IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, DELHI

Cr. Case No. 3456 of 2020

IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF:

SHIKHA KHANNA

(PLAINTIFF)

VERSUS

AMAR KHANNA ( DEFENDANT NO.1), NEELAM KHANNA ( DEFENDANT NO.2),

MAHESH KHANNA (DEFENDANT NO.3) & LALITA KHANNA(DEFENDANT NO.4)

(DEFENDANTS)

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

INDEX

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………

3

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………4- 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………

6

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS ………………………………………………..7-

8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………….9

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS …………………………………….10-11

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ……………………………………….12-20

THE PRAYER ………………………………………………………….21

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

Acc. According

AIR All India Reporter

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 2

 Anr. Another

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code,1973

CJI Chief Justice of India

Etc. Et cetera

HC High Court

U/S Under Section

Hon’ble Honourable

IEA Indian Evidence Act,1872

IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

DPA DOWRY PROHIBITION

ACT,1961

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
5. Dowry Prohibition Act,1961

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 3

 Table of Cases

1. Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi ( 2014) 7 SCC 640

1. Bhagat Singh V. Commissioner of Police AIR 1983 SC 826
2. Union of India v. Moksh Builders 1977 AIR 409, 1977 SCR (1) 967
3. Kishan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 233
4. Sarju Modi v State Of Bihar Sarju Modi v State Of Bihar
5. Vidya Devi v State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 1757
6. State of AP v Raj Gopa Awasa AIR 2004 SC 1933
7. Uma Devi v The State & Another 2004) 4 SCC 470
8. Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab 1958 SC
9. L K Naiak v State 2013 CrLJ 1792(CHH)

List of Books

1. The Indian Penal Code, Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal ( Student Edition) Lexis Nexis
2. Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, The Code of Criminal Procedure (2010) 17th Edition Reprint
3. Sarkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 9th Edition Reprint (2010)
4. The Indian Evidence Act, 2nd Edition, Lexis Nexis
5. Law of Crimes, Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal (34th Edition, Lexis Nexis, 2014)
6. KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials, ( 6th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2009)

Dictionaries Referred

1. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, ( 9th Ed. Thomas & West, U.S.A 1990)
7. P Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexicon, ( 2nd Ed. Lexis Nexis, 2006)

Web Reference
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 4
 1. [Link]
8. [Link]
9. [Link]
10. [Link]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff humbly submits this memorandum before this Hon’ble Court under the provision of
Sec.7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It sets forth the facts and laws on which the claims are
based.

The provision states as follows:

Sec 7. Cognizance of offences

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2

of 1974),

(a) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of

the first class shall try any offence under this Act;

(b) no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon
(i) its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or
(ii) a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of
such person, or by any recognized welfare institution or organisation;

(c) it shall be lawful for a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first
class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act on any person convicted of an
offence under this Act.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 5

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “recognized welfare institution or
organisation” means a social welfare institution or organisation recognized in this
behalf by the Central or State Government.

2. Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.

2[(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a
statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person
to a prosecution under this Act.]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Shikha got married to Amar ( defendant no.1) on 01.05.2013 according to Hindu

Religious Rites and Ceremonies .
2. But Just after 3-4 days of the marriage, the in law family started torturing the
plaintiff on account of insufficient dowry. They all in tone started criticising the
articles given in connection with the marriage stating they are inferior in quality,
which are not up to their standard.
3. The father of Shikha spent lavishly on the marriage, spending nearing about 40
lacs, but in laws were not satisfied. They were demanding Swift Dezire Car or
cash of Rs.7 lac.
4. She was subject to torture by the in laws family and was not provided proper
food, was not allowed to take a glass of water or cup of tea for herself.
5. The husband and mother in law were entrusted with gold ornaments of the
Shikha(plaintiff). All the dowry articles of Shikha were entrusted while saying
that all the articles are meant for the use of her, but she was not allowed to use her
dowry articles by the in laws family.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 6

