IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDITIONAL SESSION

JUDGE/ FTC COURT NO. 01 St ALIGARH (U.P)

List Of Documents by Respondent

S.No. Description ANNEXURE Page

01 Written Argument ANNEXURE -A 1-23

02 ANNEXURE –B 1
Copy of High Court order Crpc 482
ANNEXURE –B 2
Copy of Current Status of Crpc 482 (quash )
ANNEXURE –B 3
Copy of Payment detail high court

03
Neera Singh vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT
ANNEXURE –C
OF DELHI)

04 1. DOWRY ACT 1961 And Abetment act 1985 ANNEXURE –D1

2. Delhi Police guide line 1985 abedment ANNEXURE –D2
dowry list

05

06 ANNEXURE –F
Vijay Kumar Mehra vs State on 3 August, 2015

07 ANNEXURE –G
In Shivendra Raizada & Others vs State Of U.P.
& Another 2018
08 ANNEXURE –H
Shabnam Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra and
other order 2020
09 ANNEXURE –I
In Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &
Anr on 13 August, 2010
10 ANNEXURE –J
In Amarjeet kaur vs state of Punjab dated 15
May 2020
11 ANNEXURE –K
Brijesh Das @ Brijesh Kumar Das & ... vs State
Of Bihar & Anr on 21 March, 2018

1
12 ANNEXURE –L
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12
November, 201
13 ANNEXURE –M
Rajesh Sharma vs state of up dated 27 Jul 2017

14 ANNEXURE –N
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal
And Ors on 21 November, 199
15 ANNEXURE –O
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr
on 17 October, 2012
16 ANNEXURE –P
Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And
Ors on 19 July, 2005
17 ANNEXURE –Q
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 02
July, 2014
18 ANNEXURE –R
SP Chengalvaray Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27
Oct 1993 Supreme Court of India
19 ANNEXURE –S
Dalip Singh Vs State of UP. & others on 03
Dec 2009 Supreme court of India.

2
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE/ FTC COURT NO.01 St ALIGARH (U.P)
Petition No. ___________

IN THE MATTER OF:

...Appellant/ Applicant

Vs.

…Respondent

Under Sec 498a, 504,506,323,354,452

IPC and ¾ DP Act 1961
PS –Sasani Gate , Aligarh

WRITTEN ARGUMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT COUNSEL ON BEHALF

OF THE ALL RESPONENT’S

SIR

`MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER :

1. That the revisionist ’s daughter is living separately from her husband with her own
will and wish without any sufficient reason and despite request made by respondent No. 2.

2. That the revisionist & revisionist ’s daughter has suppressed the materials facts and
has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands, Hence the present application is
liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that Case No._____:- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -
Gaurav @ Vedant And 2 Others Vs State Of Up And 2 Others is sub-judice before Hon’ble
Court of Allahabad & ordered following on 02 Aug 2019. (ANNEXURE -B )

3. That the present petition is not maintainable because the revisionist has filed the
petition on false grounds and levelled false allegations against all respondents. It is
3
submitted that revisionist has approached this Hon’ble court with a pre-planned,
concocted, false, fabricated, vexatious, misconceived, motivated, contents, contentions,
allegations, assertions and misuse of the process of the court. Hence, the petition is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

Brief Facts:
1. That the respondent No. 2 is husband of revisionist ’s daughter, respondent No. 3 is
father-in-law & senior citizen, respondent No. 4 is mother-in-law & senior citizen,
respondent No.5 is brother-in-law, respondent No. 6 is sister-in-law & respondent No.7 is
brother –in-law & husband of respondent No. 06.

2. That the revisionist alleged that 12 lacs incurred in said marriage out of their
capacity and resource are wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged. It is submitted that
marriage were solemnized with revisionist ’s daughter Smt. Wife name on 14 Apr 2018 at
Aligarh (UP) in a very simple manner without any pomp and show under Hindu rites
without any demand of dowry. Revisionist is a small merchant & not expected to have
expense huge sums of Rs.12 lacs or so in cash along with articles. The respondents have
expressed their dismay as they could not know the intelligible source of the said shopkeeper
having amassed so much of wealth. It is submitted that certified documentary evidences
and circumstantial evidences about claims of expenses incurred, bills of registration, cash
flows & receipts etc are required to prove the alleged amount.

