APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 239 OF Cr.P.

The address for service of all notice and process on the above named applicant
(A1) is: abcd

GROUNDS
1)Humbly submits I am the applicant in this application and is the Accused
(A1) in CC. No. x/2008 on thefile of this Hon'ble Court. I further submit that
the charge sheet filed by the Respondent No.1 and the proceedings in
CC.No.x/2008 on the file of this Hon'ble Court is abusing the process of law
by not complying with the CriminalProcedure Codes and applicant is liable to
be discharged from the case. Respondent no.2 in this petition is the defacto
complainant in CC.No.xxx/2008. Details are as follows:

Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under

"Section 177: ORDINARY PLACE OF INQUIRY AND TRIAL: Every

offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by aCourt within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed.

JURISDICTION POINT OF VIEW

1. a) As per charge sheet alleged allegations have taken place at Bangalore

City. No part of the allegation takenplace in thisHon'ble Court jurisdiction. As
per section-177 of Criminal Procedure Code every offence shall ordinarilybe
inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed; accordingly applicant (AT) isliable to be discharged from the case.
Applicant put reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Indiaavailable in ANNEXURE P/1in support of this ground.

1.b) Respondent No.1 furnished the false information as part of charge sheet
U/s 498A, in Para-1, by saying theoffence happened at complainant residence
place at Hyderabad whereas the details in subsequent Para(s) of thecharge
sheet reveals that complainant matrimonial home is Bangalore City. No part of
the alleged offence takenplace at Respondent No.1 territorial jurisdiction.

1. c) Respondent No.1 failed to transfer the complaint to the concern police

station has the jurisdiction for furtherinvestigation and did not comply with the
Criminal Procedure Code. Applicant put reliance on judgment of theHon'ble
Supreme Court of India available in ANNEXURE-P/2 in support of this
ground

1. d) Further submit, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in Transfer Petition

No.20 or 2010 that, jurisdiction matter may be held in Trial Court, order is in
the Annexure-P/2-A, hence applicant request Hon'ble Court to consider
thejurisdiction ground to discharge the applicant from the above said case
proceedings.

1.e) Further submit that the applicant (A1) side witnesses are neighbors,
includes old age women, and are residentsofBangalore City. The applicant
side witnesses do not have friends or relatives in this city and are having
business
AtBangalore. This would result in great inconvenience in attending the Court
hearings in another state that witnessesare living and also need to travel more
than 600KM would result in miss carriage of justice to the applicant.

3. f) Respondent No.1 failed to investigate the complaint at the alleged

allegations taken place i.e., Bangalore City.Police did not even visit the crime
place i.e., Bangalore City single time and completed the investigationat
Hyderabad and filed the charge sheet in this Honble Court. Investigation
conducted on FIR. No. yy/2008does notcomply with the Criminal Procedure
Codes, Proof for no investiagtion at crime place is enclosed as ANNEXURE-
P/3

2)None of the FIR allegation is part of the charge sheet and none of the
witness's statements supportscomplaint allegations provide information that
allegations in FIR all are completely false and further submit that
policecontinued investigation and filed the charge sheet contains completely
different and with new allegations to that of theFIR without having sufficient
evidences. Even charge sheet allegations are not supported by the witnesses of
the case.All the witnesses are none other than the blood relatives of the
complainant, who did not live at Bangalore City. One ofthe witnesses is the
independent witness, whose statement does not disclose any alleged offence.
Even witnesses statements contradict with each other. Absolutely no evidence
is available for allegations either in complaint or in charge sheet and applicant
is liable to be discharged from the case under section 239 CrPC. Details are as
describebelow:

Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:

Section 239 CrPC: When accused shall be discharged

“if, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under
section 173 and making such examination,if any, of the accused as the
Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused
anOpportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the
accused to be groundless"

REF [A]: State of Karnataka Vs. L Muniswamy, a three judge Bench of SC

Court had observed that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to
apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for
presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of
charge affects a person's liberty substantially, need for properconsideration of
material warranting such order was emphasized.

REF B: When offences not prima facia made out against accused person
framing of charge not proper in ImtiazAhmed Vs State of M.P, 1997 Cri LJ
1844 (MP)
REF (C: Allegations has to be specific in KrishanJeetsingh Vs. State of
Haryana, 11 (2003) DMC 127 (P & H).

REF (D]: General allegations are not sufficient to procure 498-A in Surajmal
Barithia V. State of west Bengal 11 (2003)DMC 546 (Cal) (DB)

REF E: Vague allegations are not acceptable in sher Singh V. state of Punjab
11 (2003) DMC 192 (P & H)

REF F: BhajanLal Bhatia &ors. Vs. SaritaNeelam 2005 Vol I HLR 59

Where evidence on record neither disclosed that there was cruelty on part o
the accused which was of such a nature aswas likely to drive victim to commit
suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or mental or
physicalhealth nor showed that she was harassed by accused with regard to
any demand for additional dowry, section 498-Acould not be attracted in such
circumstances in Bommallaiach Vs. State of U.P., 2003 Cri LJ 2439 (AP)REF
(C: Where there is no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be
proved in KrishanJeet Singh Vs Stateof Haryana, Il (2003) DMC 127 (P&H)

REF H: Conviction not sustainable in the absence of evidence of torture or

"harassment
in Benumadhab PadhiMohapatra Vs State, 2004 (13) AIC 253 (ori.)

REF 0: Taunting is not Cruelty in Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand, 2003, Cri
LJ 2759 (Del) : 2003 (3) Crime 100.

NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPLAINT ALLGATIONS

1.a) The allegation made in complaint that applicant (A1) and his sister (A2)
use to harassed the complainant by saying the applicant (A1) left the match
which is suppose to give R.1.0 crore and further beaten her by saying they
wanted to get rid of complainant is absolutely false and is denigd by applicant
(A1) None of the witnesses support the complainant allegation including the
blood relatives of the complainant. Even none of the witnesses andrelatives of
the complainant never heard of such incident occurrence from complainant.
Absolutely no evidenceavailable for this allegation. The admitted fact is that
applicant married the complainant and also requested
Complainant to join him at Bangalore provide information that applicant is
interested to lead matrimonial life withcomplainant. While inviting the
conplainant for matrimonial home no demands were made by applicant.
Furthersubmit that this allegation is false and is dropped from charge sheet
allegations on A1

1. b) The allegation made in complaint that applicant (A1) demanded the

complainant to bring money by selling herproperty given by complainant's
parents is absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). None of the
witnessessupport the complainant allegation. Even the blood relatives of the
complainant do not support the complainantallegation. No evidence available
for this allegation. This allegation is vague in nature without disclosing the
natureof the harassment happened. Further submit that this allegation is false
and is dropped from charge sheetallegations

1. c) The allegation made in complaint that applicant (A1) restricted to make

phone calls is absolutely false and isdenied by applicant (A1). Complainant
admitted in the same complaint that complainant use to call her brother
onphone. Even the statements of complainant brother and parents say that
complainant called them on phone. None of the witnesses supports the
complainant allegation. Even the blood relatives of the complainant do not
support the complainant allegation. Further submit that this allegation is false
and is dropped from charge sheet allegations.
1. d) The allegation made in complaint that complainant's in-laws use to call
applicant (A1) and advised on phone is absolutely false and is denied by
applicant (A1). The consequences of the received phone calls from in-laws are
notreported. No documentary evidences are supported on phone call details.
None of the witnesses support thecomplainant allegation. Even the blood
relatives of the complainant do not support the complainant allegation.
Noevidence available for this allegation. In-laws telephone calls list reveals
that no call is made to the applicant (A1)due to lack of STD facility to the
phone. Respondent no.1 failed to investigate the allegation to reveal the
facts.Further submit that this allegation is false and is dropped from charge
sheet allegations. This sole allegation madethe in-laws of the complainant as
accused in this false criminal case.

1. e) The allegation in complaint that applicant (A1) publicized saying the

complainant is carrying 3 monthspregnancy is absolutely false and is denied
by applicant (A1). During investigation complainant filed to give thedetails
with whom via which media applicant (A1) publicized. The said allegation is
false. No evidence is collectedand none of the witness supports the
complainant allegation. Further submit that this allegation is false and
isdropped from charge sheet allegations.

