EAST WEST UNIVERSITY

Department of Law
Assignment Topic
Discharge Petition, CR Case Petition, Criminal Appeal.

Course Title- Legal Drafting 1(Criminal) Course Code- Law 404

Section-01

Submitted To

Sayeed hossain Sarwar

Lecturer
Department of Law

Submitted By

Sazzad Alam Niloy

ID- 2018-2-66-013

Department of Law

Submission Date: January 14, 2023

DISCHARGE PETITION

IN THE COURT OF MTROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

DHAKA

C.R. CASE NO. OF 2020’

Section: Under section 364/365/366/511/34 of the Penal Code, 1860

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shojib Islam Opu alias Ophu Bhai

Son of Alam Islam,

Block- F, Road- 1, House- 11,

Bashundhara R/A, Dhaka

.............
(Accused-Applicants/Defend
ants)
-VERSUS-

The State

............. (Opposite
Party/Complainant)

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 241A of the Code

of Criminal procedure, 1898 for the discharge of

the Defendants-Petitioner.
 The above named Accused-Defendants most
respectfully states as follows:

SHEWETH:

1. That this is an application for discharging the defendants/ petitioner under section 241A
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The complainant has brought the allegations
under section 364/365/366/511/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh completely on
false allegations against the defendants/ petitioner.

2. That the defendants/ petitioner is also a law-abiding citizen of Bangladesh and is very
respectful person of the society as well as also in social media and he is regarded as
person with utmost dignity and honor.

3. That the allegation made in the charge-sheet are mostly irrelevant and does not relate to
the merit of the case. There are no specific allegations rather those are false. There are
also no elements to be truth to the offence alleged.

4. That the accused/ defendants/ petitioner is named in the FIR wrongfully and has been
arrested by the police out of suspicion.

5. That the accused/ defendants/ petitioner claimed that he did not participate or instigate in
any abduction in order to murder under section 364/ 365/ 366/ 511/ 34 of the Penal Code,
1860 rather he accidently got caught in the middle from the flat in Dhanmondi.

6. That the ingredients of Section 364/365/366/511 are missing in the instant case likewise:
That the Section 364 is for kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, but in that case
neither the accused-petitioner kidnapped or abduct sabela nor any kind of injury
occurred to her. Sabela left her house willfully so this case does not attract this section
of law.
 a) That Sabela left her house to be a Tiktok star and in order to become she asked help to
the accused- petitioner and the accused-petitioner only helped her nor he wrongfully or
secretly confined her.So that the elements of Section 365 is missing in the following
case hence it does not attract this section.
b) That the Section366 is about to compel for marriage by abducting any women, but
instant case says that even after completion of 1 month the accused-petitioner and
Sabela did not marry and Sabela left her house because she had a fight with her
parents.So there is no scope that the accused-petitioner kidnapped sabela for any reason
or whatsoever.
c) That the accused-petitioner has never tried of attempt to commit such offence rather he
has been falsely implicated in this case and his conduct does not follow Section 511.
That there is no confessional statement of the accused/ defendants/ petitioner under
section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

7. That the accused-defendants/ petitioner is a classmate and friend of the complainant and
did not force the complainant to left her house rather the complainant herself willfully left
her house.

8. That the accused-defendants/ petitioner did not done any acts by several person in
furtherance of common intention under section 34 and did not commit any kidnapping or
abducting in order to murder under section 364 and did not kidnapped or abducted the
complainant with intent to secretly or wrongfully confine under section 365 and did not
kidnapped or abducted or induced to compel her marriage under section 366 and did not
attempt to commit any offences which is punishable imprisonment for life under section
511 of the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh.

9. That the accused/ defendants/ petitioner with other three of his friends did not kidnap or
abducted the complainant in order to murder in the flat of Dhanmondi rather he got
caught without any reason and suspicion.
10. That the accused-defendants/ petitioner did not have any love affair with the complainant
and was not abusive towards the complainant and the texts and contents found in the cell
phone is false and fabricated with intent to harm the accused/ defendants/ petitioner.

11. That the evidentiary materials on record do not make out a prima facie case against the
defendants/ petitioner.
12. That the whole case for the prosecution is believed but no offence whatsoever made out
against the accused-defendants/ petitioner and the fact alleged does not constitute an
offence.