Supporting judgement :
Smt Neera Singh vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ANNEXURE C
5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under
the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that
dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also
insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not
complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged
to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash
transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the
Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only
because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of
law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of
the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are
pouring in.

4
3. That the revisionist alleged in his petition that Fridge , Cooler, Double Bed ,
Washing Machine, Gold Ring ,T.V, Gold Chain, Cash 5 lacs etc presents /articles were
given by the revisionist are wrong, baseless & vague in nature, hence denied that any
presents as alleged was not ever arranged. There is no specific allegation in the said petition
regarding the entrustment of articles as whom the articles were given. It is further submitted
that no cash/presents as alleged were given by the revisionist to the respondent. That the,
revisionist has not disclosed certified documents of when, whom & whose presence the
said presents/ articles was given. Revisionist has not submitted the certified documents of
income tax returns, flow of money, bank statements, list of gift received from shop bills of
purchase. Nil certified documents in respect of any supporting documents & any other
records submitted for authenticity as per rule 2 of the dowry prohibition Act 1961
(Maintenance of list of presents to the bride and bride groom) rules, 1985.

Supporting landmark judgement :

Smt neera singh vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ANNEXURE C

4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on

marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made
of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and
how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing
source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should
insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not
entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the
Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and
Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO

BE MAINTAINED.- Annexure D
(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall
be maintained by the bride.
(2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom
shall be maintained by the bridegroom.
(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)- (a) shall be
prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;
(b) shall be in writing;
(c) shall contain:-

5
 (i) a brief description of each present;
(ii) the approximate value of the present;
(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and
(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a
description of such relationship.
(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.

4. That the revisionist alleged that her daughter was harassed & non satisfaction for
dowry are wrong, baseless, hence denied as alleged. It is wrong and denied that respondents
ever demand for any demand for alto car. How can anyone taunt for dowry articles, when
the claimed articles don’t have existence. It is submitted that after marriage, revisionist ’s
daughter Smt. Wife name was warmly welcomed at matrimonial home. Her personal
wishes, comfort and enjoyment were regarded by respondent like shopping, movies,
numerous trips etc.
Supporting judgement :
Smt Neera Singh vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Annexure C
It was held in AIR 1996(Supreme Court) 67 that taunting for not bringing
sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with.
Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does
not come within the purview of Section 498A, sufficient to constitute the offence
i.e. the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of of
dowry.

Vijay Kumar Mehra vs State on 3 August, 2015 Annexure E

21. Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. Mere
demand for property etc. by itself is not cruelty. It is only where harassment is
shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the
demands is cruelty which is made punishable under the section.
22.Though not referred to or relied upon in judgment Smt. Sarla
Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1990 (2) RCR 18, the Bombay
High Court has held that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that
would attract section 498A IPC. It is only when the beating and harassment are
caused with a view to force woman to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal
demands, Section 498A IPC would be attracted.
23.Similarly, though not referred to or relied upon, in judgment Richchpal
Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 it has been held
that if beating given to wife by husband was due to domestic disputes and not on
account of Vijay Kumar Mehra Vs. State demand of dowry, Section 498A IPC
would not be attracted.

6
 25.Thus, from the reading of Section 498A IPC and the above referred
judgments, it is clear that explanation (b) to Section 498 A IPC would be attracted if
there is a demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of
giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand, then such a cruelty
will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498A IPC.

Vague and no Specific allegation

In Shivendra Raizada & Others vs State Of U.P. Annexure F
Secondly, so far as allegation against the applicants are concenred, that is
also absolutely in the teeth of law laid down by the Apex Court and it is very much
clear that there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants and allegations
are also levelled upon the applicants, who are even not residing along with applicant
No. 1. In fact, it is necessarily required to make specific allegation against each and
every applicants whose names are mentioned in the complaint or FIR in the
matrimonial cases which is absolutely missing in this case.
These principles are perfect examples whatever the facts are however these
principles are not a complete list there can be more principles.

