Strategy and Tools to win False IPC498A Case

Posted on April 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The high-level work flow to win the false IPC498A Case is as follows:

This being a criminal case, get anticipatory bail for the Prime Accused, A1 at the earliest, even though Hon’ble Supreme court has ruled no automatic arrests should be done in matrimonial cases. Read the Landmark judgment here.
- Read the bail related information here and judgments here.
Once on bail, based on your objectives, you can proceed with any of the below approaches
- File a Discharge Petition based on Legal grounds in your case and get discharged from case at Magistrate court itself.
  - Read about Discharge Petition here and various discharge judgments here.
- File a Quash Petition based on Legal grounds in your case and get discharged from case at High court.
  - Read about Quash Petition here and various quash judgments here.
- Fight the case on merits till the end of trial and emerge victorious as not Guilty. This can drag on for many years. Be aware of this fact.
  - Go here to read various stages of the case trial and how you can safeguard yourself and your family.
- Yes, there is another way out. Go for Settlement.
  - Read the various aspects of settlement and few high-profile settlement cases and their judgments here.

Post Views: 218

Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another SC Judgment discharging the accused u/s 227 of Cr.P.C, as there is no ground to proceed to Trial under IPC 498A.

But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.

Similar situation arise under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant cases on police report). In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. At these two State the Code enjoins on the Court to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next State. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the “ground” may be any valid ground including insufficiency of evidence to prove charge.

Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Citations: [1

State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy and Ors on 3 March, 1977

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark Judgment on application of the Inherent powers of High Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C to Quash a proceeding as there is inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution.

There is no material on the record on which any tribunal could reasonably convict them for any offence connected with the assault on the complainant. This is one of these cases in which a charge of conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason that evidence of direct involvement of the accused is lacking.
The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a Salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.

State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977

Citations: [AIR 1977 SC 1489], [1977 Cri LJ 1125 (SC)], [(1977) 2 SCC 699], [1977 KARLJ 2 483], [1977 SCC 2 699], [1977 SCR 3 113], [1977 CAR 143], [1977 CRLR 188], [1977 MLJ CRI 1 428], [1977 SCC CR 0 404], [1977 CRILR 0 188], [1977 AIR SC 1498], [1978 CLR 0 39], [1977 SCC CRI 0 404]

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of the Judgments where the accused prayed for discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977
Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 Nov 1978 (Landmark Judgment: How to deal with a Discharge petition?)
Sh. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996 (Overruled in State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004)
Om Wati and Anr Vs State Thro Delhi Admn and Ors on 19 March 2001 (Landmark Judgment: As there is Prima facie case against Accused, discharging them is not correct)
Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002 (No grave suspicion)
State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 (SC: No evidence from Defence/Accused during Discharge Stage/Charge Framing)
P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 27 January, 2010 (No grave suspicion)
Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 (If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.)
CBI, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao on 21 September, 2012
Rajiv Thapar & Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [Landmark judgment from Justice J.S.Khehar for guidelines to discharge an accused under section 227 of CrPC]
L. Krishna Reddy Vs State on 24 October 2013 [Discharge of parents u/s 227 by HC was upheld by SC]
Ramnaresh & Ors Vs State of M.P. on 14 June, 2016 [During Charge framing, Grave Suspicion Vs Suspicion, based on Prafulla Kumar Samal above]
Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018 [All documents submitted u/s 173(2) have to be perused to see if there is any prima facie case]
Asim Shariff Vs National Investigation Agency on 01 July 2019
M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020 [Governing principles regarding permissibility of defence of accused or documents produced by him, summarized]
Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala on 07 July 2020 [Discharge dismissal was challenged in Revision at Kerala High Court; Revision got dismissed]
Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 28 Nov 2023 [SC: Court can look into the unimpeachable material against the allegations in the charge sheet]

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here. Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC

Section 227 CrPC allows a court to discharge an accused person if, after examining the case records and hearing both sides, it finds no sufficient ground to proceed with the trial. In such cases, the judge must record reasons and release the accused from the proceedings.

