Final Anticipatory Bail

Manju

Uploaded by Apoorv shankar on Apr 22, 2024

 0 ratings · 1 views · 60 pages

Document Information 

Date uploaded
Download now
Apr 22, 2024 
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats
PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
CASEINFORMATIONFORMAT Civil

DISTRICT Criminal!
Share thisS. document
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/COMPLIANT/APPELLANT/DECREEHOLDEP.ETC.
PLEASEFILLUPALLTHERELEVANTFIELD&(*)FIELDSAREMANDATORY)
No.

1 NameofthePlantiff/ MrSMANJUSINGH

 
Complainant/Etc.
2 SloWioD/o JITENDRASINGHCHAUTIMED
FlatNo 82-33,31ªFlear,Clupten-t,SectorE1,
chi,bothi
3 Address

VasantKung,SouthWestsor
Facebook 4 AadharCardNo. Twitter
950810328507 PinCode: 1100ティ

INDIAN
5 Gender Male |FomaloVOther Nationality
Other:
DateofBirth 19 107 11907 Age 34

 email:manjutdetenglifet
7 MobileNo. 7830241111 job??
aoniailtem
8 Act/Section 9.420/34 IPC
CourtFeeAscetained:
ValuationofSuit
CourtFeopald/Deposited:

EmailPoliceStation
10 Mehrauli InCriminalMattersonly

11 F.I.R.No.&Year 271/20211 InCriminalMattersonly

DEFENDANTIACCUSED/RESPONDENTJUDGEMNETDEBATERETC.
앵

PLEASEFILLUPALLTHERELEVANTFIELD&(*)FIELDSAREMANDATORY)
1 NameofThe STATE
Did you find this document useful?
DEFENDANTIACCUSED
EtC.
2 S/oWioD/o
Address

4 AadharCardNo. PinCode:

INDIAN
5 Gender Malc Female Other Nationality
Other:
6 DateofBirth Age
7 MobileNo. c-mail:

Is this content inappropriate?

สื อ. ADVOCAT EFORPLAINTIFF/COReport thisNER/DECR
MPLAINANT/PETITIO Document
ESSHOLDERETC.

preetRin gh H ora SahelVarsiney

1 NameofTheAdvocate
EnrI.No.
MarD/ 5079/2017 D/6282/2023
2 Office/ChamberNo.
3 MobileNo. e-mail: 8882663755/adunts[dat)heraEat/greailcon
SUBMITTEDBY:....
SahilVarshney
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT/ACCUSED/OTHER/ADVOCATE
abat

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. _____ /2024

F.I.R. No.: 271/2024

FIR DATED: 16.04.2024

U/s 420/34

P.S. Mehrauli

IN THE MATTER OF: STATE V. MANJU SINGH & ORS.

Anticipatory bail on behalf of applicant MANJU

Manju Singh ….APPLICANT

Vs.

STATE ….RESPONDENT

INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Memo of Parties 1-2

2. Application for grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 3-17

Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant/accused along with

the supporting affidavit.

3. Annexure A-1 18-22

Copy of FIR No.: 271/2024 DATED: 16.04.2024, U/s

420/34, P.S. Mehrauli and notice issued under section
41A to Manju Singh

4. Annexure A-2 23

Cover page of old complaint dated 26.09.2023 filed

before DCP by the same complainant herein.

5. Annexure A-3 24-26

FIR Number 257/2023 PS: Sarita Vihar Delhi under

sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC against the husband for
assaulting the applicant again
6. Annexure A-4 27-33

FIR number 137/2013 PS Sector 17/18 Gurgaon under

sections 498A, 34, 406, 323 against the husband of
applicant for assaulting the applicant
7. Annexure A-5 34-38

Medical records of the accused/applicant Mrs. Manju

Singh
8. Annexure A-6 39-46

Photos of injuries inflicted on the accused by her

husband and photos of her clothes which were cut by
her husband
9. Annexure A-7 47-54

True copy of FIR 233/2024 PS: Gurgaon Sadar

10. Vakalatnama 55

PETITIONER/APPLICANT

Through

Harpreet Singh Hora /Pooja Joshi/

Kapil Singh Gaur /Sahil Varshney

(Advocates)

Phone: 7669894439, 8882663755, 9793738982

Email ID:advhts.hora@gmail.com

Delhi

Date: 22.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SOUTH DISTRICT, Saket COURTS, DELHI

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. _____ /2024

F.I.R. No.: 271/2024

FIR DATED: 16.04.2024

U/s 420/34

P.S. Mehrauli

IN THE MATTER OF: STATE V. MANJU SINGH & ORS.