5. That the revisionist alleged that revisionist ’s daughter Mrs. Wife name was not
given food for many days and respondent No.5 & respondent No. 7 were keeping bad eye
on her are bogus and fabricated allegation thus denied as revisionist & their witnesses in
her statement under 200 & 202 had not reflected any date, time & location of the incident
hence statements is vague in nature & misleading this Hon’ble court.

Supporting Judgment
(a) Shabnam Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra and other Annexure G
14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations,
against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the
Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made
really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima
facie.

7
b) In Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand Annexure H
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under
section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are
not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of
serious concern.

It has been observed by the Supreme Court that the tendency of implicating husband
and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have
to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.
The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony
and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s
relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of
amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and
painful.
When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of
legal principles set out in preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel
the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice,
we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants.

c) In Amarjeet kaur vs state of Punjab dated 15 May 2020 Annexure I

18. It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498- A
IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to
harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no
matter they are bed ridden grandparents of the husband or the relatives living
abroad for decades. The case in hand is also of similar nature. The complainant
has failed to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners regarding
allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant or
demanding dowry from her. The complaint does not disclose specific allegation
against the petitioners except casual reference of their names that husband of the
complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 quashed
the FIR registered against the unmarried sister of 8 of 9 the husband on the
ground that prima facie case was not attracted against her in the absence of
specific allegations.
8
 In Brijesh Das @ Brijesh Kumar Das & ... vs State Of Bihar Annexure J

The independent witnesses, namely, Shail Patna High Court Cr.M isc.
No.57681 of 2015 dt.21-03-2018 Kumari Devi and Kameshwar Mahto have clearly
stated that it is wrong to allege that relatives of the husband ever subjected the victim
to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. They have stated that they are not
aware of any such demand or torture. They have stated that the victim left the
matrimonial home after living there for a few months. Though, there is specific
allegation against the husband of opposite party no.2, namely, Brijesh Das @ Brijesh
Kumar Das (petitioner no.1) in the statements of the witnesses recorded in course of
investigation, no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner nos.2 to 6.
The allegations made, if any, against the petitioner nos.2 to 6 are vague and omnibus.
In order to prosecute the relatives of the husband, there has to be some specific
allegation against them. A general, vague and omnibus allegation made against the
relatives of the husband would not be sufficient to put them on trial in a case under
Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3and 4 of the D.P.Act.
16. It would be manifest from the aforesaid judgments that the Supreme Court
has repeatedly expressed its concern with regard to false implication of relatives of
husband in cases under Section 498A of the IPC and other releated offences. The
Supreme Court has also taken judicial notice of the fact that there is a growing
tendency of even implication in cases of matrimonial dispute.
17. Looking to the facts of the present case, from any angle, the summoning
order as far as petitioner nos.2 to 6 are concerned, on the basis of omnibus, vague and
general allegation, cannot be sustained. Allowing the prosecution to continue against
them would amount to an abuse of process of the court.

6. That the revisionist ’s daughter was provided every facilities in matrimonial house
(accommodation, electricity, water, food, gas cylinder etc.). it is submitted that Smt
Ritu/wife treated respondent No. 2 as well as old aged respondent no.3 & No.4 utmost
cruelty after few month of marriage. revisionist ’s daughter Smt Wife name is quarrelsome
lady & high temperament and infinitum with less sense of responsibility towards marriage
life and has a tendency to carry out suicidal attempts . During marriage & after marriage
neither the respondent No. 2 nor any of his family members ever demanded any dowry
hence, there was no question of asking any dowry at all nor there is any such averments in

9
the complaint filed against the respondent & any of his family members about any such
demand.
Supporting Judgment

In Shabnam Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra and other Annexure G

15. In G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2000)
2 SCC 636, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the criminal proceedings should
not be allowed to be resorted to as shortcut to settle the score. Before issuing process,
the Criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused, it is a
serious matter. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise secure ends of
justice. In M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd.,& others reported in
2006 (7) Scale 286, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the tendency of using the
criminal justice system as a tool of arm twisting and to settle the score, and laid down
that the High Court can intervene where the criminal justice system is used as a tool.