Discharge under Section 227 occurs before the framing of charges in sessions cases. If the court finds that the prosecution materials do not establish a prima facie case, the accused may be discharged instead of being subjected to a full criminal trial.

Courts generally evaluate:

The police report and charge sheet
Documents submitted during investigation
Arguments of both the prosecution and the accused
Whether the facts alleged constitute the ingredients of the offence

If the material on record does not show sufficient grounds for trial, discharge may be granted.

No. Discharge does not amount to a finding of innocence. It simply means that the court found insufficient material to proceed with the trial at that stage. A final determination of guilt or innocence happens only after a full trial leading to acquittal or conviction.

The key differences are:

Discharge: Occurs before framing of charges due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Acquittal: Occurs after a full trial when the court concludes the accused is not guilty.

An acquittal is a final judgment, whereas discharge only terminates proceedings at a preliminary stage.

No. At the discharge stage, courts only conduct a prima facie assessment of the material on record. They do not undertake a detailed examination of evidence or determine guilt. If there is sufficient suspicion or material supporting the offence, the case proceeds to trial.

The accused person in a criminal case may file a discharge application through counsel. The court then considers the application after hearing both the prosecution and the defence.

If the court finds sufficient grounds to proceed, it will reject the discharge application and move to the next stage of the criminal process—framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC.

Yes. Both the accused and the prosecution can challenge discharge orders before a higher court through revision or appeal, depending on the circumstances and applicable provisions.

The primary objective of Section 227 is to prevent unnecessary criminal trials where the evidence is insufficient. It acts as an important safeguard to protect individuals from frivolous or baseless prosecutions and ensures fairness in criminal proceedings.

Post Views: 1,056

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Judgment of Supreme Court clearly calling out the principle to be followed u/s 227 of Cr.P.C

“the test is whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding and not, whether there is a sufficient ground for conviction”

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

Citations: [2

Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors Vs State Of Gujarat and Anr on 4 October, 2017

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read the broad principles High courts should consider for quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC in this Judgment of Supreme Court.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If the FIR Quash is based on Jurisdiction ground, please note that there are Supreme Court and High Court judgments that mandate to transfer the FIR to the respective Police Station where there is jurisdiction for the case. Quash will not happen in such cases, under Jurisdiction ground alone. Find more grounds.

Broad Principles

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

Principles for quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC 40266_2016_Judgement_04-Oct-2017

Citations : [2017 SCC 9 641], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1189], [2017 AIR SC 4843], [2017 CTC 6 213], [2017 ALLMR CRI 4438], [2017 ACR 3 2714], [2017 BOMCR CRI 4 372], [2017 ILR KER 4 169], [2017 JLJR 4 191], [2017 KHC 5 192], [2017 PLJR 4 207], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 4 523], [2017 SCALE 12 187], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1189], [2017 AIR SC 4843]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7293093/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59d91ddece686e237b6a8717

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/parbatbhai-aahir-parbatbhai-bhimsinhbhai-karmur-and-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-and-anr

Post Views: 259

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of the Judgments where the accused are discharged u/s 239 Cr.P.C

Supdt. S. Remembrancer of legal affairs W.B. Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja- AIR 1989 SC 52
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs. Dilip N. Chartia 1989 (1) SCC 715
State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1744
State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni AIR 2000 SC 2583
Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr Vs State of West Bengal on 5 January 2000 (Charge-framing itself is a judicial order which implies Magistrate applied judicial mind)
Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Appeal petition by Knife on not framing changes on relatives is dismissed)
State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 (SC: No evidence from Defence/Accused during Charge Framing/Discharge Stage)
Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009 (Discharge and Charge Framing procedure explained)
B.S.Neelakanta and Anr Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 04 December 2013 (AP HC: Dismissal of Discharge is set aside)
Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin Vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy on 7 December, 2017 (SC: Defence can satisfy Court to seek documents of Sterling/Unimpeachable quality from IO/Prosecution that were not sent to Trial Court u/s 173 CrPC)
C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018 (TS HC: No specific allegations, Dismissal of Discharge is set aside)
CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020 (Delhi HC: If the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge)
Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 28 Nov 2023 [SC: Court can look into the unimpeachable material against the allegations in the charge sheet]

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 are here. Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Post Views: 1,210

State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court talks about the importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report and where not done so, the delay in lodging the complaint should be satisfactorily explained.