Anticipatory bail on behalf of applicant MANJU

Manju Singh ….APPLICANT

Vs.

STATE ….RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES:

Mrs. Manju Singh, APPLICANT

w/o Jitender Singh Chauhan,

aged around 36 years

Flat number B2-33, 3rd Floor, Cluster-

6 Sector E1, Vasant Kunj South West
Delhi, Delhi- 110070.

Phone: 7830241111

Improve Your Experience 

Rating will help us to suggest even better
related documents to all of our readers!

 Useful

 Not useful

Email: manju.singh.job87@gmail.com

Versus

STATE ….RESPONDENT

Through SHO P.S. Mehrauli

PETITIONER/APPLICANT

Through

Harpreet Singh Hora/Sahil Varshney/

Kapil Singh Gaur /Mohit Lakra

(Advocates)

Phone: 8882663755, 9793738982

Email ID:advhts.hora@gmail.com

Delhi:

Dated:22.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. _____ /2024

F.I.R. No.: 271/2024

FIR DATED: 16.04.2024

U/s 420/34

P.S. Mehrauli

IN THE MATTER OF: STATE V. MANJU SINGH & ORS.

Anticipatory bail on behalf of applicant MANJU

Manju Singh ….APPLICANT

Vs.

STATE ….RESPONDENT

FIRST APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. SEEKING

ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE APPLICANT IN FIR 271/2024 PS
MEHRAULI ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT MRS. MANJU SINGH

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the applicant Mrs. Manju is a law-abiding and peace-loving citizen of

India and is a woman aged 36 years who has been subjected to physical
assault, attempt to murder by slitting her throat by her husband, torture by

her husband for which several FIRs, a complaint before Magistrate is

pending trial. The applicant has clean antecedents in terms of her record.
2. That the applicant Mrs. Manju is chronically ill patient with long term
medical issues including (and still under treatment of) fibroids including
multiple fibroids in her uterus, calcification in brain that leads to seizures,
severe depression and hypotension.
3. That the complainant Mrs. Surjeet Kaur has filed the present FIR on fake
and fabricated allegations. The complainant has herself admitted in the FIR
that the present complaint is filed on set of facts as told to her by the
husband of Manju Singh. The police have issued notice u/s 41A to Manju
Singh for joining investigation. The copy of FIR 271/2024 PS: Mehruali and
notice have been annexed as ANNEXURE A1.
4. That the applicant Mrs. Manju has a 12-year-old school going kid and she is
a single care taker of the child, since her husband has deserted her for which
appropriate litigation is pending before appropriate authorities and he has
multiple FIRs against him filed by his wife Manju Singh (the applicant
herein).
5. That the husband of Manju Singh, at whose instance this FIR has been filed,
has got this complaint registered on March 12, 2024 and he again assaulted
Manju in April 2024 to withdraw her matrimonial cases and on refusal, he
threatened her with getting her arrested in this fake FIR. The present FIR is
registered on April 16, 2024 by Police.
6. That the same complainant had filed old complaint dated 26.09.2023 filed
before DCP South Hauz Khas and the same was disposed of since the complainant
had entered into agreement with the applicant Manju Singh. A copy of the cover
page of old complaint dated 26.09.2023 filed before DCP by the same complainant
herein as ANNEXURE A2.

7. That the applicant had the complaint and all documents in her phone but it was
destroyed by the husband of applicant. This Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to
direct the IO to produce the said old complaint.
8. That the wife had filed FIR number 137/2013 PS Sector 17/18 Gurgaon under
sections 498A, 34, 406, 323 against the husband of applicant for assaulting the
applicant.
9. That the husband of applicant is continuously threatening the applicant that
until and unless she withdraws her DV complaint and withdraws her FIR
number 257/2023 PS: Sarita Vihar under section 498A, 406, 34 IPC PS:
Sarita Vihar against the husband he will keep filing false FIRs against the
applicant. The FIR number 257/2023 PS: Sarita Vihar and previous FIR
filed against the husband FIR number 137/2013 PS Sector 17/18 Gurgaon under
sections 498A, 34, 406, 323 are annexed as ANNEXURE A3 and