The Apex Court in the judgment of Kailash Chandra Agrawal VS. State of U.P.and
others reported in (2014)16 SCC 551 has made observations that tendnecy, which has
been developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws by the wife in the matter of
dowry deaths or such type of similar offences in an over enthusiasm and anxiety to
seek conviction needs to be deprecated. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.
Subba Rao Vs. Sate of Telangana reported in 2018 (14) SCC 452 observed that
relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of vague allegations unless
specific instances of their involvement are set out.
16. It is true that while considering quashing of criminal proceedings under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court should not embark upon an
inquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations made by the complainant but, when the
filing of F.I.R. amounts to gross misuse of the criminal justice system, it becomes the
duty of the High Court to intervene in such cases, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure so that there is no miscarriage of justice and faith of people in the
judicial system remains intact . In the present case, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law
have been arraigned as accused without there being specific allegations as regards the
nature of cruelty, as contemplated by Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against
them.
17. On overall reading of F.I.R. impugned and the charge-sheet, we are of the
opinion that, there are no allegations against the present applicants which constitute
offences alleged against the applicants. Hence, we are of the opinion that continuance
of present proceedings
10
7. The revisionist allegations regarding the her daughter was badly beaten on 14 july
2018 at 2000 hrs have also been termed to be baseless and the theory of administering
causing holding on badly was also said to be a strangeful incident being not disclosed the
names of neighbours and more strange was that she did not lodge any report or made any
complaint which omission proves hollowness of the said allegation. it is submitted that
revisionist ’s daughter Smt Wife name quarrels on one pretext & other in a very filthy
language and threatened respondent No.2 & family members to implicate in false criminal
cases. During threatening language towards respondent No. 2 & his family members
revisionist ’s daughter used to say that she belong to a rich family and presently living with
a lower status people. Revisionist ’s daughter Smt Wife namewas frequently visiting to her
parental home from matrimonial home. No offspring was born from wed lock. That despite
request she would not mend her ways instead she insisted upon the respondent to severe his
relation with the rest of the members of the family.

8. That the revisionist alleged that revisionist and her daughter were humiliated by
respondent on 15 Jul 18 is vague and baseless allegations. Whereas, neither the revisionist
nor her daughter took any action for nearly four months from alleged petition. It is
submitted that any person comes from parental house was warmly welcomed always.
Moreover, Smt. Ritu/wife pre planned manner took jewellery and 10000 Rs. from her
mother-in-law and went with jewellery & cash to her parental house.

9. That the revisionist allegations for dated 14 Nov 2018 at 1700 hrs are concocted
and baseless story. The allegations has been developed by the revisionist in consultation
with his family members and others without any concrete, material/ documentary and
circumstantial evidence. The revisionist statement is contradictory from complaint & 200,
202. The revisionist has not disclosed the names of the neighbours and by whom
revisionist received information as alleged.

10. It is submitted that revisionist had not provided any material/ documentary and
circumstantial evidence in respect of specific name of person, date, time & location of
police station visited. It is strange that motivated MLC of Mrs Wife namematerialised but
no MLC was ever prepared for Revisionist ’s wife as she was also hurt as alleged. Hence,
no cause of action was established for occurrence of alleged incident dated 14 Nov 2018.

11
In Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013 Annexure K

Conclusion/Directions:
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the
information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted
only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must
be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith
and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the
complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable
offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not
register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of
the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals
any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in
which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution,
for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily
explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which
may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant,
preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not
exceed 7 days The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the
General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all
information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to
12
 cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an
inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the
decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned
above.

In Rajesh Sharma vs state of up dated 27 jul 2017 Annexue L

19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we consider it fit to give
following directions :-
i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by
the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members.
The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to
time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district
who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.
(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social
workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be
found suitable and willing.
(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate
be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have
interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other
mode of communication including electronic communication.
(e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is
referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint.
(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its
opinion in the matter.
(g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.
(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the
Magistrate on its own merit.
(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may
be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time.
(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be
considered viable.
(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund
wherever considered necessary and proper.

