Page No - 1

Exh. No

BEFORE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

COURT AT - BHOKAR.
R.C.C. No.11/2021.

1. Bharatbhushan s/o Bhaurao Telang.

Age.- 35 yrs. Occu.- Service.
2. Sandeep S/o Bhaurao Telang.
Age.- 30 yrs. Occu.- Service.
3. Bhagyashri w/o Bhaurao Telang.
Age.- 52 yrs. Occu.- House hold.
4. Bhaurao s/o Ismailji Telang.
Age.- 66 yrs. Occu.- Nill.
All Orignal R/o Vishal Nagar. Latur.
Now R/o Pathardi phata. Nashik. (MH)
- - Petitioners.
Vs
State of Maharashtra.
(Through P.I. of Bhokar P.S. Bhokar)
- - Respondent.
In the matter of
R.C.C. No 11/2021. State of Maharashtra.
Vs.
Bharatbhushan and others.
pending for trial before this Hon’ble Court.

Offence – U/s 498 (A). 417. 406. 354(A).504.506.

and R/w Section 34 of I.P.C.

Claim. – U/s 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge of the

accused / petitioners.
Respected Sir!
Herein an humble application / petition on behalf
of accused NO.1 to 4. U/s 239 of Cr.P.C. as
under.
 Page No - 2

1. That. The present case was registered

upon police papers filled by Bhokar Police
Station U/s 173 of Cr.P.C. in original Crime
No. 209/2020. Dated 12/05/2020. of Bhokar
police station and to exercise powers u/s 239
of Cr.P.C. the petitioners request this
Hon’ble court to give page numbering to final
report filled by police machinery.
2. That. As per prosecution story Exh.1.
several allegations had levelled by
complainant by registering Cri. No. 209/2020
in Bhokar police station on date 12/05/2020
upon entering in the investigation of said
crime the I.O. of Bhokar police station
Namely A.P.I. Kamble completed the
investigation and filled charge sheet
levelling various sections of penal code in
this Hon’ble court upon which this Hon’ble
court issued summons to the present accused
taking cognizance u/s 190 (2) of Cr.P.C. and
thus this petition for discharge becomes
maintainable u/s 239 of Cr.P.C.
3. That. This Hon’ble court while taking
cognizance of said offence exceeded
jurisdiction of taking cognizance
overlooking alleged imaginary occurrence of
said offence overlooking specifically
Sections 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C. but without
disputing same the accused / applicant bought
to notice those errors while framing charge
against the accused persons in light of above
section and this Hon’ble court has not having
territorial jurisdiction to try the said
offence under penal code in light of reading
Exh 1.
4. That. The chapter XIII of Cr.P.C.
governs with “Jurisdiction of The Criminal
Courts in Inquiries and Trials.”
Specifically mentioning Section 177 and 178
which are read as under.

Section 177 of Cr.P.C. -- Ordinary place

of inquiry and trial. - Every offence
shall ordinarily be inquired into and
 Page No - 3

tried by a Court within whose local

jurisdiction it was committed
And Also.

178.Place of inquiry or trial. -

(a) When it is uncertain in which of several

local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in
one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and
continues to be committed in more local areas
than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done
in different local areas.it may be inquired
into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction
over any of such local areas.

Now coming to the complaint of

complainant which had logged in Bhokar P.S. and
investigation machinery filled charge sheet u/s
173 of Cr.P.C. in the final report annexed on
doc no 2 (Total 4 pages) giving heading as फिर्याद
– वैशयली भयरतभूषण तेलग
ं फिर्याद व आधयर कयर्ा if this Hon’ble
court peruse the said document then it is crystal
clear to this Hon’ble Court that none of one
offence was occurred within territorial
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and also there
are insufficient evidence to frame charge
against the accused person as per final report
and complaint of complainant lodged in Bhokar
police station.
5. That, the police machinery levelled
Section 417 of I.P.C. against present
petitioner. The section 417 of I.P.C. read as
under. 417. Punishment for cheating. — Whoever
cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Undoubtedly the concerned section

relating the property and allegation made in
concerned are mentioned in Para no 4. 6. and 7.9.
In para no 6 of complaint specifically mentioned
about occurrence of imaginary cheating of place
 Page No - 4

as Aurangabad with the time and date of

occurrence connecting to the date after fifteen
days in para no 7 on line no 2 stating that after
15 days residing at Aurangabad with reference of
para no 6 mentioning date as 21 February 2017
and also referencing the date in para no 4 as
she received Stree Dhan. Now only episode of
alleged imaginary occurrence of incident as the
complainant received stree dhan as gift in her
marriage Stated in para no – 4 lines no 6 to 8
at Bhokar and does not attract section 417 of
I.P.C. as the offence not committed within the
territorial jurisdiction of Bhokar police
station and of the court. The said offence is
not of continuation part from the beginning from
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court So, this
Hon’ble court has not having territorial
jurisdiction to hold trial of said offence apart
from that this Hon’ble court cannot frame charge
u/s 417 of I.P.C. and barred by section 468 (1)
of Cr.P.C. the said section read as under.

