IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXXX : RESPONDENTS

FIR No. XXXX,

U/s.: XXXX,

P.S.: XXXX,

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Notice of Motion.

2. Urgent Application

3. Memo of Parties.

4. List of Dates and Events.

5. Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution Of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Affidavits in Support.

6. ANNEXXURE P-1.

True Copy of FIR No. …../2017.

7. Application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for stay of proceedings with Affidavit In Support.

8. Application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for Exemption From Filing Certified Copies with Affidavit In Support.

9. Vakalatnama

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED :-

ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXX : RESPONDENTS

FIR No. …./2017

U/s.: 354/506 IPC,

P.S.: XXXX,

URGENT APPLICATION

The Hon’ble Joint Registrar,

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

New Delhi.

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying writ petition / application as urgent one in accordance with the provision of as per the Delhi High Court rules and regulations and orders.

The grounds of urgency are as set out in the accompanying petition / application. Kindly treat the accompanying petition for quashing of the proceedings in FIR No. …./2017 Police Station XXXX, under Section 354/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED :-

ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXX : RESPONDENTS

FIR No. …./2017

U/s.: 354/506 IPC,

P.S.: XXXX,

MEMO OF PARTIES

XXXX,

XXXX (ADDRESS) : PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. XXXX

2. XXXX

: RESPONDENTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED :-

ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX,

XXXXXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. XXXXX

2. XXXXX : RESPONDENTS

FIR No. …./2017

U/s.: 354/506 IPC,

P.S.: XXXX,

CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUASHING OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR BEARING No……/2017 REGISTERED WITH POLICE STATION XXXX, DELHI, UNDER SECTION 354/506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1. That the Petitioner is law-abiding citizen of India and has full faith in the administration of justice. That the Petitioner has sought to invoke the Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. ……/2017 registered at Police Station XXXX, under Section 354/506 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant / respondent no.2 against the petitioner.

2. That the petitioner is a very well educated man and is law abiding and peace loving citizen of India. He has been falsely implicated in the present FIR due to personal enmity of Petitioner’s mother in law with her son who happens to be husband of the Respondent No.2. That the petitioner is a married man never been involved in any criminal case except which has been instituted by the Respondent No.2.

3. That the petitioner is aggrieved by the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 at the Police Station. By this petition, the petitioner is inter alia, seeking the quashing of the said FIR No…../2017 and proceedings emanating there under; That the brief facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the present petition are summoned up as under:-

3.1 That the present FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 at Police Station.

3.2 It is stated by the complainant that the petitioner is Nandoi of the complainant and complainant went to cremation ground at xx ith her husband for Kriya ceremony of her husband’s relative and at around 7.15 complainant’s husband told her to wait for him as he was going for taking the car from parking resulting Respondent No.2 waited outside at main road or service lane of opposite xx cremation Gate.

3.3 While waiting Respondent No.2 saw one car coming to her which was driven by some unknown person however Petitioner was found to be sitting with him who is Nandoi of Respondent No.2 and the car came with high speeding front of her and for saving herself , Respondent No.2 immediately came back to footpath otherwise car would have hit her.

3.4 It is further stated that post stopping of the car in front of Respondent No.2 , Petitioner abused and used filthy language on her character and he told “tu kis yaar ka wait kar rahi hai” and suddenly he tried to pull her in car forcibly whereby her stroll came in hand of the Petitioner and thereafter Petitioner showed her middle finger and in the meantime her husband came in the car resulting Petitioner and his friend ran away though Respondent No.2 and her husband tried to catch them but failed. Also the family members of the deceased person (his son) have given written statement to the Investigation officer that Mr. XXXX did not even visited the cremation ground neither XXXX or XXXX discussed any such incident as they visited the deceased persons house and had evening snacks at their home.

3.5 It is submitted that the multiple litigation has been going on between the petitioner’s wife and Petitioner’s mother in law with the Respondent “s No.2 husband with respect to his properties left by the father in law of the Respondent No.2 which is being corroborated by number of FIRs lodged against each other by them.

3.6 Further more Respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR against the Petitioner for the same offence of hurting the modesty of the Respondent No.2 on 27.7.2017 against the Petitioner where in petitioner is on interim protection and in order to create a pressure so that Petitioner could not get the bail , Respondent No.2 under the connivance of her husband has lodged the captioned FIR which is liable to be quashed as same is on totally incorrect facts and FIR is motivated.

4. Aggrieved from the FIR registered against petitioner, petitioner is moving this petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the following amongst other grounds:-

- : G R O U N D S : -

A. Because the FIR is counter blast of the FIR bearing NO.xx/2017 under Section 427/506/34 IPC lodged by mother in law of the petitioner against the husband of the complainant on XX.XX.2017 in the police station xxx and other complaint lodged against the Respondent’s No.2 husband.

