web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 239 – Discharge Rejected

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Posted on April 26, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court granted compensation to victims of police harassment, while quashing the criminal proceedings.

From Para 27,

27. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilawati Behra (supra), Sube Singh v. State of Haryana9, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P.10, comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised.

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Citations : [2016 AIOL 3407], [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 594], [2016 SCC 11 703], [2017 SCC CRI 1 364], [2016 AIR SC 2679], [2016 AIC 163 98], [2016 CRI LJ 3156], [2016 GUJ LH 2 607], [2016 KLJ 3 613], [2016 KLT 3 502]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103942103/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b545e561097e45a4e6b3

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejection is Set Aside CrPC 41 - When police may arrest without warrant CrPC 41B - Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest CrPC 41D - Right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation CrPC 46 - Arrest how made CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors Grant Compensation For False Prosecution Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Posted on January 27, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Another false case filer bites the dust…

10. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner was married with complainant in July 2008. Even after her marriage with the petitioner, complainant was defending the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her previous husband Asif Farooqi. Within about three years after marriage, her relation with petitioner came to an end in August 2011 as per her own admission recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 14 of his order in Criminal Appeal No. 256/2016. There is yet another judicial finding that complainant had contracted into third marriage with one Asrar Ahmed and given birth to a child. The order also discloses that complainant initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act for short) in April 2012. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that it was proved by Ex.R7 that complainant had married for third time and ultimately, dismissed the petition. The Criminal Appeal filed thereon has also been dismissed with costs.

11. Not being satisfied, complainant initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2014. (C.Mis.No.526/2014) seeking maintenance for her and the child. The said petition has also been rejected so far as complainants claim was concerned.

12. Having thus suffered in the hands of complainant, petitioner also filed a private complaint in PCR No.1085/2016 alleging inter alia that complainant had suppressed her earlier marriage with Asif Ali Farooqi and when questioned about the same, she has filed the instant false complaint. Thereafter, she has married for the third time. With the said allegations, petitioner sought action against complainant and three others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120A, 120B, 107, 108, 494, 496 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, FIR No.149/2016 has been registered on 11th August 2016 in Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru City. Records further disclose that complainant and other accused unsuccessfully challenged the said FIR before this Court in Criminal Petition No.1182/2017.

13. Petitioners application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge by recording that presence of accused as on the date of incident and whether marriage is void, cannot be considered at the stage of discharge.

14. A conspectus of facts narrated by the petitioner and the undisputed facts which can be gathered from the records lead to an irresistible inference that though complaint is filed alleging commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, it is, in fact the petitioner who has suffered an untold misery in the hands of the complainant.

15. It cannot be gainsaid that disclosure of a previous subsisting marriage causes immense mental pain and agony to a husband.

16. Complainant has, though unsuccessfully, driven the petitioner to various Courts unabatedly. It started with complainant initiating proceedings under the provisions of DV Act followed by proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Judicial findings have been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrates in both proceedings with regard to complainants conduct. Learned Magistrate adjudicating proceedings under DV Act has recorded that as per Ex.R7, complainants marriage with her third husband was proved. This finding has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal.

17. Suffice to note that records unequivocally disclose that complainant was respondent in a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights initiated by her first husband when she got married with the petitioner. She has admitted this fact in proceedings before the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

18. This is a classic case in which a complainant by initiating criminal proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section 498A IPC against the petitioner has abused the said provisions.

****

20. It is relevant to note that though the complaint contains the allegations recorded above, there is interpolation with regard to the date 03.08.2011, on which date she was allegedly confined in a room and attempt was made to kill her by pouring kerosene. Further, it is stated that Faizal made an attempt to hang her to a Ceiling fan. In the following sentence, it is stated that Faizal made her fall from a motor cycle and tried to kill her. The two allegations that Faizal attempted to hang the complainant and thereafter made her fall from the motor cycle contradict each other. If Faizal had really attempted to hang her, how did she escape from his clutches? No details are forthcoming in this behalf. However, even if it is assumed that the said allegation were true, it is not understandable why she sat on Faisals motor cycle.

22. Thus, the Complaint is full of unbelievable and self contradicting allegations. The first allegation of demand for Rs.3,00,000/- is said to have been made jointly by petitioner and his family members. The second allegation regarding demand of money to purchase a car is alleged jointly against petitioner and his sisters. Thus all allegations in the complaint are omnibus in nature and in the least, made jointly with other accused and there are no specific against the petitioner.

23. After investigation, admittedly police have not filed charge-sheet against accused No.2 to 6 namely Shahjahan Begum, Afzal Ahmed Khan, Parveez Ahamed, Anjum Nazeer and Siddique. Neither the prosecution nor the complainant have placed any other material which may suggest commission of any of the alleged criminal act/s by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that allegations against petitioner are designed to harass him.

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 3113], [2020 ILR KAR 130], [2020 KCCR 1 236], [2020 AIC 205 770], [2020 AIR KANT R 1 306], [2020 KANT LJ 1 323]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ded72464a932629f01c7297

 

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejection is Set Aside CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr Legal Terrorism | Leave a comment

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the one of the shortest decisions from Supreme Court

From Para 2,

2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of acquittal in the garb of an order of discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in discharging the aforesaid accused persons.

Casemine version:

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005 CM Ver

Supreme Court version (Record of {Proceedings):

CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005

Citations: [2009 SCC 16 429], [2010 SCC CRI 3 315]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117eb32713e179478af2d0#

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors CrPC 227 - Discharge Rejected CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017

Posted on September 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another beautiful judgment from High Court of Karnataka in this revision petition on Discharge dismissal.

From Para 10,

I have perused the said statements dated 10.07.2011, namely Sangondeppa Siddappa Hulagabal, the statement Sangondeppa Ningondeppa Lesappagol, Shrishail Basappa Gundagi, Kallappa Beerappa Dafedar, Mallappa Mahadev Baligar, Tammanna Beerappa Jakkannavar and Ningappa Siddappa Layannavar. Looking to all these statement of said witnesses, they are all dated 10.07.2011. Looking to the statement of these witnesses wherein they have stated that it is alleged before them by the complainant and her father that accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the husband of the complainant, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law were giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. So in the statement of all these witnesses absolutely there is no reference so far as the present petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 stating that they also giving such ill- treatment. The statement of these witnesses completely silent about the involvement of petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, looking to the statement of these witnesses it clearly goes to show that absolutely there is no allegation and even there is no statement of such witnesses that they were informed by either complainant or her father about the ill-treatment given by the present petitioners herein. When i.e. so it assumes importance whether really the prosecution placed prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Looking to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners which are referred above at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 principles laid down in the said decisions also goes to show that the proceedings against the accused person should not be as an abuse of process of the Court or by making false allegations. But here, it is do doubt true as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that in the beginning of the complaint there are some allegation even against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, but the same is not corroborated by the statement of independent witnesses about whose statements I have made the reference. Therefore, reading the entire charge sheet material and the principles in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it goes to show that there is no prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The trial court while considering the application seeking discharge from the proceedings ought to have considered these aspects, which is not done by the trial court. The trial court wrongly comes to the conclusion that even there is prima facie case as against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, the order passed by the court below suffers from legal infirmity. Therefore, it will not sustain in law.

Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka Witness Statements Not Corroborating The Allegations | Leave a comment

Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors Vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 November, 2012

Posted on July 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court in the judgment held that there are specific allegation on the husband and his parents on a IPC 498A case and hence dismissed their appeal requesting their discharge from the case.

 

Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors Vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 November, 2012
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Ors Vs State Of U.P. and Anr | Leave a comment

State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar on 16 April, 2018

Posted on July 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is judgment from a Senior Civil Judge at Tumkur. See how he totally flouts the settled principles in law established by Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that if accused produces evidence of sterling quality which destroys the case of prosecution, it can be looked into.

From Para 9,

Therefore, at this stage, only on the documents produced by the accused No.2 and No.3, they cannot be discharged for the offences alleged against them.

 

[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/file/d/12EpzvzDQQtsSToJedzxWCONnhekZ_HPV/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar on 16 April, 2018.pdf” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” width=”100%” height=”400″ style=”embed”]

See the Perjury success Mr Nagaraj got on his MIL here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar | Leave a comment

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 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 😉

 

All credit goes to one 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. India is here.

 


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.

  1. Complaint
  2. FIR
  3. Printed Charge sheet
  4. 161 CrPC statements of all witnesses
  5. Rough sketch of scene of offence
  6. 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…

  1. Stopped pursuing the Criminal Revision at Sessions Court, till date. But will proceed with newspaper publication.
  2. 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,

 

 

 


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.
  • 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/- Revenue stamp (in Andhra Pradesh) 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.


 

Posted in Sandeep Pamarati | Tagged CrPC 239 - Discharge CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected IPC 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Sandeep Pamarati | 2 Comments

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 Jul 2009 January 26, 2023
  • Sabiya Begum Malka Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 May 2016 January 24, 2023
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 January 19, 2023
  • Messers S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 17 Mar 2004 January 17, 2023
  • Ramjas Foundation and Ors vs Union of India and Ors on 9 Nov 2010 January 17, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act? (8,973 views)
  • XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022 (2,811 views)
  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (869 views)
  • State Bank of India and Anr Vs Ajay Kumar Sood on 16 Aug 2022 (843 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (818 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors (714 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (672 views)
  • P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (668 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (578 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (556 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (323)Reportable Judgement or Order (319)Landmark Case (310)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (259)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (210)1-Judge Bench Decision (145)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (79)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (74)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (52)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (34)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (629)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (297)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (159)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (40)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (39)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (30)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • Vincent on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • Ravi on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Maintenance impacting SSL API availability and certificate issuance February 14, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 14, 14:00 - 16:00 UTCJan 26, 10:38 UTCScheduled - On February 14th, 2023, Cloudflare will be doing database maintenance that will impact SSL API availability and may result in certificate issuance delays. The scheduled maintenance will be on February 14, 2023, 14:00 - 16:00 UTC.During the maintenance window, SSL-related […]
  • ICN (Seoul) on 2023-02-06 February 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 6, 17:00 - 23:00 UTCFeb 1, 06:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2023-02-06 between 17:00 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • PHX (Phoenix) on 2023-02-03 February 3, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 3, 10:00 - 12:00 UTCFeb 1, 07:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in PHX (Phoenix) datacenter on 2023-02-03 between 10:00 and 12:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 222.187.188.121 | S January 31, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2023-01-31 | Last: 2023-01-31
  • 192.142.21.64 | S January 31, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 156 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-01-31
  • 192.142.21.141 | S January 31, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 384 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-01-31
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 423 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel