Quick Contact
- Office No.101, Himland House, Commercial Complex,Karampura, Delhi-110015, India
- 8171974067
- info@lawvs.com
Copyright ©2025 Lawvs.com | All Rights Reserved
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE; GAUTAMBUDH NAGAR, NOIDA
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. _____ OF 2017.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
XXXX : REVISIONIST
XXXX
: RESPONDENT
FIR
No. XX/2015
U/S:
379 IPC
P.S.: xxx
I N D E X
S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. MEMO OF PARTIES.
2. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C.
ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT.
2. ANNEXXURE P-1
COPY
OF ORDER DATED ……….. PASSED BY LD. TRIAL COURT.
7. ANNEXXURE
P-2
COPY
OF FIR NO.XX/2015 U/S 379 IPC P.S., xxxx.
8. ANNEXXURE
P-3
COPY
OF F.D.R.
9. ANNEXXURE
P-4
COPY
OF RC No.XXX
10. ANNEXXURE
P-5
COPY
OF SUPERDARI APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT.
11. ANNEXXURE
P-6
COPY
OF ORDER DATED XX.XX.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT ON SUPERDARI
APPLICATION.
12. ANNEXXURE
P-7
COPY
OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 451 CR.P.C. FOR TAKING PERMISSION TO SELLING THE
CAR FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
13. VAKALTNAMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELHI REVISIONIST
DATED
ADVOCATES
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE; GAUTAMBUDH NAGAR, NOIDA
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. _____ OF 2017.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
XXXX :
REVISIONIST
XXXX
:
RESPONDENT
FIR
No. 159/2015
U/S:
379 IPC
P.S.: xxxxx
MEMO OF PARTIES
XXXX
Delhi. :
REVISIONIST
VERSUS
XXXX : RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELHI FILED BY
DATED
ADVOCATES
Matter is
pending before the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. ……….. Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, xxxxx, in FIR No. XX/2015 under Section 379 of IPC registered with
Police Station , xxxxx in case titled as State Vs. Unknown, which is fixed for …………….
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE; GAUTAMBUDH NAGAR, NOIDA
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. _____ OF 2017.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
XXXX
Delhi. :
REVISIONIST
VERSUS
XXXX : RESPONDENT
FIR
No. XX/2015
U/S:
379 IPC
P.S.: xxxxx
REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION
397/399/401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED ……….2017
PASSED BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT OF SH……………….., LD. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, xxxxx WHEREBY THE LD. TRIAL COURT PLEASED TO DISMISSED THE APPLICATION
UNDER SECTION 451 CR.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
MOST
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-
1. That
the revisionist is law abiding citizen and has full faith in the administration
of justice. That the revisionist has sought to invoke the Extraordinary
Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. That
the revisionist has been constrained to file present revision petition seeking
setting aside of order dated ……..2017 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court of Sh. ……….. Ld. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, xxxx, in FIR No. XX/2015 under Section
379 of IPC registered with Police Station xxx n case titled as
State Vs. Unknown, whereby Ld. Trial
Court was pleased to dismissed the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. filed
by the petitioner for seeking permission for selling the car, hence the said order
is impugned in this petition.
3. That the question of law arises in the
present revision petition is that whether the Ld. Trial Court failed to
appreciate that revisionist should have been discharged in view of the
contradictory statements given by the complainant in FIR No. XX/2016, further
the allegations leveled by the complainant does not attract the commission of
the offences for which the revisionist is being charged.
4. That the present revision has been filed by
revisionist and the brief facts of the case necessary of the disposal of the
present revision may be summoned up as under:-
A. It
has been stated that
1. That the
captioned FIR bearing number XX of 2015 was registered at the instance of
applicant / owner with the Police Station xxx under Section 379 of
IPC on XX.XX.2015 in relation to the theft of the Honda Civic Car bearing No.XXXXXXXX.
2. That
during the course of investigation, officials of Police Station, xxxx recovered the said car and resulting thereon the applicant moved an
application before this Hon’ble Court for release of the aforesaid car on
superdari and this Hon’ble Court vide order dated XX.XX.2015 allowed the
application.
3. In
pursuance thereof the applicant furnished all relevant documents and surety for
an amount of Rs.XXXXXX/- for relapsing the car on superdarias per the
satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court while taking the said car on superdari.
4. It is
most humbly submitted that said car bearing number XXXXXXXX is almost ten years
old and it requires lot of repeated maintenance/repair and its market value is
fast depreciating.
5. That the
captioned matter is still at a preliminary stage and it will take a lot of time
for conclusion of the same. In view thereof the applicant, who is owner of the
said car, would suffer immensely on account of the said delay. Pertinently all
the requirements for release of the said car on superdari have been completed
to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court and if the permission to sell the
said car is given to the applicant, it would not cause any prejudice to the
prosecution.