ANNEXURE A4 respectively.
10.That the husband of the applicant has got this fake FIR filed because now he
eyes the property in Dehradun against which Ms. Manju Singh has stay
order from the Hon’ble Court.
11.That the present case against the petitioner is a completely false and
concocted story by the complainant who had registered the present FIR on
false and vexatious averments.
12.That petitioner/accused is being assaulted by her husband since year 2012,
during her pregnancy and the same torture continuous till date. The medical
records are annexed as ANNEXURE A5.
13.That the husband of Manju Singh namely Mr. Jitender Singh Chauhan has
assaulted Ms. Manju Singh on multiple occasions and caused her serious
injuries & he even had cut her clothes to further commit cruelty on her. The

photographs of her injuries and clothes cut by the husband are annexed as
ANNEXURE A6.
14.That when Mrs. Manju Singh refused to withdraw her matrimonial FIRs, the
husband of the applicant Manju Singh slit her throat with a knife and FIR
number 233/2024 PS: Sadar Gurgaon (Sadar) was filed against the husband
by applicant Mrs. Manju Singh and then Manju Singh filed appropriate
application before the Ld. Magistrate as well which pending in Gurgaon
Court. True copy of FIR 233/2024 PS: Gurgaon Sadar is annexed as
ANNEXURE A7.
15.That the present FIR is frivolous and vexatious as there is no element of
cheating present in the case. It is further submitted that the present FIR is
nothing but an unnecessary means to harass the petitioner and her family.
16.That the Complainant and the husband, are in a habit of alleging false
accusations on the applicant to defame and dishonor her and her family.
17.That the husband has now introduced a new accused in this FIR (who was
not named in previous complaint dated 26.09.2023) by terming her as
applicant’s boyfriend Mr. Rohit.
18.That the said averment of applicant indulging in extra-marital affair is far
from truth and has been levelled by the complainant only to malign the
applicant’s honour and reputation on the instance of husband of Manju
Singh so that the husband can misuse the FIR in matrimonial cases.
19.That the said untrue averment about her affair has been levelled against her
only with the malafide intention to pressurize her to withdraw the
matrimonial cases.
20.That the applicant had all her documents, record of payments, complaints
and court record in her phone and the husband had stolen the phone and later
on shattered that phone to destroy all evidences against himself.

21.That the grounds of the grant of anticipatory bail as follows:

A. Because the applicant suffers from various ailments and has a 12-year-
old school going minor child. The applicant is the sole caretaker of the
minor child.
B. Because the same complainant had filed same complaint dated
26.09.2023 before DCP South and the same complainant had reached
on an agreement wherein she has already received partial payment from
the accused already. Now the second complaint on same facts is being
filed at the instance of husband of the applicant in the name of the same
complainant.
C. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a breach of
contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless
fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the
transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will
not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings - The criminal Courts are
not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurize parties to settle
civil disputes.
D. BECAUSE the accused has been served with a notice under section
41A already and there is no requirement of her custodial interrogation
and she undertakes to join the investigation as directed by the IO and
this Hon’ble Court.
E. Because initially the same complainant filed a complaint on 26.09.2023
with DCP South only against 2 accused persons on the same fact and
her only goal was recovery of money, now the complainant has roped in
more people and made them an accused in the case with the aim to
extort money out of them.

F. Because now the complainant has not only increased the number of
accused persons but also changed the version of the complaint which is
evident from the complaint dated 26.09.2023.
G. Because complaint with identically same set of allegations was already
filed with DCP South on 26.09.2023 and the complainant and the
applicant had entered into an agreement thereby the matter had already
come to an end and the partial amount had been returned to the
complainant already.
H. Because now the complainant has become greedy and wants to extort
money from the applicant accused Manju Singh and other accused
persons at the instance of Mr. Jitender Singh Chauhan husband of the
applicant Manju Singh.
I. Because now the complainant has filed the same complaint but
exaggerated the facts and implicated more people in this FIR without
any rhyme or reason and her entire motive is to extort money out of the
applicant and other accused persons.
J. Because the complainant health got severely deteriorated on April 19,
2024 and she could not personally attend the police station; and her
lawyers duly informed the IO about her health and sought some more
time to take appropriate legal remedies.
K. Because there is no need of arresting the complainant in the present
complaint.
L. Because the complainant admits that she has received partial payment
of the amount and then she met Manju’s husband and the improvements
in FIR are made on what Manju’s husband told the complainant.
M. Because the complainant admits that they had taken their complaint
back and now the present case falls in the nature of civil dispute.

N. BECAUSE the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarabjit Kaur

Vs State of Punjab and Anr. 2023 SCC Online 210 has held as
follows:

“13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal

prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.
Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not
be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts
available on record, it is evident that the respondent No.2 had
Search
improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in
which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it
was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent
complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On
the first complaint, the only request was for return of the
amount paid by the respondent No.2. When the offence was
made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second
complaint was filed with improved version making allegations
against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier
complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute
into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the
amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are not meant to be
used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil
disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made
out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in
question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was filed
nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the

10

sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an

abuse of process of the Court.”