B. Because the husband of the complainant had sent a video to the petitioner and his wife on the facebook on XX.XX.2017 threatening the petitioner which is highly derogatory and abusive and Petitioner can not even reproduce or annex the same before this Hon’ble Court.

C. Because the Respondent No.2 is the wife of the brother in law of the petitioner who is in litigation with his mother qua the properties left out by father in law of Petitioner and Respondent No.2 which is evident from the pleadings of the probate case where mother in law of the Petitioner filed the probate petition with respect to the will left by the father in law of the Petitioner, need less to say that Respondent “2 husband has filed the objections in probate petition.

D. Because the husband of the Respondent No.2 has gone to the extent of leveling wild allegation of murdering her husband in the objection petition against the mother in law of the Petitioner. Since Petitioner is supporting his mother in law which is not being liked by the husband of the Respondent No.2 which is infect driving force of lodging false cases against the Petitioner and his other family members.

E. Because the relationship of the husband of the Respondent No.2 is strained with the mother in law and father in law of the Petitioner since last many years and number of complaints and FIR were lodged against the Respondent No.2 and her husband.

F. Because recently an FIR bearing no.XX/2016 under Section 506 IPC in the police Station xx, was registered by the wife of the petitioner against the husband of the Respondent.

G. Because a FIR bearing no.XX/2012 was lodged by the mother in law of the Petitioner against the husband of the Respondent No.2 under Section 452/323/34 was lodged in xx and in the said FIR the Respondent No.2 and her husband Sumit Aneja applied for the bail before this Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and vide order dated 09.10.2012 this Hon’ble Court specifically directed that the Respondent No.2 and her husband shall not visit premises house No.XX/2013, xx even then Respondent No.2 and her husband are trying to harass and exert pressure upon the Petitioner and his family members for withdrawing of the cases and handing over all the properties left by the father in law of the Petitioner.

H. Because another FIR which was lodged by maid of the mother in law of the Petitioner bearing No.XX/2012 under Section 354/506/427 of IPC police Station xxx wherein the husband of the Respondent No.2 indulged in Molestation of maid servant.

I. Because the present FIR is nothing but a counter blast of FIR lodged by the mother in law of the complainant against the husband of the complainant under Section 427/506/34 in the police Station of xx.

J. Because the timing of the present FIR is very important in view of the fact that Respondent No.2 on XX.XX.2017 lodged a FIR No.XXX/2017 against the petitioner under Section 354A/354B/354D/341/506 in the police Station of xxx wherein application for grant of anticipatory bail of the Petitioner is pending before Ld. Session Court and lodging of this FIR is purposely and malafide that petitioner should not get the bail.

K. Because the families are in not talking terms what to say of visiting each other. The civil dispute with regard to probate of the Will is pending jurisdiction before the Court of Ms. XXXX, Ld. , Delhi.

L. Because the complainant in order to exert pressure upon her mother in law to enter into settlement in the FIR lodged by her has lodged the present false frivolous and baseless FIR.

M. For that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in a matter titled as ‘State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa’, (2002) 3 SCC 89. Again the Apex Court in ‘R.P. Kapoor vs. State Punjab’, AIR 1960 SC 866, summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings; (i) where it distinctly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuation of a proceeding for example for want of sanction; (ii) where the allegation in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegation constitutes an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

As such where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and a case where there is legal evidence, which on appreciation, may or may not support the accusation. The judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to needlessly harass any person.

N. For that Petitioner was already implicated in one similar case and immediately thereafter lodging of second case of similar allegations casts serious doubts qua the contents of the FIR which found support form the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in a matter of ‘Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao’ (2012) 9 SCC 512, where while dealing with the subject matter Hon’ble Apex Court has observed:-

“The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence and in the matter of ‘P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala’ (1995)1 SCC 142 & ‘Sherimon v. State of Kerala’ AIR 2012 SC 493 where same view point has been expressed. With regard to quality of evidence requisite for establishing charge of conspiracy, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr’ (2000) 8 SCC 203:-

“12. ...... A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.”

O. For that Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat & Another 2010 (8) SCC 628 wherein in para No.17 it was held as under:

"17. We have already explained that the baseless and irrelevant allegations could not be used as a basis for prosecution for a serious offence under Section 306 IPC. Similarly, we have already considered Section 294(b) IPC also. We have not been able to find anything. Under such circumstances, where the FIR itself does not have any material or is not capable of being viewed as having material for offences under Section 306 and 294(b) IPC, as per law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana V Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it would be only proper to quash the FIR and the further proceedings."

In R.Klayani Vs. Janak C. Mehta & Ors 2009 (1) SCC 516 wherein in para Nos.15 & 16 it was held as under:

"15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order 9 in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."

It is furthermore well known that no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by the Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its 13 jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the Superior Courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint."