From Para 18,

Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.

And… from Para 19,

No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this circumstance raises considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3), rendering it unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.

State Of A.P vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1273596/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd30f607dba63d7e6b53e

Citation: [(2008) 15 SCC 582], [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1123], [2008 (14) SCALE 118]

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Post Views: 323

Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Judgment that emphasizes on Jurisdiction applicable to a case.

Operative Text of Judgement:

“It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise.”

Y. Abraham Ajith sc-chennai-jurisdiction

Post Views: 274

Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hi Folks, Sharing with you all, how I dealt with the false 498A IPC case put on me and my innocent parents, along with timelines. I have also shared samples/templates made out of my petitions (obviously, totally redacted) along with below timelines, in PDF format.

Take little pains to have them drafted for your cases. Do NOT ask me word versions. Even if you ask, I will NOT give 😉

NOTE: If you become my client, all these samples and templates will be customized for your case requirements.

All credit primarily goes to one Mens’ Rights Organization, named and styled as MyNation Foundation. Hundreds of exceptionally knowledgeable members have spend thousands of hours selflessly just to guide, motivate, support another of their brother from another mother (that is myself) who has been facing a false matrimonial case in India.

Thank you Rudy, for giving us MyNation.net.

NOTE: My DV case is available here. Index of all cases filed against my and my parents is here and my defence/counter attacks.

Detailed Timeline of the case under IPC 498A

On 07-April-2017,

Compliant filed with Women Police Station, Ongole;
Same day FIR is also registered under IPC 498A and u/s 3 and 4 of D.P.Act

On 08-April-2017,

FIR sent to 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

On 01-May-2017,

Regular Bail granted by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole to Parents

On 01-June-2017,

Application filed for Anticipatory Bail with High Court of AP u/s 438 of Cr.P.C

On 18-July-2017,

High Court of AP granted Anticipatory Bail

On 31-October-2017,

Charge sheet filed with 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

On 20-September-2018,

First appearance in the Court along with parents. Collected accused copies of all prosecution documents, 1 set per accused person. We were three, we got 3 copies of below documents.

Complaint

FIR

Printed Charge sheet

161 CrPC statements of all witnesses

Rough sketch of scene of offence

and few more documents/evidences

On 02-April-2019,

Filed Party-in-person petition in 498A IPC case. All three accused (myself, my daddy and my maa) are PIP !!!

Sample Petition below

Application to go PIP in IPC 498A Case (Without Auth)

Sample Affidavit below

Affidavit - Petition to go PIP in IPC 498A Case (Without Auth)

Sample Docket below

Docket Sheet for 498A Case PIP Petition

On 02-April-2019,

Parents filed 205 CrPC petition praying for exemption from personal appearance during this false case proceedings.

Sample Petition below

Exemption from Personal Appearance under CrPC 205 in IPC 498A Case

Sample Affidavit below

Affidavit - Exemption from Personal Appearance under CrPC 205 in IPC 498A Case

Sample Docket below

Docket Sheet for 205 CrPC Petition in 498A Case

Authorization under Rule 37 filed in the case proceedings.

