Criminal Pleadings

11. Complaint

Problem: “A” and “B” are neighbors. There is a dispute between them regarding a well situated
between their respective contiguous fields. On 15-09-2019. An alteration took place between hem
in which “A” caused grievous injuries to “B” with a stick. Draft a Complaint.

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST CLASS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE: TIRUPATI

C.C. No ………….20……….

Rama Krishna
S/o Somaiah aged about 40 years,
Occupation farmer residing at D.No. 30 T.Nagar
Tirupati ………………………………………………………..Complainant

Vs
Pradeep Kumar
S/o. Venkataiah aged about 45 years,
Occupation Plumber residing at D.NO. 16/221, Kothapeta ,
Tirupati. ………………………………………………………….Accused.

COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 200 CR.P.C. , READ WITH

SECTION 324 I.P.C.

1. The Complainant, Rama Krishna begs to state as follows:

2. On 15-09-2012 at about 6am the accused assaulted me with a view to obstruct
to draw water from the well situated between respective contiguous fields of
the accused and the complainant. The complainant states that he is entitled by
right to water in that well as joint-owner. Thereupon there was an altercation
took place between the complainant and the accused began to abuse the
complainant in a filthy language and caused injuries in grievous nature with a
stick and ran away.
Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 1|9
 3. Subsequently, the complainant was shifted to hospital and treated as an
inpatient for a period of 25 days (Twenty-Five days).
4. The Complainant states that the accused caused such injuries voluntarily with
a dangerous weapon without any justification. Thus, the accused has
committed the offence Under Section 324 IPC.
5. The complainant, therefore, prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
take cognizance of the offence committed by the accused and deal with
according to law.

Place:
Date:

Advocate for Complainant. Signature of the complainant

I, Rama Krishna , the complainant do hereby solemnly affirm and state that the
contents mentioned in Para 1 to 5 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.

List of witnesses: If any

1.
2.
Signature of the Complainant

******************************************************************

Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 2|9

 12. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

APPLICATION U/S 317 CR. P. C.

IN THE COURT OF............................ ADDL. SESSION JUDGE, TIRUPATI

In the matter of: -

State................................................................................

Vs.

Aryan Kumar

FIR No.............................
U/s....................................
PS.....................................
Date of Hearing................

Application for exemption from personal appearance.

Most respectfully Showeth: -

1. That the above case is fixed for hearing today in which applicant is one of the accused.

2. That accused is an asthamatic patient and prone to bad weather since a week, asthamatic conversion at
two brief intervals which incapacited him to travel upto the court.

3. That accused is represented by the counsel who has signed the application for representing the accused
in question besides the Vakalatnama is in court’s record.

PRAYER

In the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the personal attendance of the accused may be exempted or
dis-finished with and trial may be proceeded in his absence in term of Section 317 Cr. P. C.

It is prayed accordingly.

Accused

Through Counsel

Place:

Date:

*****************************************************************************************************************
Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 3|9
 13. Bail Application
Problem: Ravi as Assistant Engineer in the Tirupati Municipality. Raju is a contractor, who
offered contract with municipality for laying roads. Ravi demanded one lakh of gratification.
Raghu informed the same to ACB. They conducted a trap and taken him into Judicial custody.
Draft a Bail petition.
BAIL PETITION
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: TIRUPATI
C.M.P No. _____/ 2011
Ravi
S/o Raju
D.NO. 14, Prakasam Road
Tirupati – 517502 ……………………………………………. Petitioner

Vs
The State Representative
ACB …………………………………………………………Respondent

PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER U/S 438 6/437 OF CR.P.C.

1. It is submitted that the petitioner is an employee working in Tirupati Municipality. The

respondent registered a crime against the petitioner based on the report given by one Raghu,
the de-facto complainant.
2. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 15-04-2011 and produced before
the Hon’ble Court on 16-04-2011 and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to remand the
petitioner to judicial custody till 20-04-2011.
3. The petitioner humbly submits that he is law abiding citizen and falsely implicated at the
instance of the de-facto complainant who is highly influential person.
4. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to give such surety for his release as the
court would be pleased to order as the case may be.
5. It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail
in the interest of Justice, otherwise the petitioner will be put to serious loss and injury.
Sd
Counsel for Petitioner.

****************************************************************

Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 4|9

 14. Memorandum of Appeal

CRIMINAL APPEAL

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Criminal Appeal No......................... 72002

In the Matter of: -Shri.........................