13
 ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be
investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such
designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated .
iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and
Sessions officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less
than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be
completed within four months from today; Judge or any other senior Judicial
Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including
closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord;
iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public
Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same
day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial
of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be
protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles,
prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and
interest of justice must be carefully weighed;
v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports
or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;
vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer
nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties
arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to
whom all such cases are entrusted; and
vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation
members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from
personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without
adversely affecting progress of the trial.
viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical
injuries or death.

11. That the revisionist alleged that on 15 Nov 2018 an application was forwarded to
S.S.P, Aligarh for registration of report and no investigation has been done. It is submitted
that revisionist has not waited for completion of investigation and pre-planned manner
fabricated MLC was prepared without informing any police officials & approached this
court with unclean hands.

14
Supporting Judgment
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal Annexure -M

8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories
of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guide- ï7 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the ac- cused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H;
306A-E]

15
 8.2. In the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint, do clearly constitute
a cognizable offence justi- ï7 on and this case does not call for the exercise of extraor-
dinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself. [307B] State of
West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, [1963] 2 SCR 52; distinguished

12. Prior to the complaint of the revisionist , respondent No. 2 persuaded her and
requested to come back and join his society but of no avail and finally respondent No.2
filed a petition to continue matrimonial & happy life with Smt. Ritu/wife under Section 9
Case No. 833/18 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of Family Court at Aligarh
on 20 Jul 18 for reconciliation for the restitution of conjugal rights,

13. It is submitted that while so as a counter blast after 04 months later, a false case had
been foisted against respondent No. 2 and his family members under section
498A,323,504,506,452,354, and section DP 3/4, Case No1077/1018 dated 22 Nov 2018
under section 125 of CRPC, Case No.1948/2018 dated 20 Nov 2018 under section
12,18,19,20,22 of DV act by revisionist & revisionist ’s daughter

14. The allegations in all above noted cases are identical/ based on the same set sets of
facts. All these false and frivolous cases are filed with malafide intention to harass your
respondent and his family members without any rhyme or reason and to extort money from
the applicant and his family members.

15. Respondent had disclosed in his petition for section 9 long before the complaint had
been lodged that Smt. wife nameand her parents exerted their under pressure upon
respondent to desert his parents and family and stop supporting them but respondent did not
agree to their suggestion; as a consequence, respondent was threatened by Mrs. Wife
nameand her parents of a serious action like false case of demand of dowry being concocted
against him and his family. The case for dowry has been fabricated to wreak vengeance
against respondents and his family members. It has also been alleged that half dozen
persons of respondents including husband have been named as accused of dowry demand
and victimization. No one of respondent's family has been left from being framed in this

16
case and this very fact shows the dimensions of vengeance that revisionist & revisionist ’s
daughter had taken recourse to pressurize & harass respondents and by which they are
facing trauma and humiliation.

16. It is submitted that false cases are badly hampering the health, prestige & suffer
unwarranted detrimental, mental agony to old aged parents. Such unbearable issues have
also discomforted & disturbed to my married & unmarried siblings. Now, they are not able
to concentrate on their life & studies due to this prevailing situation.

17. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 & 4 are senior citizen, quiet old and physically
weak in health. Their health continues to debilitate inveterately which entails undeviating
medical treatment.

18. It is submitted that the revisionist ’s daughter and respondent No.6 & 7 are not
living jointly but residing separately since beginning of the marital life. That the
respondent No. 6 & 7 marriage solemnized in year 2001 & have been residing in Hathras
away from Aligarh approx. 40 Kms and never shared the household with revisionist ’s
daughter Mrs. Ritu. The said respondents used to occasionally visit the matrimonial home
of the Mrs Ritu. There was no cause or occasion for the respondents to ill- treat and harass
the Mrs Ritu. The respondents have been falsely implicated by the revisionist with an
oblique and ulterior motive. The continuation of the prosecution on the basis of such
patently false, vague and baseless allegations amounts to abuse of the process.