6. She telephoned her mother and conveyed the behaviour of the in laws family,
accordingly the parents came to the in laws home and were surprised to see the
condition of her daughter and they brought her with them.
7. After 15 days the in laws family confessed their guilt and took her back to the
matrimonial home saying that they will not repeat any of such act again. she was
sent to her matrimonial home on 26.8.2013. But the behaviour of the family did
not change. Instead of providing the dowry articles, they made the life of Shikha
miserable.
8. The mother in law namely Neelam( defendant no.2) gave Tava blows and the
Tava was on the gas burner, Tava was very hot and the sister in law( defendant
no.4) gave tava blows to the petitioner on 1.9.2013 at about 12/12.30 noon, as she
was cooking inside the kitchen, rather she was given kick blows by mother in law,
with the intention to terminate her pregnancy.
9. This matter was published in the newspaper. She is living separate after when
there was an attempt to kill her i.e. Tava blows given by mother in law.
10. The matter was reported to the police and accordingly the case has been registered
vide FIR No.91 Dated 15.11.2013, P.S. Women Cell, Jalandhar, under sections
406, 498-A, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 7

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE UNDER

SECTION 406, 323, 498-A, 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE UNDER

SECTION 3 and 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961

3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANT NO.2 IS LIABLE UNDER

SECTION 307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 8

 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. THAT THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION

406, 323, 498-A, 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

The Council pleads that the defendants are guilty u/s 406, 498 A, and 34 IPC for “

criminal breach of trust” and “ cruelty”, as all the elements of cruelty are fulfilled

and all the elements needed to fulfilled the provision of common intention are also

presented in the case and acts of the defendants. The statement of Plaintiff’s father

again contributes to verify the charge of cruelty. Further the defendants are guilty u/s

34 IPC as the act of cruelty done against plaintiff in the furtherance of common

intention , and such common intention is demand of dowry by defendants.

4. THAT THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION

3, 4, OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 9

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the defendants are guilty u/s 3

and 4 of DPA for demanding dowry from the plaintiff’s family. That the defendants

are guilty of the continuous demand of dowry from the plaintiff and her father and

moreover the act done by defendants of keeping the articles or ornaments given by

plaintiff’s father for her use, with themselves, whereas per provision Sec.6 DPA ,

they were entitled to deliver the ornaments to the plaintiff.

5. THAT THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANT NO.2 IS LIABLE UNDER

SECTION 307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

The Council pleads that the defendant no.2, Neelam Khanna is guilty of attempt to

murder as the act of tava blow given by her to the plaintiff and the demand of dowry

from plaintiff and cruel behaviour inflicted against her is also a proof for credibility

of our allegation.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 10

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION

406, 323, 498-A, 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

The counsel most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court that the accused is

liable u/s 34, 406, 323 and 498 A of Indian Penal Code.

As the accused have common intention and had a prior meeting of minds.

1. That the defendant 2 and defendant 3 insisted defendant 1 to marry the plaintiff

and all the defendants collectively received the articles given at the time of

marriage.

2. That the defendant 1 and defendant 2 persistently subject the plaintiff to mental

and physical cruelty because their demand of Car and Rs. 7 lac was not fulfilled.

The acts of defendant 1 and 2 continuously supported either directly to indirectly

by defendant 3 and 4.

3. That it is evident that the accused persons had a intention of meeting their

demands if dowry which was not met and hence in furtherance of which they

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 11

 preplanned the act of killing the plaintiff, which attracts Sec.34 IPC, 1860 read

with Sec.3 and 4 of DPA,1961.

4. That the defendant 1 abstained himself from performing matrimonial obligation

and even did not fulfil; the legitimate demand of the deceased, subjecting her to

mental torture. The defendants 2,3 and 4 kept silent and did not ask defendant 1

to corporate with the plaintiff, thus supported the acts of defendant1, and hereby

attracting the Sec.34 IPC, 1860 read with 498A IPC,1860.

5. That defendant 2 gave tava blows to plaintiff as an attempt to murder her and this

act were supported by other defendants also, moreover defendant 2 also gave kick

blows to plaintiff with intention to terminate her pregnancy.

6. Hence it clearly indicates that the defendants 1,2,3 and 4 had a common intention

and their criminal acts constituted in furtherance of their intention are clearly

established and thus attracting Sec.34 read with 307 of IPC,1860.

That the state would also like to humbly submits before the Hon’ble court,

1. That the defendants subjected the plaintiff to cruelty , here cruelty includes

mental torture as per explanation of sec 498A, IPC, 1860.

7. That the plaintiff was always subjected to mental torture which is evident from

the below mentioned facts.

A. The defendants persistently forced the plaintiff and her father to gave the Swift

Dezire Car and Rs. 7 lacs to them.

B. Due to non fulfilment of the demands, defendant 1 did not fulfil his matrimonial

obligations

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 12

C. That in furtherance of non fulfilment of the illegal demands of defendants, the

plaintiff was not allowed proper food or a glass of water or tea for herself.

8. That , for mental cruelty Hon’ble S.C has said that, “ mental cruelty and its effect

varies according to individual differences in social status differences between

societies”, it even said that “ attitude of a person for another person can also be a

reason for mental cruelty. 1

9. That In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi2, court had an occasion to

examine the concept of cruelty. “ the word ‘ cruelty’ has not been defined in the

Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Sec.13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context

of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties

or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the

other. The cruelty may be mental or physical , intentional or unitentional. If it is

physical, it is a question of fact and degree, if it is mental, the enquiry must begin

as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment

on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it

would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately is a matter of

inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its

effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however be cases where the

conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful and illegal . Then

the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not to be enquired into

or considered. In such cases the cruelty will; be established if the conduct itself is

proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in

the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of could

otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not necessary element in cruelty.

1 Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi ( 2014) 7 SCC 640

2 (1988) 1 SCC 105
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 13
 The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no

deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.

10. Thus the defendants would be liable under above meted provisions as the act of

defendants towards plaintiff come under the category of grevious hurt , cruelty as

well as mental and physical , which can be shown or prove by the act of not

providing proper food to the plaintiff, not giving respect to the desires of plaintiff

and physical abuse by defendant 2 and defendant 4 .

11. Thus the above allegations can be proved by statement of plaintiffs father as per

the provision of Sec.17 of IEA3 says that: an admission is statement , oral or

documentary which suggests any interference as to any fact in issue or relevant

fact and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances,

hereinafter mentioned.

12. In Union of India v. Moksh Builders etc.4 court stated that an admission is

substantive evidence of the fact admitted and when properly proved is relevant

irrespective of the fact whether the person making such admission made it in

witness box or not and whether he was confronted with those statements or not in

case he made a statement contrary to his admissions.

13. Thus the defendants are guilty under section 406, 323, 498-A, 34 of IPC,1860.

3 Indian Evidence Act, Section 17

4 1977 AIR 409, SCR(1) 967
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 14
2. THAT THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 3

& 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,1961.

The state would humbly submit before the court,

1. That as per Sec. 3 of DPA, 1961, “ If any person , after the commencement of this

act, gives or takes or abets the giving and taking of dowry, he shall be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with the

fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the

value of such dowry, whichever is more”, thus, taking or giving dowry shall be

punishable, with a term not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than rupees 15

thousand or the amount of dowry.

14. That as per Sec. 4 of DPA, 1961 “If any person demands, directly or indirectly,

from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the

case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and

with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees”, thus demanding dowry is an

illegal offence.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 15
15. That Sec 498 A of IPC and Sec 4 of DPA do not attract double jeopardy, thus the

import of word harassment and cruelty is also very well known, and there is no

arbitrary exercise of power in interpreting these word and it does not cone in

conflict with Article 14 of Constitution of India5.

16. In Bhagat Singh V. Commissioner of Police6 Hon’ble SC Held that “ greed for

dowry system as an institution calls for the severest condemnation by all sections,

and do not attract the principle of double jeopardy.”

1. That defendants 2 and 3 insisted defendant 1 to get married to the plaintiff and

after marriage start torturing the plaintiff for non fulfilment of demand of dowry

and other defendants have supported the acts of each other, which attract Sec. 3

and 4 of DPA, 1961. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishan Singh v State of Punjab7

held that “demand for dowry was clearly proved as prosecution conclusively

established it, it is common knowledge that even well possessed in-laws keep

seeking dowry” this judgment previously held by Jharkhand High Court in Sarju

Modi v State Of Bihar8.

2. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v State of Haryana9 held that “it is not

necessary for the purpose of the offence under this section to show that there was

an agreement for the purpose of Dowry and also there was additional demand for

dowry after marriage and this was followed and also held in State of AP v Raj

Gopa Awasa10 that “mere demand for dowry is enough to attract this section” and

thus the fact that defendants demand the Swift Dezire Car and RS. 7 Lacs from

the plaintiff family and the conduct of other accused persons are sufficient

5 Indian Penal Code, K.D Gaur, P.852 Comment No. 5

6 AIR 1983 SC 826
7 AIR 2008 SC 233
8 2003 CriLJ 631
9 AIR 2004 SC 1757
10 AIR 2004 SC 1933
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 16
 enough to prove that there has been gibing and takin of dowry , as articles given

at the time of marriage , and thus it attracts Sec. 3 of DPA, 1961.

3. That, there was persistent demand made by defendants to the plaintiff and her

father, for Swift Dezire Car and Rs. 7 lacs. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of

AP v Raj Gopal Asawa11 held that “demand neither conceives, nor would

conceive of any agreement, when section 304B refers to demand of dowry it

refers to the demand of property or valuable security as referred to in definition of

dowry in the act”

17. That, the acts of demand of defendant 1 and 2 and the acts of silence by

defendants 3 and 4 and were corollary to each other, and thus completing the

prerequisites of section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

18. That, thus all defendants should be charged under section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. As Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of AP v Raj Gopal

Asawa held that “definition of dowry is not restricted to agreement or demand for

payment of dowry before an at the time of marriage but also include subsequent

demand”

11 AIR 2004 SC 1933

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 17
3. THAT THE ACCUSED/DEFENDANT NO.2 IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION

307 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

The state would humbly submit before the Hon’ble Court,

1. That section 299 of IPC, 1860 states that, “Culpable homicide.—Whoever

causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.”

2. That, section 300 of IPC, 1860 states that, “Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused
is done with the intention of causing death, or—

(Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as

the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the
harm is caused, or—

(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any

person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently

dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or sthe uch bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.” 

3. That, the combined effect of section 299 of IPC, 1860 and section 300 of IPC,
1860 states that, whenever a death is caused with an intention of causing death,
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 18
 or with an intentions of causing such a bodily injury which is likely to cause
death, or by any act having the knowledge that such an act is sufficient in
ordinary course of nature that it will cause death, then the person who commits
such murder.

4. That the defendant 1 , 2 and 4 had intention of causing such a bodily injury to
the plaintiff, by the act of giving tava blows by the defendant 2 and defendant 4
to the plaintiff and such act of mere silence on the part of defendant 1 and 3
state their acceptance and involvement also.

5. That all the defendants were present at the time of the incident when defendant
2 and defendant 3 gave tava blows and kick blows to the plaintiff.

6. That the defendant 2 also gave kick blows to the plaintiff in order or with
intention to terminate her pregnancy.

7. That the defendant 4 also gave tava blows to plaintiff on 1.9.2013 when she
was cooking in the kitchen.

8. That in the case of Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab 12, the SC defined the
bodily injury as: “if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.”

9. Thus the bodily injury caused by the defendant 3 is with the intention to kill
the plaintiff because of nonfulfillment of their demand of dowry, which attracts
the Sec. 307 IPC, 1860.

[Link] the above mentioned incident were also published in the newspaper and
after this incident plaintiff start living separately.

[Link] the above mentioned allegation were also supported by the statement of
plaintiff father, as plaintiff called him to her house to protect her form the in-
laws.

[Link] the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in L K Naiak v State 13 has held that
“evidences of relatives or related witness cannot be rejected in Toto on the
ground of their relation; relatives are last persons to spare the real culprit and
implicate and innocence falsely.”

[Link] , the defendant no. 3 are guilty u/s 307 IPC for the attempt to murder
plaintiff.

12 1958 SC
13 2013 CrLJ 1792(CHH)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 19
 PRAYER

It is therefore, prayed that, your lordships may graciously be pleased In the

light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the prosecution humbly submits
that the Learned Session Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that,

1. The accused persons are held guilty of the offence and are convicted.

2. Order the accused persons to revert the articles, ornaments within the
custody of defendant 2 to plaintiff.

and pass any order or orders as your lordship may deem fit as it deems fit in the
interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness the plaintiff shall ever pray.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF 20