S/o..................................... ………………………………………………. Appellant
Through Parokar..................
if appeal is filed through relatives/friend
S/o........................................
r/o........................................

Versus

The State of NCT, Delhi...................................................................... Respondent

Criminal Appeal Against the order dated and passed by ASJ, Delhi convicting the appellant u/s
392/397/34 of IPC and sentencing to undergo RI for a period of 7 years.

Most respectfully showeth: -

That the humble appellant was tried by Ld. Additional Session Judge, Delhi for the offence u/s
392/397/34 IPC and on conviction, sentenced to undergo RI seven years, vide order dated 24-12-
2001:

2. That the brief fact of prosecution leading to the trial before the Ld. ASJ is that on 7-9-
2000,..............................., a mistry by profession, came after finishing his work in.......................
at about 9. 30 pm by his bicycle. On the way his bicycle was punctured as such he was pulling his
bicycle to his residence and was passing by the side of a park near and over-head water tank near
wazirpur red-light crossing. In the meantime all the three accused came cut of that park by scatting
over the grill and all came in front of bicycle of the complainant. The accused............................
caught hold of the bicycle from the front side while co-accused....................... took out knife and
wielded on the complainant and asked him to hand over whatever money he had with him and also
threatened to stab at him, if he did not do so, one of them removed one diary and one currency
note of Rs. 50/- from the pocket of his shirt. Meanwhile two scooterists who were passing stopped
along with others and they caught hold of the said three accused persons. Accused......................
fell down, while attempting to run away fell down and in the process of climbing the wall of the
park and sustained injuries on his head. Public assembled and gave beatings. PCR came, Local

Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 5|9

police arrived and accused were handed over to local police and tried after committed to session
court.

3. That prosecution examined 7 witnesses including PW-3.................. the complainant. No public

witness, inspite of clear report/statement that accused were stopped (a) by two scooterist and their
pillar rider (b) collected lots of public who handed over the accused persons to the police at Red
Light crossing, was examined to bring the correctness of the crime brought before court but
convicted and sentenced to 7 years RI.

4. That being aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant wish to submit the following grounds:

GROUNDS

(A) That there was no such offence taken place at all, even if it is so, it was only & "pick pocketing"
in terms of PCR report as referred in para 9 of the judgment - no robbery or dacoity as charged by
the court had ever taken place.

(B) That knife as alleged was planted later to make the case u/s 397 IPC for the public nor the two
scooterist never spoke about the knife, nor they were produced as witness, hence the case is cooked
up, more so three persons known to the victim (PW-3................ ) will not attack for a mere Rs.
50/- unless they knew that the victim is in possession of a big amount nor they did not even tried
to snatch the cycle. Case is concocted to which police got benefit and PW-3.

(C) That PW-3 (star witness as claimed by prosecution) states that his hand was held by Raju
accused and point knife at his throat and tool-out money. On the other hand local police states
(PW-7............... in para 10 of judgment) accused..................... was found possession of a folding
knife in his right pocket of his wearing. There is contradiction. The PW-3 states in his statement
before court that he was pulling cycle as his cycle was punctured, when mentioned about this
neither in his Asal Tehrir improvement in his version, besides he states back as 9/9-30 pm. before
court timing is 10. 15 pm. How could accused Raju take out money and knife from his pocket
when PW-3 was held by the both hands of accused Raju.

In his cross-examination, he did not remember anything-who took out money and diary-but agreed
to have sealed diary and Rs. 60-note (XX by App.) Only a fabricated case against innocent person
could come to such contradictory conclusion.

(D) That interestingly PCR official never spoke about open knife nor folding knife which the
accused were handed over to PCR official by public nor PCR official spoke about open and folding
knife while handing over to Local police. It is certain if the accused were beaten by public
including the two scooterists and their pillion rider, they must have handed over open knife alleged
to have been placed at the throat of victim (PW-3) to police official of PCR or to local police. It is
not done so, because there was no such knife nor such incident took place, it proves the case is
concocted one, otherwise question of open knife or folding knife would have come to light.

(E) That as per complainant, PW-3, it was two scooterists and their pillon rider who rescued him,
besides police agreed presence of these two scooterists and large number of public at red-light

Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 6|9

crossing, still the prosecution did not brought to support truthfulness of prosecution version, then
how could Ld. ADJ believe the version and how could court can come to conclusion to the
correctness of the crime. It was absolutely one sided and wrong decision for no public witness was
brought forwarded for deposition of correctness of the crime. Even not a single word either spoken
or referred questioning police as to why police did not have them as witness since they (scooterists)
were the first person to rescue the victim.