In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr ANNEXURE -N

19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is
apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra
except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual
reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation
of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them
overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire
family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

19. It is submitted that in the above said facts and circumstances, this petition is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed:-
(i) The revisionist & Smt. ritu/wife in a pre-planner manner retained jewellery,
thereafter revisionist had filed false, frivolous, vexatious, mischievous, motivated,

17
malicious, absurd complaint before Hon’ble court PS. Prior to filing of the complaint
respondent filed section 9 HMA for reconciliation to take her back on 20 Jul 2018.
(ii) Revisionist has filed the all cases on false grounds and levelled false
allegations against Respondent . It is submitted that revisionist has approached this
Hon’ble court with a pre-planned, without any basis, concocted, false grounds, fabricated,
vexatious, misconceived, motivated, contents, contentions, allegations, assertions, abuse
and misuse of the process of the court.

(iii) It is further wrong that respondent and his family members ever harassed the
Smt. ritu/wife whereas every comfort and facility was given to her at matrimonial home.
Moreover, Smt. ritu/wife and her family members always misbehaved with respondent and
used filthy or abusive languages.

(iv) Smt. Ritu/wife had left her matrimonial home with her own will and wish
and deserted me since 15 Jul 18 without any sufficient/justifiable cause. Revisionist &
Smt. ritu/wife is putting unbearable social, financial & mental pressure on respondent by
tangling in various false cases.

(v) It is further submitted that the revisionist is levelling vague and false
allegations against Respondent and revisionist has failed to give any specific date, time or
instance, when she was subjected to such cruelties, which itself shows that there is no truth
& prima facie evidence in the said allegations.

(vi) Respondent submitted that Revisionist & Smt. wife name has no legal
authority or right to bring this suit against Respondent’s as present petition is gross abuse of
process of law. The present petition is filed to squeeze out money and harass the already
distressed and exhausted applicant and making him to contest the false case filed by the
Smt. wife name/wife to fulfil her ulterior motives. Whereas, Supreme Court of India has
also declared the misuse of 498A as legal terrorism.

Reference has been made to the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau
(CRB) in Rajesh Sharma Vs State of UP & Anr dated 27 Jul 2017 as follows:
“9. That according to Reports of National Crime Record Bureau in 2005, for a total
58,319 cases reported under Section 498A IPC, a total of 1,27,560 people were
arrested, and 6,141 cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law.
While in 2009 for a total 89,546 cases reported, a total of 1,74,395 people were
arrested and 8,352 cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law.

18
 . 10. That according to Report of Crime in India, 2012 Statistics, National Crime
Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs showed that for the year of 2012, a total
of 197,762 people all across India were arrested under Section 498A, Indian Penal
Code. The Report further shows that approximately a quarter of those arrested were
women that is 47,951 of the total were perhaps mother or sisters of the husband

However most surprisingly the rate of charge-sheet filing for the year 2012, under
Section 498A IPC was at an exponential height of 93.6% while the conviction rate
was at a staggering low at 14.4% only. The Report stated that as many as 3,72,706
cases were pending trial of which 3,17,000 were projected to be acquitted.
11. That according to Report of Crime in India, 2013, the National Crime Records
Bureau further pointed out that of 4,66,079 cases that were pending in the start of
2013, only 7,258 were convicted while 38,165 were acquitted and 8,218 were
withdrawn. The conviction rate of cases registered under Section 498A IPC was also
a staggering low at 15.6%.”

vii) Smt. Ritu/wife has not been returned to matrimonial home & denying to
perform the legal & moral obligations to live with the applicant.

20. It is submitted that The Supreme Court of India has given a second name to Section
498A which is “Legal Terrorism”. In most cases of misuse, it was acknowledged that the
misuse of the very law was done by urban and educated women for their selfish needs.
Also, in most of the cases filed under this section, the husband along with his relatives is
prosecuted

Supporting judgement of
Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India ANNEXURE- O

The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry meance. But as has
been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the
complaints are not bonafide and have filed with obligue motive. In such cases
acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and
prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question,
therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-
intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires,
does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or

19
 unleash harassment. It may therefore, become necessary for the legislature
to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be
appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation
within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of
dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be
unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins' weapon.
If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be
available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating
agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any
strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty.
It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to
arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any
pre- conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the
investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused
persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth.
This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory
presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of
the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a
bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to
suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally
indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have
to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid
down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.