1.f)The allegation in complaint that applicant (A1) forced complainant to abort

pregnancy is absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1). Till complainant
left matrimonial home at Bangalore, complainant was carryingpregnancy. No
evidence is available on the pregnancy termination confirmation at Bangalore

NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE FOR

CHARGE SHEET ALLGATIONS

1.g) The allegation in charge sheet that applicant (A1) was given dowry items
at the time of complainant marriage by the complainant parents is false and is
denied by the applicant. Even as per complaint no dowry is given to applicant.
This allegation is contradicting to the complaint allegation as well as the
affidavit submitted by the complainant in Transfer Petition no.5/2010 on the
file of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. No documentary evidenceis available
in support of charge sheet allegation says dowry property given to the
applicant. Though thecomplainant statement is contradicting and without
having the reliable documentary evidence in support of the
complainant statement, applicant is arrested under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, is illegal

1. h) The allegation in charge sheet that applicant (A1) harassed the

complainant physically for the less house holdarticles purchased by the
complainant's brother at Bangalore is absolutely false and is denied by
applicant (A1). Theeye-witness, i.e., the brother of the complainant and the
complainant's parents say that only taunting taken place onhouse hold items
and no physical harassment is reported by them. The allegation is vague and
the details of thehouse hold items purchased by the complainant's brother at
Bangalore are not disclosed and also the house hold
items demanded by the applicant is not disclosed. None of the witnesses
support the complainant allegation on physical harassment. Even the blood
relatives of the complainant do not support the complainant allegation
onphysical harassment. No reliable evidence available for this allegation

1.i) The allegation in charge sheet that applicant (A1) harassed the
complainant for additional dowry is absolutelyfalse and is denied by applicant
(A1). Complainant admitted that no dowry is given to applicant (A1) and
allegationssaying demand for additional is absurd. None of the witnesses
support the complainant allegation on additional dowry demand. Even the
blood relatives of the complainant do not support the complainant allegation.
No reliableevidence available for this allegation

1.j) The allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1) forcibly aborted
complainanf's pregnancy at Bangalore is false and is denied by the applicant.
No medical reports are available on forcible abortion and on the
abortionConfirmation.

1. k) The allegation in charge sheet that applicant (A1) and applicant's brother-
in-law (A3) were necked out thecomplainant and complainant's brother out of
house is absolutely false and is denied by applicant (A1).
Complainantadmitted in her petition MC.No.145/2009 on the file of Hon'ble
Family Court of L.B.Nagar, that at the time ofcomplainant leaving home at
Bangalore City, applicant is not even available on phone for one week
duration; henceapplicant leftBangalore, reveals applicant's dishonesty in
making false allegations on applicant (A1) and on brother
in-law of the applicant (A3).

1.l) The allegation in charge sheet saying that during complainant 5 days stay
with in-laws, at in-laws place, in-lawsused to say with complainant to bring
additional dowry and further threatened complainant by saying they will
perform another marriage on failure of meeting their demands is absolutely
false. Complainant never lived 5 dayswith in-laws at in-laws place. Going by
the version of the charge sheet complainant lived with not more than 24hours.
The allegation is absurd being no dowry is given to given to applicant (A1)
and demanding additional dowryby in-laws is absurd.
CONTRADICTIONS ON THE ALLEGATIONS

1. m) None of the allegation in the complaint is supported by the witness's

statements. Also complainant'sstatements contradicts with her own written
complaint and also with charge sheet version as describe below:

1. As per complaint, Rs. 3,00,000/- cash, 80 kasulu gold and Rs.

40,00,000/- worth agriculture land is given to complainant by her
parents. Whereas police investigation report says above said
property items were given to applicant (A1) at the time of
marriage. Accused A1 is arrested under sections 3 &4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, isillegal. Complainant admitted in her petition
filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia saying that said property
itemswere given to her by her parents as "Sridhan" as per her
family tradition.

2. As per complaint applicant (A1) and his sister harassed the

complainant saying that complainant bought less dowryand
harassed physically to get rid of complainant. Whereas charge
sheet says complainant was harassed for less gifts purchased by
complainant's brother at the time of complainant joined with
Accused-A1 atBangalore. Witnesses say that there was taunting on
the gifts purchased. None of the witnesses support the complainant
allegation on physical harassment. Even the blood relatives of the
complainant do not support the complainant allegation on
physical harassment.