(F) That police personnel having arrived later to the spot after civilian and scooterists took control
over the accused are duty bound to supply the names of those persons who took control over the
three accused. Prosecution/police did not do so, hence there is doubt if at all such things/incident
were happened or not? The incident took place between 9 to 9. 30 PM and police arrived after 10.
30 PM. It is unlikely that the gathered public/crowd would have stayed for one hour or the
scooterists would have stayed for an hour so that they could hand over the culprit. Prosecution
story seems to be fraud and not possible. Conviction based on such irrelevant considerations need
to be set aside for no such incident took place for no public would wait for an hour to hand over
the culprit to police, if so why police did not took their names and produced as witnesses before
court.

(G) That story states that accused attempting to run away not possible for accused was surrounded
by public, including two scooterists and beaten by public. Under the circumstances, it is unlikely
his attempt to run away from the spot. It is agreed by prosecution that accused along with other
co-accused were captured by public and handed over to the police (PCR), hence injury was not
due to the process of attempting to run away as alleged. He was dashed by possibly against hard
object like well or beaten by blunt object on head (over right side skull). Such injury could be
caused by such treatment and not by fall. Rather 3rd degree method to accept the use was employed
against. (Forceful confession).

(H) That there is different version between PW-3 in his Asal Tehrir, FIR and that of statement
before court. There is different version between police officials and PW-3 about knifes. That the
question cycle "pulling" is something strange for a punctured cycle could only be pushed forward
and can not be pulled. A person can only pull a thing towards himself in the sense if he was pulling
the cycle, question of coming forward and standing of accused person before him is impossible.
On pulling cannot a person moved backward. Hence attacking while going toward home (moving
forwards) not plausible.

There is material contradiction and it is serious as the versions cuts each other. PCR who first
caught accused never speaks about knife nor those scooterists or public assembled there, while
local police speaks about recovery of folding knife in accused pocket, complainant (PW-3) states
that knife was pointed at his throat, itself a big contradiction and it seem knife was planted to make
robbery for an offence Under Section 397 IPC. Appellant entitled to be acquitted in view of 1998
(1) JCC 108, Rahees Ahmad where material contradiction is too material as in this case.

Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 7|9

 PRAYER

It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may to admit be pleased the appeal and call for
record for the perusal and of hearing the counsel for the appellant and to set-aside the conviction
and sentence passed against the appellant and he be acquitted.

To pass any other order which this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the circumstances and in
the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that pending final disposal of present appeal, this Hon’ble court please to release
the appellant on bail and suspend the sentence passed against the appellant. For which act of
kindness the humble appellant shall ever remain thankful to this Hon’ble court.

New Delhi

Appellant

Dated:

Through Advocate

*************************************************************************************************************

Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 8|9

 15. Memorandum of Revision

Criminal Revision before High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr. P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ……………..

Criminal Revision No. ………………………. of …….
(Under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code)
District……………

Sri.……………………… …………………………………………. Petitioner

Versus

Sri………………………………………………………………….Respondents

Revision against the order dated ……..20……… passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act)
………………in Criminal Revision No. ………… of 20….. ………………….Vs.
……………………………… and others.

The Relief sought for by this Revision is that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the
Revision on quash the order dated …………….. passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)
……………….. in Criminal Revision No. ………. of 20…….. with costs throughout and to pass
such other and further orders as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

The present Revision is being filed inter alia on the following

GROUNDS

1. Because while discharging the accused under Section 245 (2), Cr.P.C. it was not mandatory for
the trial Court to records evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The view taken by the Court below
to the contrary is erroneous in law.

2. Because the alleged offence being non-cognizable and compoundable, the trial Court could
legally discharge the accused under Section 249, Cr.P.C. on complainant’s failure to attend the
court.

3. Because the present complaint was the second complaint and the complainant was deliberately
keeping herself absent from the Court on the dates fixed, showing the non-seriousness of the
respondent to pursue the matter.

4. Because the order of the court below is otherwise erroneous on facts and in law.

Dated…………….
Advocate for the Revisionist

Drafting Record| Criminal Pleadings |RGV Page 9|9