21. Respondent state that the story narrated by the revisionist had suppressed the
material facts approached the court with unclean hand seeks revenge to cause grave danger.
Revisionist cannot be given licence to misuse the benevolent provisions of the Act.. The
petition itself will appear that the same was lodged with oblique motive and with extreme
exaggeration. This concocted story on allegations has been developed by the complainant in
consultation with her family members and others without any concrete evidence. The
complainant had misused the provisions of law to set the law in motion to involve me and
implicated into this case with oblique motive to harass me.

20
 In the landmark judgement of
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar ANNEXURE - P
There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC
was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman
at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this
provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of
the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.
Crime in India 2012 Statistics published by National Crime Records Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the
year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year
2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women
i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally
included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the
crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes
committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes
excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A,
IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest
across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current
estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.

22. At the outset, the petition as filed by the revisionist , is totally, misconceived,
frivolous and fabricated one and accordingly not tenable in the eyes of law. The present
petition apparently demonstrates that the sole and exclusive intention of the revisionist is
on bogus and fabricated grounds. The respondent further submits that the Smt. wife
name/wife is the most untrustworthy person and is leaving no stone unturned by playing
mischief and a blatant fraud. The revisionist submits that it is the Smt. wife name/wife who
has ruined the life of the revisionis due to her whimsical, snobbish, adamant, irresponsible
and fraud behaviour. Therefore, whatever the revisionist & revisionist ’s daughter Smt.
wife namehave stated in the petition is erroneous and blatant lie which cannot be relied

21
upon. On these counts, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the very outset. Neither the
allegations made in the

petition reflect the authenticity required to be adjudicated upon, nor the averments reach to
any such conclusions that the her petition is having prima facie case to be relied upon.

Landmark judgements ANNEXURE - Q

SP Chengalvaray Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993 Supreme Court of India.
A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents
executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital
document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of
playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

In Landmark judgements ANNEXURE - R

Dalip Singh Vs State of UP. & others on 03 Dec 2009 Supreme court of India.

1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e.,
`Satya' (truth) and `Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma
Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted
an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence
era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the
consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our
value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for
personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate
to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court
proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who
belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth.
They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.
In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have,
from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant,
who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of
justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final

23. Respondents humbly submit to the court that he deserves the right to life, right of
lead a meaningful, complete and dignified life, than more than surviving or animal

22
existence. The constitution of India provides Fundamental rights under Chapter III and one
of the rights of Protection of Life and Personal Liberty is provided under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution.

24. It is submitted that the facts of the alleged petition by revisionist which are not
specifically admitted are hereby specifically denied.

25. The entire approach of the revisionist is a sheer abuse of the process of law &
present petition may be dismissed & set aside.

26. It is humbly prayed that , In view of the above case of the revisionist is neither true
nor bonafide and taking necessary action against revisionist & Smt. Wife name/wife for
misusing the law by filing false cases for mentally, socially and financially harassing the
innocent applicant.
27. It is submitted that to curb unnecessary prosecution & harassment of innocent
respondents, provision under crpc 250 may be materialized while exercising power vested
in this court under aforesaid provisions of law where discern malice or frivolousness or
ulterior motives on the part of the revisionist.

28. Respondents humbly prayed that orders which my magnanimity that orders in
respect of set aside the impugned order dated 04 Jun 2019 , dismiss the petition of
revisionist on technicalities and substantial fiat justitia be kindly passed in favour of
respondent to secure the ends of justice.
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly
passed orders favour of respondent .

It is humbly state that any other and further relief(s) which my lordships deem
fit and proper be kindly awarded in the interest of jus natural and further abuse of
process of court.

RESPONENT
Through

Date :
Place : Aligarh (UP )

23