IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. GIRRAJ SINGH, LD.

JMFC,
GURUGRAM DISTRICT COURT, HARYANA
NACT NO. 13175/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:-

OMKARA CONSTRUCTIONS CO. …COMPLAINANT
(Through its Proprietor Mr. Azad Singh)
VERSUS

M/S 4S DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COY & ORS. …ACCUSED(S)

D.O.H.- 25.10.2021

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 258 OF CR.P.C. TO STOP THE

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED/APPLICANT (MS. SHAHEEN

SOBATI) AS NO OFFENCE IS MADE OUT AGAINST HER

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the present application under section 258 of Cr.P.C has been filed

by the applicant in the aforesaid case.

2. That

3. That the Investigation Officer (I.O.) had filed the Police Report in the

present case against the applicant without taking into account all the

material facts of the case and in total disregard to the settled principles

of law and various judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble High Courts

and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. That Police Report filed by the State assuming, though not admitting,

even if accepted in totality does not indicate offence under section 211 of

IPC and as such the Police Report filed by the State is liable to be

quashed/set aside and applicant is liable to be discharged.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down principle regarding

discharge of the accused under section 239 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of “Sheo Nandan Paswan vs State Of Bihar &

Ors (1987 AIR 877)” remarked, “The Court always acts on the material

before it and if it finds that the material is not sufficient to connect the

accused with the crime, it has to discharge or acquit him, as the case may

be, notwithstanding the fact that the crime complained of is a grave one.”

Further Court stated, “Further while exercising its function under s.239 is

to consider the police report and the document sent along with it as also

any statement made by the accused if the court chooses to examine him.

And if the court finds that there is no prima facie case against the accused

the court discharges him.”

THE GROUNDS TO DISCHARGE THE APPLICANT

1. The Police Report does not indicate that the applicant instituted the

criminal proceedings with the intention to injure.

2. The applicant was misled by her previous counsel Mr. Balkishan

Sewak and Mrs. Dorothy Kamal associated with Institute of Social

Research.

GROUNDS
1. The Police Report does not indicate that the applicant instituted the

criminal proceedings with the intention to injure.

i. The Police Report does not disclose any fact to indicate that the

applicant instituted the criminal proceedings with the intention to

injure Mr. Vivek Agarwal (The accused in previous rape case). The

Police Report only contains the Order given Sh. Dharmesh Sharma,

ASJ-01, NDD, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the case was

registered on the basis of this Order only.

ii. The Police Report and the evidences attached with the Police Report

do not disclose any fact to suggest that the applicant had intention to

injure Mr. Vivek Agarwal. In-fact, the applicant had herself stated in

her affidavit given to the Hon’ble Court in the case bearing no. FIR No.

02/2014, PS: RK Puram U/s 376 of IPC,

“Advocate Balkishan Sewak and Dorothy Kamal

asked me to rehearse whatever is written in the

Complaint. I realized that all this will cause more

trouble to Mr. Vivek Agarwal and told S.I. Saroj

Bala that I didn’t wish to give my statement before

a Magistrate.”

iii. Therefore, it is prima facie apparent that the applicant had no

intention injure Mr. Vivek Agarwal, while instituting the criminal

proceedings, meaning thereby, section 211 of IPC is not attracted in

the present case.

iv. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another landmark case “Manakshi Bala

vs Sudhir Kumar [1994 SCC 4 (142)]” categorically held, “Having regard

 to the fact that the offences, for which charge-sheet was submitted in

the instant case and cognizance taken, were triable as a warrant case

the Magistrate was to proceed in accordance with Sections 239 and 240

of the Code, at the time of framing of the charges. Under the above

sections, the Magistrate is first required to consider the police report

and the documents sent with it under Section 173 CrPC and examine

the accused, if he thinks necessary, and give an opportunity to the

prosecution and the accused of being heard. If on such consideration,

examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he

has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239 CrPC…”

v. Applying the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the present case, the applicant needs to be discharged as the

charges are groundless and do not bear any merit.

2. The applicant was misled by her previous counsel Mr. Balkishan

Sewak and Mrs. Dorothy Kamal a social activist associated with

Institute of Social Research.

i. The applicant wished to marry Mr. Vivek Agarwal but due to caste and

some other personal reasons, Mr. Vivek Agarwal was not willing to

marry. The applicant being completely hopeless and helpless called

Women Helpline on 24.11.2013 wherein she was advised to approach

Delhi Commission for Women. When the applicant reached Delhi

Commission for Women, she was referred to one Mrs. Dorothy Kamal,

a social activist associated with Institute of Social Research situated

at C-2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

ii. Mrs. Dorothy Kamal wanted to earn fame as she is a social activist,

thus, she took the applicant to an Advocate Mr. Balkishan Sewak.

Mrs. Dorothy Kamal and Mr. Balkishan Sewak with an ulterior motive

told the applicant that they would conduct a counseling session for

Vivek Agrawal to marry with the applicant. However, they further,

represented that a complaint has to be given for the same.

iii. The applicant thought that the complaint copy was being taken to

schedule the counseling session but in the reality, the applicant was

not aware that the complaint would be converted in to FIR as she was

told that the complaint was necessary to issue summons to Mr. Vivek

Agrawal.

iv. The applicant was shocked when she came to know about the arrest

of Mr. Vivek Agrawal for rape. The applicant decided to speak truth

before the Magistrate, however, her counsel Mr. Balkishan Sewak and

Mrs. Dorothy Kamal threatened her by saying that if she does not lie

before the Magistrate, she would be prosecuted for false case. The

applicant was scared and didn’t know that her own counsel was

betraying her. The applicant gave statement before the Magistrate out

of fear, however, soon after giving the statement to Magistrate she

realized that entire life of Mr. Vivek Agrawal would be ruined if she

doesn’t speak truth.

v. Therefore, she tendered an affidavit before the Hon’ble Court to save

Mr. Agrawal, however, instead of being appreciated for her efforts, she

is being punished through the present case without of her own fault.
 PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully

prayed that Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Allow the present application.

2. Pass an order of discharge qua applicant in FIR No. 76 of 2014 dated

31.01.2014 logged at PS: RK Puram Police Station, New Delhi

3. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in

the present case.

Filed Through:
 Applicant

Place: New Delhi

Suraj Kumar Singh

SKS & Partners

Dated: 08.01.2019 Advocates & Legal Consultant

Chamber No. 565, Saket Court,

New Delhi-110017

Mob: 9810329829