3. As per complainant version no demands were made for additional

dowry by the applicant (A1). Whereas policeinvestigation report
says additional dowry is demanded by the applicant (A1) and none
of the witness supports thecharge sheet allegation. Even the blood
relatives of the complainant do not support the charge sheet
allegation.

4. The reason said for forcible abortion is not consistent from FIR to
charge sheet. Also the reason for forcible abortion said by the
witnesses is inconsistence with the complainant.

1.n)Witness version contradicts with complainant version and also

contradict with other witnesses as described below:

i) As per complainant and complainant's brother version no

harassment happened at the time complainant
VisitedBangalore City just after the marriage during Nov-
Dec-2007. Whereas the parents and relatives of
thecomplainant given statements by saying that
complainant was harassed by not providing food and
necessaries anddemanded the complainant to bring money
by selling the property given to complainant by them, at the
time ofmarriage
 ii) As per complainant version no harassment at the time
complainant visited the in-laws place, for the duration
ofone day, just before the day complainant joined with the
applicant (A1) at Bangalore. Even the statement of eye-
witness i.e., the complainant' brother, who accompanied the
complainant do not disclose any offence at in-lawsplace by
the in-laws. Whereas the parents of the complainant given
statements by saying that in-laws harassed thecomplainant
at in-laws house.

iii) As per complainant version, on the day complainant joined

with applicant (A1) at Bangalore dispute is raisedon house
hold items purchased, costing Rs. 60,000/- by the
complainant's brother for complainant's family and
allegedthat complainant was harassed physically by the
applicant (A1) and by applicant's sister (A2) for bringing
less household items and for less dowry. In contra the
statement of the eye-witness, i.e., brother of the
complainant do notdisclose any physical harassment caused
by A1 and A3 and also contradicts with complainant
version. In contradiction to above two versions, the parents
of the complainant say that for Rs.70,000/- house hold
items were purchased andA1 and A3 did taunting on the
items purchased and do not say that physical harassment
happened

1 Iv) As per complainant's parents version applicant (A1) aborted

the complainant's pregnancy forcibly at Hospitalin Bangalore.
Whereas the complainant and brotherof the complainant do not
say that abortion happened at hospitalin Bangalore.
1.V) AS per complainant's parents statement applicant made call from hospital
saying complainant is in hospitaland seeking for help. Whereas as complainant
said that she made call from home.

1.vi) As per complainant version on the day complainant was thrown out of
house applicant (A1) taken gold ornaments from complainant and thrown her
out of house. In contra, the eye-witness, i.e., the brother of the complainant do
not make such allegations. Also the statements of the complainants parents do
not support thecomplainant allegation. Whereas in complainant's maintenance
suit filed in Hon'ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar complainant admitted that at
the time complainant was leaving the matrimonial home applicant was not
availableeven on phone.

3) The allegations, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facieconstitute any offence under section 498A IPC
or make out a case against the accused as describe below:
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under.

"Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which mayextend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause graveinjury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her tomeet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person
relatedto her to meet such demand."

Under Explanation (a) the cruelty has to be of such gravity as is likely to drive
a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health.

Under Explanation (b) cruelty means harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing heror any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
offailure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Explanation (b) does not make each and every harassment cruelty. The
harassment has to be with a definite object,namely to coerce the woman or any
person related to her to meet harassment by itself is not cruelty. Mere demand
forproperty etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is
shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet
the demands that it is cruelty and this is made punishable under the section.

REF 1: While interpreting the provisions of Section 304-B, 498-A, 306 and
824, IPC in the decision reported as State of
H.PVNikku Ram &0rs 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that
harassment to constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498-A must
have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall
beyond the scope of Section 498-A, IPC

REF [2:] The mental cruelty is explained by the Supreme Court of India by
laying the following definition of "mental cruelty" in V.Bhagat Vs.
Mrs.D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710: "the parties cannot reasonably be expected
to live together"The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot
reasonably be asked to put with such conduct and continueto live with the
other party.