O. BECAUSE the Delhi High Court had stayed the criminal proceedings
in a similar case titled as ATS Real Estate Builders Private Ltd vs
State (W.P.(CRL) 3728/2023) relaying on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
decision in (2022) 7 SCC 124 has held as follows:

“10. The learned Counsel has next placed reliance on the

judgment of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of WB, (2022) 7 SCC
124, to submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again
cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal
cases and also referred to the judgment of Indian Oil Corpn.
[Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736,
wherein the Apex Court noticed the prevalent impression that
since civil law remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors and
therefore there had been a growing trend to settle civil disputes
and claims by applying pressure through criminal prosecution.
It has been submitted that in that case, the Apex Court clearly
observed to deprecate and discourage all such initiation of
criminal cases, which do not involve any criminal offence. It
has been argued that the transaction as is apparent from the
terms of the Tri-partite Agreement was purely an investment
and Purchase value agreement and even for the sake of
argument, the respondent/complainant were entitled for

11

recovery only and the criminal machinery cannot be used for

recovery of any amount.

18. This Court finds that though a case of breach of trust may
be both a civil wrong and a criminal offence there would be
certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil
wrong and may or may not amount to a criminal offence and
giving colour of criminal case to dispute which is otherwise
purely civil and contractual in nature would tantamount to an
abuse of the process of court. The Hon'ble Apex court
deprecated the practise of setting Criminal Machinery in
motion for breach of civil or contractual disputes. Reliance
can be placed upon Iqbal V/s state of U.P 2023 SCC Online
SC 949.

XXXXXXX......

21. Taking the overall view of the matter and looking into the
facts and circumstances of this case, the Investigation in the
FIR No. 81/2023 under Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC
registered at Police Station EOW and all proceedings
emanating therefrom shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing.”

P. BECAUSE the Supreme court in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin &

Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. 2024 INSC 49
Criminal Appeal No. 335/ 2024 has held that mere cheating will not
attract s. 420 IPC offence; accused must dishonestly induce cheated

Improve Your Experience 

Rating will help us to suggest even better
related documents to all of our readers!

 Useful

 Not useful

12

person to deliver property The observations relevant in the present case

are as follows:

“11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions

of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only
prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that
by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is
cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components
of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii)
fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any
property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest
intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent
and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the
promise or representation was made.”

Q. Because the complainant has admitted the fact that it is at the instance
of the husband of Manju Singh that they have filed this FIR.
R. Because the husband has a clear-cut motive to implicate Manju in this
fresh FIR since he has been pressurizing Manju to withdraw her
matrimonial FIRs.
S. Because the husband has assaulted Manju in April 2024 (after filing of
the present complaint dated March 12, 2024 by the complainant) and
when she did not agree to withdraw her cases, he dragged her by hair,
caused severe injuries and then the present FIR was filed on April 16,
2024 against Manju.
T. Because it is settled law that second complaint on same facts is not
maintainable when the core of the allegations is same in nature.

13

U. Because the Supreme Court has held that multiple complaints by the
same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident is
impermissible.
V. Because the Supreme Court has held in the case of Krishna Lal
Chawla and others Vs. State of UP and another [(2021) 5 SCC 435]
as follows:

“Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that the right to life

and liberty shall not be taken away except by due process of
law. Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in
respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or
private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being
entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such, he would
be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time
before the police and the Courts, as and when required in each
case. As this Court has held in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah
(supra), such an absurd and mischievous interpretation of the
provisions of the CrPC will not stand the test of constitutional
scrutiny, and therefore cannot be adopted by us.”

22.That the applicant undertakes to abide by the direction if any issued by this
Hon’ble court at the time of granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
23.That the annexures filed with the present application are the true copies of
the originals.
24. That the applicant has not filed a similar bail application in any other court
including the Supreme Court of India.

14

PRAYER:

In light of the facts and circumstances and the above submissions, the Hon’ble

Court be pleased to:

1. Allow the present application filed u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C, 1973; and

2. Grant anticipatory bail/pre-arrest bail to the Petitioner/Applicant in the FIR

No. 271/2024 PS: Mehrauli; and,

3. Allow the petitioner to join the investigation of this case through video

conferencing or any other electronic means due to her health reasons.

4. Pass any other order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER/APPLICANT

Through

Harpreet Singh Hora/Sahil Varshney/

Kapil Singh Gaur /Mohit Lakra

(Advocates)

Phone: 8882663755, 9793738982

Email ID:advhts.hora@gmail.com

15

Delhi

Dated: 22.04.2024

16

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

17

18
ANNEXURE A-1

19

20

21