Sample Authorization below

Authorization from one PIP in IPC 498A Case (under Rule 37 CRP and CO of AP HC) SAMPLE

No sample form or format is available anywhere on the Internet or High Court of AP website. Hence prepared the template myself. You may copy it. 😉

IMPORTANT ASPECT: If you and your parents wanna go PIP, file separate PIP petitions for each accused and separate Rule 37 authorization. Do NOT file 205 CrPC in such case. During the proceedings, one accused can file absent petition or any other petition for other accused. So PIP+Rule 37 is the combination to utilize. Not 205 CrPC, as 205 CrPC mandates, in the absense of accused, their advocate should represent them. In PIP, there is no advocate at all.
Obviously, I filed another memo, seeking permission to withdraw my 205 CrPC petition filed on behalf of my parents. Now, I am free to file any number of absent petitions for them in Court. I also attach any medical certificate or prescriptions in support of the absent petitions. Magistrate cannot deny them.

On 02-April-2019,

Filed Discharge petition in 498A IPC case for all three accused myself, my daddy and my maa

Sample Petition below

Discharge Petition under Sec 239 CrPC in Sec 498A case

Sample Affidavit below

Affidavit - Discharge Petition under Sec 239 CrPC in Sec 498A case

Sample Docket below

Docket Sheet for 239 CrPC Petition in 498A Case

On 22-April-2019, 25-April-2019 and 09-May-2019,

APP sought more time to file Counter to the Discharge petition

On 30-May-2019,

APP finally filed a 1-pager Counter to the Discharge petition

zCounter of APP against Discharge Petition

Take time to laugh at it. Contact me to know why APP has filed such worthless Counter and the back story.

On 14-June-2019,

Court allows the absent petitions sent via Registered Post with Acknowledgement due. Interesting !!!

Sample covering letter to be sent to the Superintendent of the Filing Section of the Court where the Case is pending, along with duly filled and stamped absent petitions.

Covering Letter - SAMPLE

Absent Petition for absence from a Court hearing date is filed under section 317 Cr.P.C. Sample available here.

From July 2019 to December 2019, Magistrate goes on training!!! 6 Months of training…

On 12-February-2020,

Hearing in the Discharge Petition

Hearing in the Discharge Petition happened. This is otherwise called as Hearing Before Charge framing (HBC)

I introduced the genesis of the case and then the discharge petition and swiftly moved onto the 8 grounds, one by one. Magistrate kept interrupting me by way of clarifications. Took around 15 mins to finish. APP was asked if she got anything to say to the 8 grounds (Note: Magistrate noted down 4 grounds only in her notes). As expected, APP denied the grounds as invalid and not applicable at this stage of case. APP amused me with 1-page Counter earlier (scroll up and read above) and now said very funny and weird reasonings to invalidate my grounds.

After this ruckus, Magistrate asked me for Judgments that I cited in the Discharge Petition. I said, all the judgments are reported judgments and are picked from Law reporters. Still Magistrate and APP also insisted that I produce judgments. I said, I will bring them in the next date. Finally, Magistrate said, she is moving the proceeding, For Orders.

I am glad, at last, I will have a Judicial order soon, that I can go against for Revision in Sessions Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C read with 399 Cr.P.C. with an additional prayer to stay the Trail Court proceedings and for this I have 90 Days of time.

On 24-February-2020,

Order in the Discharge Petition was not passed.

On 02-March-2020,

Order in the Discharge Petition was passed. I was absent.

On 12-March-2020,

I got a CA filed via a advocate friend (yes, i made friends with advocates)

Dismissal Order in Discharge petition

Now working on Criminal Revision Petition to file against above dismissal order at Sessions Court, at the earliest, along with PIP petitions at Sessions Court.

On 08-October-2020,

I got the Criminal Revision filed via the advocate friend; Awaiting numbering and subsequent initial hearing

Revision petition against Discharge Dismissal in IPC 498A Case (SAMPLE)

On 10-February-2021,

The Criminal Revision is numbered and notices sent to Respondent. Call on 12 March 2021

On 12-March-2021,

Nothing actually happen on the Bluejeans session. Since Notice to R2 had returned as party not available’, Court allowed serving of Notice to correct/alternative address. If this too fails, next step is to go for Newspaper publication.