13. That after considering of materials on record and after hearing both the parties as that
frivolous cases and cases of no and false evidence.

14. That all the witnesses mentioned in the police report are examined under section 161 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and they did not disclose any allegation against the
accused.

15. That there is no implication of the accused/ defendants/ petitioner in the alleged offence
and there are no sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused/ petitioner except
his name in the charge-sheet only.

16. That due to aforesaid reasons, the humble petitioner begs to move this application to
discharge the accused/ petitioner from the allegation as brought against him in the charge-
sheet.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your honor

would be kind enough to allow the application and
to discharge the petitioner from the baseless
 allegations as brought against him for the
ends ofjustice.

And for the act of kindness, the humble petitioner as in bound shall ever pray.
 CR CASE PETITION

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE COURT AND COGNIZANCE COURT,
DHAKA.
SOURCE: C. R. CASE NO.... OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
A complaint under section 34, 420, 465 of the penal code,
1860
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Kamal
S/O Mr. Zaman
Aftabnagar, Dhaka
....complaint

Versus
1. Hafij Uddin
S/O Sattar Mia
Bonosri , Dhaka
2.Nesar Uddin
S/O Najir Uddin
…..Accused

NAME OF WITNESSES
1. Complaint petitioner Himself
S/O Mr. Kamal
 Aftabnagar, Dhaka
2. Complainant no 2 Rahim,
S/O Karim Mia
Aftabnagar, Dhaka

Date of Occurrence: 6 August 2020

TIME OF OCCURRENCE 12.30 pm to 6:30 pm
PLACE OF OCCURRENCE: Khilkhet , Dhaka.

The Humble complaint of the above-mentioned Named complainant most respectfully

SHEWETH:
1. That the petitioner is a devout and a law abiding citizen of Bangladesh. He is a reputed
businessman of the town having munificent contributions to a good number of social and
cultural, educational and religious institutions. On the other hand, the accused are criminal,
liar,dishonest person and law avoiding citizen of the country.

2.That the complainant and the accused person are of the same localities and the residence of the
complainant is near to the accused.

3.One day the accused came and said to him that he wanted to sell the property.Here, the
complainant knew interest to see the person of property on 31.12.2019. Mr Naser showed the
paper but in this paper Naser Uddin was not the owner of the property. He has the power of
attorney to sell the property. The main owner of the property is Mr. Hafiz Uddin.

4. The complainant wants to buy the property. The value of the property is 21,00,000(Taka,
twenty one lakh taka only). The registration fee was 2 lakh and he paid all this money . Then the
registration was completed .

5. On 6.2.2022 the landowner handed over the property to the complainant to the sale register
office. There was also an affidavit ,they say if something wrongful acts happened Mr. Hafiz
uddin and Nesar will take all the responsibility .
6. On 6.8.2020 Abdul Aziz came to the property and claimed it was his property and he showed
the paper which was sold by Hafiz Uddin in 2017 .

7.Section 34 shall be applicable here. Then two dishonesty induced the complainant and
delivered the property. So, it would be cheating and dishonesty.

8. That the complainant has submitted here with all the documents, for kind personal of him,
hon'ble Court to decide the matter.

9. That in the circumstances as stated above the accused had committed an offense under section
34, 420, 465 of the Penal Code for which he is liable to be punished.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your honor

would graciously be pleased to take cognizance of
the offence and issue warrant of arrest against the
accused and to punish them under law and or pass
such other order or order as to your honor deems fit
and proper in law.

And for this act of kindness, the complainant as in duty bound shall ever pray.

List of documents:

1.Vakalatnama

2. Firisti foram

3.Affidavit
 Criminal Appeal

DISTRICT: DHAKA

In the supreme court of Bangladesh

High court Division

(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Criminal Appeal No. 322 OF 2005

In the matter of

An application under
section 14 of Druto Bichar
Tribunal Ain 2002(Act 28
of 2002.

In The matter of

1. Azam RezaSon of Ahmed Reza

Resident of Flat No.A-5, House No.41,

Road no.7, Block -G, Banani,

Police Station - Gulshan, Dhaka.

 …………………………….
Accused/Appellant (In jail)

-Versus-

The state

………………………… Respondent

-AND-

In the matter of

Judgment and order dated 17.1.2005 passed

by District and sessions judge, Dhaka in
session case no: 26 of 204 arising out of
Gulshan police station police station:
18(1)04 dated 10.1.2004 corresponding to
G.R. case No. 18 of 2004 under section
302/201 of the penal code convicting the
accused-appellant.

To Mr. Justice Sayed J.R Mudassir Husain, the chief justice of Bangladesh and his
companion justices of the said of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
The humble petition of the above named Appellant most respectfully:

SHEWETH:

1. The prosecution case in short is that Lucile Sadekin(P.W.1) mother of the

deceased lodged an FIR on 10.1.2004 with Gulshan Police Station, entered a G.D.
no 690 at 8.25 p.m of 9.1.2004.According to FIR it is stated in substance that
sister of the appellate, Shampa Reza informed Dr. MD. MAhbubur Rahman
Joyanti Munshi had committed suicide.

2. After the incident the appellant at first filed the U.D case no 02 of 204 dated
9.1.2004 was started at the Gulshan Police Station that Joyanti Munshi was found
hanging with a ceiling fan by scart.

3. That the Police came and prepared an inquest report in presence of the appellate.

4. That an ambulance was brought in and the dead body was lifted in it by police.

5. That the medical Board consisting of three doctors, only MD Akhtaruzzaman was
pronounced and examined in the trial.

6. Police submit a charge sheet under section 302/201 of the Penal Code against the
appellant.

7. That the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the charge sheet and
transferred the case to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka.

8. The Court of Druto Bichar Tribunal-4 framed charges against appellate under
section 302/201 of the Penal Code.
9. Appellate was examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. The appellate has been falsely implicated in that case.

11. That is the conclusion of the trial judge convicting the appellate under section
302/201 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to death by hanging by the neck
till he is dead for committing offense under section 302 of the Penal Code.

That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of
conviction and sentence the appellate begs to preter this appeal on the following
amongst others-

GROUNDS

I. For that the learned trial judge disposed of the case with a mindset throughout
the trial to convict the petitioner and sentence him to capital punishment and that
fact is apparent from the impugned judgment itself.

II. For the Afsana Mimi was an accused of the case but she was not sent up for
trial for want of complicity and thus she was not accused of the case. Between
Afsana Mimi and the appellate rendering the letter a victim of defamation without
any evidence to support his decision based on such intention. In that view the
impugned judgment has undermined the standard of dispension of justice to the
innocence of the appellant in the case.
 III. For that the address of the letter Material purpose to be "Choto" but there is
no substantive evidence to suggest that "Choto" is the nickname of the accused.

IV. The appellant in section 342 statement and could have found in Judicial
Records is wl as in the case diary showing unjustified learning towards the
prosecution thereby causing gross miscarriage of justice.

V. The learned trial judge doesn't follow that his relationship with Afsana Mimi
is therefore established.

VI. For that the learned trial judge to his fancied decision by convicting the
appellant to capital punishment by running in hostility to provision of law as
contained in section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly and
unequivocally forbidding any statement or record in the police diary for use in
evidence.

VII. For that prima facie , according to Medical Report Ex-5 head injury was the
cause of death and the head injury appearing in the Medical Report as well from
the Examination-in- Chief of P.W.7 Dr.Akhtaruzzaman runs as follow, "An oval
haematoma present on the right parietal occipital and mid frontal area."

For that in view fact and circumstances set out above, the impugned judgment and
order may kindly be set aside for ends of justice.

Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that

your lordships would be graciously pleased
to admit this appeal, call for the record and
after hearing and perusal the records and
cause shown if any allow this appeal and
thereby set aside the impugned judgment
 and decree order passed by the learned
District and sessions judge, Dhaka arising
out Gulshan police station police station:
18(1)04 dated 10.1.2004 corresponding to
G.R. case No. 18 of 2004 under section
302/201 of the penal code and sentencing
him to death by hanging by the neck till he
is dead for committing offence under section
302 of the Penal Code or pass such other or
further order as to your Lordships may deem
fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, The Appellant as in duly bound shall ever pray .

1. Affidavit

2.Vakalatnama