468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of

the period of limitation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere
in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance
of an offence of the category specified in
sub- section (2), after the expiry of the
period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be –

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable
with fine only
1. Provisions of this Chapter shall not apply
to certain economic offences, see the
Economic Offences (Inapplicability of
Limitation) Act, 1974 (12 of 1974), s. 2 end
Sch.
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for term exceeding one year
but not exceeding three years.
(3) 1 For the purposes of this section, the
period of limitation in relation to offences
which may be tried together, shall be
determined with reference to the offence
 Page No - 5

which is punishable with the more severe

punishment or, as the case may be...

So, its crystal clear after reading above

provisions that the prosecution under various
section of penal law along with prescribed
maximum punishment are barred by Said provision
and also details of golden articles as well as
silver utensils which are alleged by received by
deceiving to the complainant and her family are
missing. So, the present petitioners liable to
be discharge to meet interest of the justice.

5. That, no offence u/s 406 of I.P.C. is made

out against the present petitioner if this
Hon’ble court peruse the original complaint
of complaint the court came to conclusion
that taking cognizance of offence barred by
section 468 (1) and also section 177 and 178
of Cr.P.C. Section 406 related in the Chapter
offences against property in Penal Code and
the necessary ingredients of section 406 of
I.P.C. are missing as per the imaginary
allegation of complainant. The complainant
wilfully remained silent about the
description of golden ornaments and also
silver utensils. That it is highly un
acceptable that the possessor / owner of
property has not having knowledge of
description of valuable property apart from
that, the investigation machinery failed to
produce on record any documentary evidence
to show existence of said Golden and silver
ornament and was given to the complainant as
Stree Dhan. That, the complainant and
prosecution had levelled serious offence of
cheating alleging “impotence” but the
prosecution and complainant failed to
produce any medical certificate in this
regard. So, this Hon’ble court has having
reason to discharge the present petitioner
u/s 417 of I.P.C. and also reason the
imaginary alleged offence is not in the
continuous in nature from the beginning from
the marriage ceremony as prosecution tries
to show continuous of offence from the place
Bhokar.
6. That, the necessary ingredients of
Section 504 and 506 of I.P.C. are missing
 Page No - 6

after careful reading the original complaint

of complainant which is available through
charge sheet before this Hon’ble Court and
all the petitioners liable to be discharged
in above sections.
7. That, the cognizance of offence u/s 498
(A). 354(A). 504 and 506 of I.P.C. are barred by
the section 177. 178.and also section 468 of
Cr.P.C. The complaint itself clears that none of
one offence as per imaginary series of incident
occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of
Bhokar police station, apart from that the police
machinery neither investigate the offence as
narrated places of complaint and just recorded
the statement of complainant and other hearsay
witness (Relatives of complainant) So, all the
petitioners / accused liable to be discharged
u/s 498 (A) of I.P.C. deeply bare reading of
complaint specifically para no 5 to 8 which will
be detailed argued at the time of final hearing
of present petition.
8. That, it is very well settled principle
of criminal that putting in motion of criminal
law in any police station is not barred by sect
177. 178. as per the observation laid down in
the judgement of Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P.
Reported in 2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC). But the
said provision does not permit investigation
machinery to enter in investigation and
investigate the said matter beyond jurisdiction.
9. That, there is no evidence bought by
investigation machinery that, the complainant
sustained physical or mental injury as per
imaginary allegation of series of incidents So,
by allowing this petition the accused/
petitioners may kindly be discharged U/S 498(A).
406. 417. 354(A).504. 506.R/w sect 34 of I.P.C.
to meet interest of the justice and Oblige Sir.

* Detailed argument will be placed with referring

details of lacuna highlighting the complaint of
complainant and other police papers which are
already on record with prior permission of this
Hon’ble court.

* All the query raised by this Hon’ble court,

law point will be argued with placing reliance
 Page No - 7

on reported case law with a copy availing to this

Hon’ble court.

* An affidavit of the accused No 2 is enclosed

herewith in support of this petition.

HENCE IT IS PRAYED.

By allowing this petition accused

persons / petitioners may kindly be
discharged U/S U/S 498(A). 406. 417.
354(A).504. 506.R/w sect 34 of
I.P.C.to meet interest of the justice
and Oblige Sir.

Date /08/2021. Accused No 1 to 4.

Through.

Bhupendra P.Chavan.

Ram P.Kendre.

(Advocate of the Accused)

 Page No - 8

BEFORE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

COURT AT - BHOKAR.
R.C.C. No.11/2021.
State of Maharashtra.
Vs.
Bharatbhushan & other 3.

Claim – u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge.

AFFIDAVIT.

I, Sandeep S/o Bhaurao Telang. Age.- 30 years.

Occupation – present Nill. Original R/o Vishal Nagar
Latur. Now R/o Pathardiphata. Nashik. Original Accused
No.2 of said matter do herby solemnly on oath states
true that, today I have filled petition Before This
Hon’ble Court for discharge u/s 239 of Cr.P.C.

The contents of said petition specifically

para no 1 to 9 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. The source of the said information
is the police papers supplied by prosecution through
copy of charge sheet and various provision of law. Hence
this Affidavit.

Date. /08/2021. DEPONENT.

Sandeep Bhaurao Telang.

Verification. –

I, the above named deponent verifies that the

entire contents of this affidavit are read over to me and
explained to me in Marathi, which I understood. Found true
and correct to the best of knowledge and belief.

Hence verified on the day of the date August

2021 at place Bhokar. Dist. Nanded.

Identified By. DEPONENT.

Sandeep Bhaurao Telang.