REF [3] The supreme court in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2003
MANJU RAM KALITA vs. STATE OFASSAM decided on 28/05/09
answered the question in negative. Speaking for the bench his lordship
honorableDr.B.S. Chauhan, J held that:

"Cruelty" for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be established in the

context of section 498-A IPC as it may be adifferent from other statutory
provisions. It is to be determined/ inferred by considering the conduct of the
man,weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to
whether it is likely to drive the woman to commitsuicide etc. It is to be
established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously /
persistently or at least inclose prOximity of time of lodging the complaint.
Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions ofSection
498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable
may be termed as cruelty.

REF [4] : In Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P; (2002) 7 SCC 414, the Supreme
Court while dealing with the similar issue heldthat mental or physical torture
should be "continuously practiced by the accused on the wife. The Court
furtherobserved as under

"Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a
question of fact. The impart of complaintsaccusations or taunts on a person
amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of
theindividual victim concerned, the social background, the environment,
education etc. Further, mental cruelty variesfrom person to person depending
on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to
withstandsuch mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be decided on
its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty
was established or not.

REF [5]: 1In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AlR 2002 SC
2078; the Supreme Court held that "cruelty"has to be understood having a
specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498A 1.P.C and there should
be a case ofContinuous state of affairs of torture by one to another

REF [6]: Supreme Court in Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC

326 has referred to this aspect of crueltylike this:-

“The cruety must be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or

health or as to give rise to a reasonableapprehension of such a danger. Clearly
danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension"
REF [7]: Similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the
decision reported as Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
Recent Criminal Reports 53 wherein it was observed that offence under
Section 498-A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by
husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of
demand of dowry.

REF [8]: In the decision reported as Smt. SarlaPrabhakarWaghmare v State of

Maharashtra &Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18, theBombay High Court had observed
that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract
Section 498-AIPC. Beating and harassment must be to force the bride to
commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands.

REF [9]: lt is thus clear from the reading of Section 498-A IPC and afore-
noted judicial pronouncements that precondition for attracting the provisions
of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC is the demand and if the demand
ismissing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without
any nexus with the demand then such acruelty will not be covered under
explanation (b) to Section 498-A, IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of
HinduMarriage Act, 1955 as held by the Supreme Court in the decision
reported as Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998SC 121. In said case, it
was observed that cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is distinct from the cruelty
under HinduMarriage Act, 1955.

ALLEGATIONS DO NOT ATTRACT SECTION 498AIPC

1. a) Even considering the allegation in the charge sheet, that applicant (A1)
harassed the complainant for the lesshouse hold articles purchased by the
complainant's brother at Bangalore, is happened to be true allegation do
notattract Section 498A IPC as described below:

1.i)Applicant asked the complainant to join him and no demands were made
by the applicant. During the initial 6months period, i.e., before the
complainant date of joining with applicant at Bangalore City, no allegations
either ondemands or on harassment are reported reveals no demands from
applicant side.

1. ii)The nature of harassment happened to the complainant is not disclosed by

the complainant and by the policeinvestigation report. As per eye-witness, i.e.,
brother of complainant and the complainant parent's CrPC-161statements,
only taunting taken place on the house hold items saying house hold items are
less, no specific itemswere demanded hence as per REF [1] allegation do not
attract section 498A IPC. No physical harassment incidentsare reported hence
as per REF [4]& REF [6] allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Further
submit thatComplainant continued matrimonial life with applicant at
Bangalore reveals complainant did not feel mental crueltyhence as per REF
[2] allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. Further submit that complainant
brother left to hisnative place also reveal there was no danger or threat to
complainant from the applicant. There is no allegationsreported saying that
demands were continued during the complainant's stay with the applicant
hence as per REF [3],REF[4]& REF [5] allegation do not attract section 498A
IPC. Taunting on the house hold items which even did notforce the
complainant leave matrimonial house, do not attract the section 498A IPC.

iii) Also complainant did not allege that either applicant (A1) or other Accused
demanded any specific house holditems from either complainant or from
complainant's brother and also failed to reveal the list of house hold items
werepurchased by the complainant's brother, reveals the allegation is vague in
nature.
1. iv) This allegation is not present in complaint. Further submit that while
complainant describing the harassment caused by the applicant in case MC.
No.145/2009 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District,
did notreport that this incident is happened. This reveals the dishonesty of the
petitioner in procuring the false allegationsagainst the applicant.

