IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Review Petition (crl) No. of 2018
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NO. 4263 OF 2018

BETWEEN: POSITION OF PARTIES

Before the Hon’ble Before this Hon’ble

High Court Court
1. Smt. Munni Devi
W/o Late Shiv
Kumar Applicant No. 1 Petitioner No. 1
…………………….

……………..
VERSUS
1. State of U.P
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Opposite Party No. Respondent No. 1
Affairs 1
2. Tara Chand, S/o
Shankar Lal, R/o B-
9/1, Gali No. 2, West Opposite Party No.
Vivek Nagar, New 2 Respondent No. 2
Delhi
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And his Companion Judge of the
Supreme Court of India

The special Leave petition of

the petitioner above named
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. The Petitioner above named respectfully submits this petition

seeking Review Petition against the order dated 04.05.2018 in

S.L.P. (Crl) No. 4263 of 2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court wherein the said Special Leave Petition were dismissed

only on the ground of delay.

2. GROUND OF REVIEW PETITION

A. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate the

presence of Dying Declaration of the Deceased which has been

duly recorded by the Naib Tehsildar?

B. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate that not a

single instance of torture or dowry demand has been ever

reported against the Petitioners from the side of the deceased

wife of the Petitioner No. ___?

C. Because the Hon’ble this Court is correct in not appreciating

that there is no prima facie ground to proceed in the matter and

no offence is apparent from the evidence and statements

recorded in the case?

D. Because the Hon’ble this Court ought to have quashed the

summoning order passed by the Ld. Magistrate in order to

 prevent abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of

justice?

E. Because the complaint and protest petition disclose the

essential ingredients of offence U/s 498A, 304B of IPC and ¾

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.?

F. Because the case of the complainant/Respondent No. 2 is

false, vexatious and frivolous and merits to be quashed?

G. Because the Hon’ble High Court is correct in not appreciating

that there is nothing incriminating on the record which proves

the commission of the alleged offence by the Petitioners?

H. Because the Hon’ble this Court is correct in not appreciating

that no incriminating evidence in relation to alleged offence has

been recorded in the final report dated 03.01.2001 filed by the

I.O.?

I. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate that the

Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case by

the Respondent No. 2?

J. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate the Dying

Declaration of the deceased duly recorded by the Naib

Tehsildar wherein the deceased has stated that she has

 consumed acid herself and has also stated that she has

consumed acid due to the fact that both the families are asking

her to live with them.

K. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate that the

Petitioners have never inflicted any kind of torture or dowry

demand over the deceased and no prima facie case under the

alleged offences is made out against the Petitioners.

L. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate that the

Respondent No. 2 has falsely implicated the Petitioners merely

to put undue pressure in relation to his daughter’s death. It is to

submit that the entire allegations made by the Respondent No.

2 is prima facie false, vexatious and frivolous and by allowing

the protest petition and summoning the Petitioners is highly

unjust, illegal, arbitrary and abuse of the process of Court.

M. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate that after

investigation no incriminating evidence was found against the

Petitioners in the F.R. submitted by the I.O. which makes it

crystal clear that the entire case is false, vexatious and frivolous

and is lodged by the Complainant with ulterior motives. It is to

submit that the Ld. Magistrate without reasonable appreciation

 of evidence on record passed summoning order directing the

Petitioners to face trial and therefore, it is expedient and in the

interest of justice to quash the summoning order passed by the

Ld. Magistrate and to dismiss the protest petition filed by the

complainant/Respondent No. 2.

N. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate that

allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the

process of the Court and that the ends of justice require that the

proceeding ought to be quashed.

O. Because the Hon’ble this Court committed grave error in not

appreciating that no prima facie case is made out against the

Petitioners and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding in

the case against the accused is present on record.

P. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate the

observation made by this Court in State of Karnataka vs. L.

Muniswamy and others, 1977(2) SCC 699, wherein it was held

that “the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes

to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue

would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends

of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.”

 Q. Because the Hon’ble this Court failed to appreciate the law laid

down by this Hon’ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.

Devenderappa and another, 2002 (3) SCC 89, wherein it was

laid down that, “authority of Court exists for advancement of

justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as

produce injustice the Court has the power to prevent abuse. It

further held that Court would be justified to quash any

proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuation of it amounts to

abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings

would otherwise serve the ends of justice.

R. Because the criminal proceedings has been instituted by the

complainant against the petitioners with malafide, ulterior

motive and vengeance. The allegation made by the

complainant is absurd and inherently improbable.

3. That the petitioner has not filed any other review petitions

against the order dated 04.05.2018 in S.L.P. (Crl) No. 4263 of

2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is therefore

preferring the present Review Petitions.

4. Main Prayer
 It is therefore, respectfully prayed that your lordships may

graciously be pleased to:-

a) Review the order dated 04.05.2018 in S.L.P. (Crl) No. 4263 of

2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

b) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR HUMBLE PERTITIONER

AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN ON:
FILED ON :
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Review Petition (Crl) No. of 2018
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NO. 4263 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Munni Devi &Ors. …..Petitioners

Versus

State of U.P. &Anr. ….Respondents

Affidavit

I, ……………………………presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly

affirm and state as follows:-

1. That I am the petitioner in the above noted Review Petition and I am

fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and as
such I am competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That, I have gone through the contents of the Synopsis & List of dates
from Page No. B to , Review Petition (Para 1 to ) from page Nos. to
and applications with reference thereto say that what is stated therein
is true and correct on the basis of information derived from the
records of the case.

3. That, the Annexures are true and correct copies of their respective
originals.
4. That the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief, no part of its is false.

Deponent
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this day of 2018 that the contents of this
affidavit are true to my knowledge, no part of its is false.
Deponent