On 12-April-2021,

Awaiting hearing…

On 07-August-2022,

Just updating developments…

Stopped pursuing the Criminal Revision at Sessions Court, till date. But will proceed with newspaper publication.
Initiated a IA (IA 1/2022 on 10/02/2022), in the long-disposed matter of Crl.P. No. 3886/2017 which was filed seeking Anticipatory Bail from AP HC), seeking release of my passport from the custody of Ongole Trial Court, where my newly renewed passport has been locked up from 2017 July… i.e., just over 5 years! Half the time for which the passport was renewed went in Court itself.
- The SO of criminal section (B Satyanarayana) says, this 2017 file is not here at Amaravathi but may be at Hyderabad for which his office sent a requisition note to Telangana High Court in February itself but surprisingly the staff at TS HC says they never received any such note!! Interesting!
- Also went to the New Filing section counter asking why my NOC was not reflecting on the Case Status portal. It is revealed that it was never taken up for processing because the person was on leave. My NOC-Vakalatnama was just lying there in a bundle of to-do items, for 4 full weeks!

On 10-October-2022,

Came to know that Requisition Note was sent to TS HC from AP HC but there is no response on my case bundle. More details here.

On 14-October-2022,

Appeared before the Magistrate for Charge-framing circus and Millions Thanks to God, THAT happened.

On 16-November-2022, 07-December-2022 and 12-December-2022,

Business: The Complainant must turn into Prosecution Witness-1 and file her Chief Examination/Evidence Affidavit and serve a copy to me. As I expected this did not happen.

On 13-December-2022,

First Listed Witness LW-1 turned First Prosecution Witness PW-1 and sat for Chief Examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor. Finished the drama on same day.

I cross examined the PW-1, in part and sought adjournment for continuation of Cross on NDOH.

On 19-December-2022 and 20-December-2022,

Nothing happened.

On 21-December-2022 and 22-December-2022,

I cross examined the PW-1, in part on 21-Dec-2021 and sought adjournment for continuation of Cross on NDOH. Finished the Cross examination of PW-1 on 22-Dec-2022.

On 04-January-2023,

APP finished Chief Examination of PW-2 (mother of complainant and LW-3 from Charge sheet).

On 11-January-2023,

Prepared detailed set of Questions (as with PW-1 above in Excel) to ask the PW-2. Asked them in a pre-organized manner so as to hit the key allegations of dowry and counter allegation of bigamy. Got as many favourable as I needed to dismantle the allegations of PW-2. She eventually became a hearsay witness.

On 03-February-2023,

Prepared detailed set of Questions to ask the PW-3 (the Investigating Officer/LW-8). Asked the witness questions beginning from the fundamentals like names of parties and went ahead in a pre-organized manner so as to hit the lapses in the procedural steps in a dowry case. Could ask around 40-45 questions from my prepared set of 100+ questions. 3 documents are marked as exhibits (FIR, Charge sheet and sketch of scene of offence at Hyderabad) but none incriminating me or other accused to the case.

Since there is nothing incriminating accused was brought on record of the Court, the Court may dispense with proceedings under 313 CrPC. Let’s see.

On 16-February-2023,

After facing a loss in the DV case yesterday, today I found out, on the eCourts app of course, that the Criminal Revision filed in 2021 was dismissed. Here is the 1-page Order. Double Whammy for me… on back to back dates.

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati and Ors Vs State of AP and Anr on 14 Dec 2022

On 27-March-2023,

Decided to file Written Arguments u/s 314 Cr.P.C. into Court, instead of waiting for APP to argue the case.

2023-03-18 Memo of Written Arguments u-s 314 CrPC in 498A IPC Case v0.2

On 08-December-2023,

Decided to trim the timeline entries on this page and jump straight to Judgment date.

On 07 Dec 2023,

I and my parents are acquitted from the false 498A IPC case, on merits. Not settled, not quashed. Acquitted on merits. This is a big deal, for me.