6. Furthermore
in view of the judgment in SunderbhaiAmbala Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003
Supreme Court 638, it is submitted that the vehicle can be allowed to be sold
without any condition of superdari. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case
has further held that the photographs of the vehicle can be used as secondary
evidence during trial and there is no requirement of physical production of the
vehicle.
7. That the
applicant is willing to place photographs of the said car so that it can be
used in evidence instead of production of the said car before the Hon’ble Court
during the trial.
8. It is
submitted that with the age of the car said vehicle has lost its roadworthiness
and if the permission to sell the said car is not given then applicant would
suffer grave loss as the car would have to be kept in a stationary condition.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstance coupled with the judgment as passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, the car can be released to rightful owner (applicant) and at the time of
release photographs of the said vehicles may be taken so that during the course
of trial the actual production of the vehicles should not be insisted upon and
Photographs should suffice for the purposes of evidence during the stage of
evidence.
B. That
it has been further stated by the complainant that
C. That thereafter after hearing arguments, Ld. Trial Court
pleased to frame the charge against the revisionist under Section 302 of I.P.C.
and accordingly charge was framed on ……….2016 and order of framing of charge
against the revisionist is impugned in this Petition.
5. That the order of the Ld. Trial Court is
wrong to frame the charge against the Revisionist as the Ld. Trial Court did
not consider the fact that there is no legally admissible evidence against the
Revisionist to connect him with the commission of the alleged offence even
prima facie, besides this complaint has been filed in order to exert pressure
upon the Revisionist.
6. That the Ld. Trial Court erred to frame
the charge against the Revisionist as the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the
facts that there are catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India and various other High Courts whereby it has been categorically held that
before a man can held liable for acts done there should be some material
against it.
7. That
aggrieved by the aforesaid order on the charge framed by the Ld. Trial Court
the Revisionist prefer to file the present revision petition on the following
amongst other grounds :-
- : G R O U N D S : -
I. That
Ld. Trial Court has not considered the contentions of the Revisionist that at
the stage of framing of charge the court has to apply its judicial mind to
determine whether or not there is a ground for presuming commission of offences
by accused and since framing of charge affects a person’s liberty need for
proper consideration of material warranting such order cannot be over
emphasized. It is difficult to discern on element of deception in the entire
case.
II. That
the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist as
the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the facts involved in the said case and
did not apply his judicial mind while framing the charge against the
Revisionist. The Ld. Trial Court is required to evaluate the material and find
out of ingredients of offences charged are made out.
III. That
the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist as
the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the facts in view of the decisions as
pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases which has been instituted
malafidely in order to harass the revisionist without even substantiating the
same, Hon’ble Supreme Court has quash the FIR and case of the petitioner is
well covered by those case law. However same is reproduce herein under :-
“The Supreme
Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. etc. v. Shri P.P. Sharma and Anr.
etc. . Mr. Mathur drew our attentions to the guidelines laid down by the
Supreme Court for quashing the FIR in the case of State
of Haryana and Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and Ors. Paragraph 107
of the said judgment itemise guidelines as follows:-
1. Where the
allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the
allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the
uncontroverter allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the
allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
5. Where the
allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there
is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
In the present
case guidelines Nos. 5 and 7 are material for the purpose of discharging the
Revisionists.
IV. That
the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist as
the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the facts it is not a spontaneous
complaint. Long drawn complaint can't be but deliberated, calculated and
fabricated, no action on the same can be taken and same has been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Datar Singh v. The State of Punjab as well as Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors.”
V. That
the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charges as the Ld. Trial Court did
not appreciate that there is no prima facie case against the present
Revisionist and the prosecution had miserably failed to place on record any
incriminating evidence against the Revisionist which would be held sufficient
to rope the Revisionist within the four corners of Sections 302 of IPC. The Ld.
Trial Court should not have accepted all the prosecution states as gospel’s
truth in the facts and circumstances of this case.
VI. That
the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the Revisionist as
the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that the prosecution has miserably
failed to place on record any evidence that case under Section 302 of IPC is
being made out against the Revisionist and the Revisionist is entitled for
discharge on the stage of framing of the charge itself.
VII. That
it is respectfully submitted that there is no specific allegations against the
Revisionist and no case under Section 302 of IPC has been made out against him even
if these allegations are taken to be true in verbatim.
VIII. That
as such in the absence of the allegations which are essential ingredients of
the offences under the aforesaid section, the accused cannot be charged in the
aforesaid offences.