Q. For that regarding power and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in the recent decisions in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 (2) AD (S.C.) 89" on 23.01.2013 has in a similar and identical case observed inter alia as under:-

"19. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan La/ Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No...... of 2013, arising out of SLP (Crl.) no.4883 of 2008, decided on 23.1.2013) wherein this Court inter alia held as under:

22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations leveled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.”

R. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C has been dealt with in Rajiv Thapar(supra) where it was held as under:-

21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.

22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.”

S. For that it is a settled principle of law that even otherwise there is no allegation against the petitioner and no material evidence has been filed against the Petitioner which would constitute an offence, and therefore the said FIR is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

T. For that in the absence of any material to show that at any point of time the petitioner had molested and threatened the complainant to do an act, which he would not have done otherwise, there could be no offence U/s. 354/506 IPC. It is submitted that the aforesaid complaint / FIR against the petitioner are based upon surmises, conjunctures and bald presumptions of the complainant.

U. For that the present proceedings have been launched malafide and by the suppression of material facts. The complainant has deliberately suppressed the fact of material facts, which is the subject matter of the present FIR. Hence, the present FIR under Section 354/506, being an abuse of process of law ought to be quashed.

V. For that, the present FIR being ex-facie malafide falls squarely within the scope of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (para 107. and the petitioner are entitled to have the proceedings quashed on that ground as well.

5. The petitioner craves leave to add any other ground at a later stage with the permission of this Hon’ble Court.

6. That the petitioner have deep roots in the society no criminal antecedence.

7. That family and siblings of the petitioner are totally dependent upon him and he is only bread earner of the family.

8. The petitioner have no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court for justice.

9. The petitioner has not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking similar relief.

P R A Y E R

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :-

A. Pass an appropriate order / direction quashing of FIR No……/2017 under Section 354/506 of IPC, Police Station xx, and all other proceedings emanating thereunder.

B. Such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed to meet the ends of justice.

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED :-

ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. APPLICATION No. ______ OF 2017.

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXXX : RESPONDENTS

FIR No. …./2017

U/s.: 354/506 IPC,

P.S.: XXXXX,

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Writ Petition Under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India which is pending before the Hon’ble Court for adjudication. The contents of the same are true to the knowledge of the Petitioner and the same may kindly be read as an integral part of this Application as the contents of the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

2. That the Petitioner is having good prima facie case in his favour and there is likely to succeed in it and in case the relief claimed in the present application is not granted the Petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and injury and the same would not be compensated in terms of money.

3. That the balance of convenience is also lies in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

4. That the Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to file the present Writ Petition.

P R A Y E R

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to grant stay of the proceedings pending in the Ld. Trial Court, till the final decision of the accompanying Writ Petition, in the interest of justice, equity and circumstances of the case.

Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the above said facts and circumstances of the case.

Lower court record may also be summoned.

Prayed accordingly,

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED :-

ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. APPLICATION No. ______ OF 2017.

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXXX : RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. XXXX, aged about ___ years S/o XXX R/o XXXX, XXXX Floor, xxx, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That I am the petitioner 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 application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at Delhi on this ___ day of September, 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXXX : RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. XXXX, aged about ___ years S/o Late XXXX R/o XXX, XXX Floor, xxx , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That I am the petitioner 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 Writ Petition under Articles 226 of Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. APPLICATION No. ______ OF 2017.

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXXX : RESPONDENTS

FIR No. …./2017

U/s.: 354/506 IPC,

P.S.: xxx,

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILLING CERTFIED COPIES OF THE ANNEXXURES.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH ;-

1. That the petitioner has filed Annexures along with the main petition in order to support the writ petition and the Annexures filed is the true, correct and compared copies of the original.

2. That the petitioner hall apply for obtaining the certified copies of the Annexures and undertakes to file the same as soon as the same is made available by copying agency concerned.

It is most respectfully prayed that the petitioner may kindly be exempted from filling the certified copies of the Annexures.

DELHI PETITIONER

THROUGH

DATED

ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MISC. APPLICATION No. ______ OF 2017.

CRL. WRIT PETITION No._____ OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXX : PETITIONER

VERSUS

XXXX : RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Mr. XXXX, aged about ___ years S/o Late Sh. XXXX R/o XXX, XXX Floor, xxx , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That I am the petitioner 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 petitioner has gone through the averments made in the accompanying application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking exemption to filling certified copies and submits that this application had been drafted by my counsel on my instructions and facts as briefed by me.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at Delhi on this ____, day of September, 2017 that the facts stated in the above Affidavit are true to my knowledge and no part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

THROUGH

THROUGH

THROUGH

THROUGH

THROUGH

AFFIDAVIT

DEPONENT

AFFIDAVIT

DEPONENT

THROUGH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

AFFIDAVIT

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Pages

Other Pages

Quick Contact