in the name of the wife but for which the loan was taken by
the husband and for which the loan is also beared by the husband.
If the allegations of the wife on the client are to be believed, it would no possibility of the
husband purchasing the house on the name of the wife , is he subjected her to so much torture
and eventually wanted to throw out the wife . It practically does not make any sense and
shows that the story by the wife is made up.