On judgment date, I have with me Dr. Parasar Sarvepalli and Rama Krishna garu to support me. The moment came at about 2PM, when we were called into the Court. As usual, we were called last after all litigants and advocates left Court hall. It was a tense 2 mins, when I faintly heard that A1-A3 are found NOT guilty and therefore they are acquitted… We came out of the Court hall and the emotions started to flood the dam/eyes. For out 15 mins, it was a mixed feeling of joy, exhaustion, despair, hope and angst… We regains our balance, finished formalities (signing of bonds u/s 437A CrPC) and left the Court premises, Happy.

My Advocate friends Pokala Venkateswarlu and Bandaru Dhanalakshmi garu helped me with filing the Surety bonds and necessary affidavit and preparing the documents in prescribed fashion. Thanks to them, for their timely help.

State of AP Vs Pamarati Sandeep Bhavan and 2 Ors on 07 Dec 2023

LEGAL PROCEDURE TO FILE PETITIONS IN TRIAL COURTS and COMMON PITFALLS TO AVOID:

One petition per accused to be filed those that are going to defend their cases as Party-in-person. If you file one petition for 3 accused’s party-in-person, some idiots at Court will ask for rule which states that 3 accused can file one petition seeking party-in-person. Be aware of this.
All petitions (along with it’s affidavit and covering docket sheet) given to Court should be in green-colored Conquest paper, in legal size only.
- Update: This requirement is no longer valid, as AP HC decided to do-away with conquest/legal paper at all District Courts in the State of AP. Details here.
Petitions can be submitted in the Court to the Magistrate (via the Court attendant) or filed at the Bench Clerk’s office to Supervisor/Clerk there. Go with first option always.
- IMPORTANT: Obtain signature of the APP/PP on the petition that is going to be submitted to Court and then submit. Else, petition may be taken in, but then you will have to file a memo with signature from APP/PP. To avoid this double work, find out on what days (Mon-Sat) does the APP/PP of that Court come to Court. Then give a copy to APP/PP for their perusal and get received copy signature on the Original petition that will be submitted to Court.
For every petition submitted to Court, one copy should be given to PP/APP in Criminal Cases (like 498A IPC etc) and to Prosecution advocate in Civil Cases (like DVC, 125 CrPC etc). This can be in regular white paper, in legal size only.
Copy of petition to be served on OP advocate/A.PP before providing a copy to Court, preferably. Otherwise, OP Advocate can create ruckus and this can lead to another date.
Each petition we submit to Court should have Rs.2/- (in Andhra Pradesh) Court Fee stamp on it. Check your Court procedure, where should it be attached. Even check amount of stamps necessary. To be on safer side, many attach more valued stamp than necessary.
No stamps necessary to stick on replies given by us such as Counter, Written Statements etc
Ensure the proper sections are cited on the petition’s cause title. There will be objections raised by APP/PP on this technicality itself.
Ensure verification section is there on your affidavits. And signed.
If there are a bunch of documents along with the petition, tie them together with a strong thread/tag.
Use Memos to convey information to Court. I used a memo to convey that I be exempted from Daily hearing for a certain week time due to personal emergencies. Magistrate did consider my memo/request and delayed the NDOH to another date.

The strategy to win in this case is as mentioned here.

Post Views: 957

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Strategy and Tools to win False IPC498A Case

Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy and Ors on 3 March, 1977

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors Vs State Of Gujarat and Anr on 4 October, 2017

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008

Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004

Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Detailed Timeline of the case under IPC 498A

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC

1. What is discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?+

2. At what stage can an accused seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC?+

3. What factors do courts consider while deciding a discharge application?+

4. Does discharge mean the accused is innocent?+

5. What is the difference between discharge and acquittal?+

6. Can the court evaluate evidence in detail at the discharge stage?+

7. Who can file a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC?+

8. What happens if the discharge application is rejected?+

9. Can a discharge order be challenged?+

10. What is the purpose of Section 227 CrPC?+

Detailed Timeline of the case under IPC 498A