IX. That
in facts and circumstances of this case there are no prospects of conviction of
the revisionist in the circumstances the Ld. Trial Court has erred in framing
the charge against the Revisionist. The Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the
fact that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not such that, if gone
unrebutted, the same can result into the conviction of the Revisionist and thus
also the Revisionist was entitled for discharge. It was held in case reported
as JT 1996 (7) SC, in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi that of the court in almost
certain that there is no prospect of case ending in conviction. It is advisable
to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
X. That it
will be against the fundamental principles of legal systems if an innocent
person be implicated in false case in this manner. Evidence can be sifted and
weighed for limited purpose of considering the matter of charge. The impugned
order does not even indicate that such an approach was followed.
XI. That the outcome of the investigation casts
doubt over the veracity of the complainant as such aforesaid charge framed
against the Revisionist is liable to be quashed. After scrutiny even the basic
allegations making out a case there under are not contained in the FIR. In such
a situation continuing criminal proceedings against the revisionist will be an
abuse of process of the court.
XII. That it
is in the interest of justice if the allegation leveled by the complainant does
not constitute any offence of Section 302 of IPC as such charge is liable to be dismissed on
this ground alone.
XIII. That the
Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the case of the Revisionist is well
covered in view of the law settled by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case
titled as State Versus Someshwar, that onus is upon the prosecution to prove
the charges and in the absence of the any evidence, Revisionist without
admitting anything submits that in view of the settled law as submitted above,
the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
XIV. That the
Revisionist has no other alternate remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court
through present petition.
XV. That
the Ld. Trial Court committed serious illegality in framing the charge against
the Revisionist under Section 302 of IPC, as there was not a single whisper of
allegations against the Revisionist attracting Section 302 of IPC.
XVI. That
the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Revisionist has been named with
malafide intentions by the prosecution.
XVI. That
the Ld. Trial Court committed serious illegality in framing charge against the
Revisionist on the vague and general allegations made by the prosecution in
respect of the present Revisionist.
XVII. That
the outcome of the investigation has casts doubt over the veracity of the
complainant as such aforesaid charge framed against the Revisionist is liable
to be quashed.
8. That
the legal position is well settled that the process of court cannot be utilized
for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court the chances of an
ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may discharge
the revisionists, although the same may be at a preliminary stage.
9. That
there is nothing in the record to connect the present Revisionist with
commission of the alleged offences. The allegations made are blatantly absurd,
inherently improbable that no prudent person can reach a conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Revisionist.
10. That
the criminal proceeding is manifestly intended with malafide and the same has
been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance upon her and
with a view to spite her due to private and personal grudge.
11. That where the allegation made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offences or make out a case against the
accused, this law had been laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble
Apex Court. And in this case no allegations constitute any offences under
aforesaid Sections of Indian Penal Code.
12. That
in this case criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and /
or the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the Revisionist and with a view to spite he due to
private and personal grudge.
13. That
the Revisionist has no other alternative remedy but to
approach this Hon'ble Court under its Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction.
14. That the aforesaid case has been registered
failing within the territorial an supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court and as such the present revision is maintainable in its present form.
15. That the Revisionist craves the leave of this
Hon’ble Court to raise such other or further ground that may be available to
them at the time of hearing of the present petition.
16. That revisionist has not
filed any similar Criminal Revision petition in the above noted matter either
before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
against order dated ……….2016 passed by Ld. Trial Court.
P
R A Y E R
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed
that the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. XXXX, Ld. Special
Judge/NDPS/ASJ/NE, Karkardooma, Delhi dated …….2016 whereby the Ld. Trial Court
was pleased to frame the charge against the Revisionist for the offence 302 of
Indian Penal Code in in FIR No. XX/2016 under Section 302 of IPC registered
with Police Station xxx in case titled as State Vs. Ankit
Saxena, may kindly be quashed and the Revisionist may kindly be discharged from
the above noted case in the facts and circumstances as narrated herein above,
in the interest of justice.
Such
other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice.
It
is prayed accordingly.
DELHI REVISIONIST
DATED
ADVOCATES
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE; GAUTAMBUDH NAGAR, NOIDA
CRL. REVISION PETITION No. _____ OF 2017.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
XXXX :
REVISIONIST
XXXX
:
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit
of Mr. xxx , aged about ___ years S/o Sh……………….. R/o ……………………….., do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1. That
I am the revisionist in the above mentioned case and as such I am conversant
with the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence competent to swear this
Affidavit.
2. That
the contents of the accompanying Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
have been read over and explained to me in vernacular language and having
understood the same I say that the facts stated therein are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
VERIFICATION
:-
Verified at Delhi on this ___ day of March, 2017. That the
contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