1. b) Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1)

demanded additional dowry at the time ofdispute on house hold itmes, is
happened to be true this allegation do not attract Section 498A IPC as
describedbelow

1.1) As admitted by the complainant in the complaint that no dowry is given

and also no specific dowry itemsdemand is reported and is a vague allegation.
Mere demand of property is not amount to cruelty as per explanation(6) of the
section 498A IPC, hence allegation do not attract section 498A IPC. This
demand is not continued and noharassment is reported hence as per REF (3],
REF (4] & REF (5] allegation do not attract section 498A IPC.
Nodocumentary evidence is available to show that additional dowry is
demanded. Admitted fact is that no dowry isgiven to applicant and making an
allegation that additional dowry is demanded is absurd. Complainant initially
said that property item s were given to her by her parents, later changed
the version saying that same were given to applicant and made the applicant
arrested under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Upon making
complaint on the complainant and her parents for the offence under section 3
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, complainant admitted in her affidavit filed in
Transfer Petition No.5 of 2010, on the file Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
saying the propertyitmes was given to her by her parents as Stridhan which is
their family tradition. This reveals the dishonesty of the complainant in
making false allegations.

1. 1i) Continuous demand or continuous harassment is not reported and

complainant continued to live withapplicant at Bangalore reveals complainant
did not feel mental cruelty as per REF 12] hence allegation do not
attractsection 498A IPC.

ii) This allegation is not present in complaint. Further submit that while
complainant describing the harassmentcaused by the applicant in case MC.
No.145/2009 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District,
did notreport that this incident is happened. This reveals the dishonesty of the
petitioner in procuring the false allegationsagainst the applicant.

1.c Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1)
suspected complainant's character bysaying one year required to get pregnancy
and complainant got pregnancy in six months and forced the complainantto
consume pregnancy abortion talblets on 20May-2008, is happened to be true
this allegations do not attractSection 498A IPC as described below

1.i) As per complainant version the cause of action for forcible abortion is not
the dowry demand or additionaldowry demand, hence allegation does not
attract section 498A IPC as per REF [1].
1. ii) As per complainant version applicant forced her to abort her pregnancy,
no physical cruelty 1s caused, notsubjected to harassment and lived with
applicant till her brother came to Bangalore and disputed with
applicant.During the dispute also applicant did not subjected the complainant
to any physical cruelty such that complainant received injuries which would
attract section 498A IPC as per REF 12), REF [3], REF [4] and REF [5]

iii) The complainant is B.Sc graduate and has one year working experience in
medical domain though no medial reports are submitted in support of the
forcible abortion provide information that allegation is false and ever medical
report on pregnancy termination confirmation report at Bangalore is
submitted. Kukatpally police refused to investigate the allegation on forcible
pregnancy abortion even after applicant requested them and replied saying
allegation does not attract 498A IPC hence no need of investigation.
Pregnancy abortion did not happen at Bangalore till complainant left
matrimonial home. <st1:personname w:st="on">Supports/st1:personna
documents are in ANNEXURE-P/4.

1. iv) Applicant filed criminal complaint against the complainant under

sections 312 IPC, 506, 120B, 384 and 500 ofIPC atBangalore City; Hon'ble
Court in Bangalore City took the cognizance and ordered for investigation.

1.v) As per complaint version applicant believes that complainant was

carrying three months pregnancy and didpublicized saying the same and as per
CrPC-161 statement of the complainant version, applicant believes that even6
months is not enough to get pregnancy contradicts with earlier said version.
This reveals complainant attempt to develop false story on the pregnancy
termination matter against the applicant.

1. vi) Further submit that while complainant describing the harassment caused
by the applicant in case MC.No.145/2009 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court,
L.B. Nagar, R.R. District, did not report that this incident ishappened. This
reveals the dishonesty of the petitioner in procuring the false allegations
against the applicant

1. d)Even considering the allegation in charge sheet, that applicant (A1) and
his brother-in-law necked out thecomplainant out off matrimonial home, is
happened to be true as per REF I1] allegation do not attract section 498AIPC
being this incident happened not to meet dowry demands by the complainant.
No physical injuries reported andthe incident did not create danger to
complainant ife hence as per REF 131, REF [4] and REF (5) incident do not
attract section 498A IPC. Further submit that complainant admitted version in
her affidavit in MC. No.145/2009 on the fileof Hon'ble Family Court, L.B.
Nagar, R.R. District, says applicant was physically not present at the time
complainantwas leaving the matrimonial home and also said that even on
phone applicant was not available reveals the complainant's dishonesty in
making allegations on the accused.
4)Respondent No.1 did improper investigation and investigation report do not
comply with the CriminalProcedure Codes and the following consequences
are resulted:

CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW

1.a) Neighbors, who are potential eye-witnesses of the real facts, statements
are not recorded which provide information that alleged allegations are false
and not possible to occur. Documentary evidences from Bangalore were not
collected which provide information that allegations are false.

1. b) Police failed to collect the statement from the complainant sister-in-law,

i.e., wife of complainants brother, whowas present along with the complainant
during her join with applicant at Bangalore.

1.c) Though the complainant statement during the investigation contradicts

with her own written statement in complaint on the property items, without
having reliable evidence in hand, police arrested the applicant (A1) under
sections 3 &4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

1. d) Respondent No.1 failed to reveal the facts that during the entire days
matrimonial life (not more than 23 days)of complainant at Bangalore
complainant along with applicant (A1) attended marriage parties, birthday
parties, didshopping and invited guests to home at Bangalore. Respondent
No.1 failed to visit Bangalore and failed to reveal thefacts. Further submits,
Respondent No.1 failed to reveal the fact that even on the last day complainant
did shoppingto purchase gifts for a party at neighbors house with whom
complainant used to spend most of her day time.

1.e) Respondent No.1 failed to collect neighbor's statements, which are the
potential eye-witnesses for the incidenton considering the complainant version
is true and also failed to reveal the facts that no disputes were taken placeon
the day complainant joined with applicant (A1) at Bangalore.

1.f Respondent No.1 failed to reveal the facts that only complainant and the
applicant lived togetherat Bangalore and filed to reveal the fact that none of
the applicant relatives lived with applicant.

1.g Even though neighbors from Bangalore came to Kukatpally PS and told to
the investigation officer that no partof the allegations in are true, investigation
officer refused to investigate and collect neighbors statementsat Bangalore.
Also investigation officer failed to collect possible documentary evidences for
the complaintallegations; in fact these documentary evidences provide
information that allegations are false.
1. h)Applicant (A1) and other accused were not informed about the new
allegations added in the charge sheet,which are not part of complaint and
failed to give an opportunity to the accused to submit the evidences during
theinvestigation. Further submit investigation officer failed to collect possible
documentary evidences to supportcomplainant allegations, which in fact
provide information that allegations are false.

1.i) Respondent No.1 investigation did not investigate atBangalore to reveal

the fact that applicant's (A1) relatives did not live with complainant family at
Bangalore City to cause any harassment to the complainant.

1.j)Respondent No.1 investigation did not reveal the fact that in-laws did not
made phone calls to Accused (A1).Police failed to collect the documentary
evidences in support of the complainant allegations and still charges aremade
on in-laws

1. k) No investigation carried out on forcible abortion allegation at Bangalore

and failed to confirm whether forcible 1. k)
abortion taken place or not. No medical reports are submitted or collected by
the Respondent No.1.

1.1) Investigation did not disclose and collect the documentary evidences to
support the allegation that complainant brother purchased house hold items for
the complainant family at Bangalore.

1. m) Despite no supporting evidence is available with the police on the

complainant allegations, police opposedgranting the anticipatory bail to sister
of the applicant.

1.n) Police supplied false information to this Hon'ble Court, through the
Remand Case Dairy and the Charge Sheet,by saying that crime happened in
the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court

5) The other grounds would be urged at the time of hearing.

PRAYER

Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased
to:
1. a) Pass an order of discharge of applicant (A1) in the proceedings
CC.No.xxx/2008 on the file of this Hon'bleCourt.

1. b) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the particular facts and
circumstances of this case.

Advocate/ Applicant: