Real DP3 Petition Sample FIL filed against DIL and Won

IN THE COURT OF
HONORABLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
SHIVAJI NAGAR COURTS, PUNE

IN THE MATTER OF

Binod Sharma
address
Sector-93, NOIDA (UP) ….. Applicant

Versus

1. Mangal Das
addressh,
Pune (Maharashtra).

2.Phoolan Devi
D/o Mangal Das
address
Dussehra Maidan, Ujjain (MP)

3. Mrs. Rekha Devi
W/o Mangal Das
address
Dussehara Maidan, Ujjain (MP)

RESPONDENTS

POLICE STATION: CHATURSHRINGHI (PUNE)

APPLICATION U/S 156 (3) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE FOR REGISTRATION OF A CASE U/S : 3 OF THE DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR GIVING
DOWRY AND ABETMENT TO GIVING DOWRY

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That a marriage took place on 26/01/2008 at Ujjain (MP) between Phoolan Devi D/O Mangal Das with Raj Sharma son of the Applicant as per Hindu customs. That there was no demand of any dowry by the applicant or any of his family members, as the applicantfs son Raj and his wife Phoolan both were working as software engineers and the salary of Phoolan was rather double than the husband/ son of the applicant, hence there was no question of asking any dowry at all nor there is any such averments in the Complaint filed against the Applicant, his wife and son Raj Sharma about any such demand.

2. That in a false complaint/CR No: 297/16 (AnnexureI) dated 04/07/08 registered U/S 498]A, 506, 323/34 IPC read with section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, lodge by Respondent No]2/ Phoolan Devi @ Phoolan N. Sharma, against the applicant, his wife & his son Raj Sharma at PS: Chaturshinghi Pune, the Respondent no]2 has categorically mentioned in the first three lines of the complaint that gmy father had given all articles of dowry, cash and jewelry as per his capacity in my marriageh which clearly establishes that there was no demand or compulsion from her husband or in]laws side to give dowry at all.

3. Similarly, for the second time, in an affidavit (AnnexureII) dated 05/11/08 filed by Respondent No]2/Phoolan Devi @ Phoolan N. Sharma in the Court of Ld. Addl. Session Judge, Pune, the Respondent No]2 has again stated in the second Para at lines 2]3, that My father gave 15]16 tolas of Gold as Dowry to me and a few tolas of gold to my husband and in-laws in my marriage.h

4. That whatever Stridhan or Articles, her father/Respondent No]1 gave to her daughter/Respondent No-2, though it was never demanded by the Applicant or his family, were directly sent from Ujjain to Aundh, Pune about 20 days after the marriage i.e. on 13th/14th of February 2008. This fact is also admitted by Respondent No]2/Phoolan Devi in her said affidavit (AnnexureII) dated 5/11/15 at Page 2nd though with some twisted story. Hence the cause of action arose under the jurisdiction of the PS: Chaturshringhi, Pune as well as this Honfble Court because the said alleged Dowry was received at Pune.

READ  Ownership rights can be annulled on basis of executive instruction

5. That as per Section]3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as defined herein, Giving dowry and abetment to giving dowry is a criminal offenceh. In this marriage neither the applicant nor any of his family members ever demanded any dowry but Respondent No]1/ Mangal Das, father of Respondent No]2/Phoolan Devi gave dowry of his own in the marriage of his daughter Respondent No]2/Phoolan Devi @ Phoolan N. Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Devi (Mother), never objected to giving of dowry. All these persons namely Mangal Das, Mrs Rekha Devi,had also admitted this fact of giving Dowry in the marriage of Respondent No]2 /Phoolan Devi, in their written statements U/s 161 (Annexure: III) given to Investigating officer Sh. B.A.Sharma of PS Chaturshringhi, which has been further submitted with charge]sheet no: 47/15 vide RCC No4 1184/09 in this Ld. Court. All these persons did not object/restrain to the giving of Dowry hence abetted the offence.

6. Hence the Respondent no]1, who admitted of giving dowry as well as the persons who abetted to giving dowry are liable to be prosecuted under the Law of the Land. Accordingly a case may be registered against all these persons taking the cognizance for giving dowry and for abetment of giving dowry.

7. In this case Respondent No]2 /Phoolan Devi @ Phoolan N. Sharma never objected to giving dowry by her father as is clear from her Complaint/FIR No: 297/15 (AnnexureI) registered at PS: Chaturshinghi, Pune and her said affidavit (Annexure]II) and the respondents 3 to 6 named above also never objected to giving Dowry by Respondent No]1/Mangal Das in his daughterfs marriage.

8. Only after this complaint No: 297/2015 and the said Affidavit dated 5/11/2015 and the statements of the Respondents no 3]6, the Applicant & his family members, came to know that the gifted articles in the marriage were Dowry. Till then, the applicant and his family supposed it to be gifted articles by her relatives/friends or self purchased households by Respondent No]2 Phoolan Devi @ Phoolan N. Sharma.

READ  Family laws are being misused

9. Hence, in this case Respondent No2, 3 i.e. Phoolan Devi @ Phoolan N. Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Devi are liable to be prosecuted for abetment of giving dowry and Respondent No]1 i.e. Mangal Das is liable to be prosecuted for giving dowry and accordingly cognizance may be taken by registering a case against them as giving dowry is a social injustice & crime against the society.

10. That the applicantfs son Raj Sharma submitted a written complaint to the Senior Police Inspector, PS: Chaturshringhi, Pune on April 16, 2015 vide Diary No; 211 dated 16/04/2015 and a copy of the same complaint was also sent to the Commissioner of Police, Pune by Speed Post No: EU 498030994IN dated 21/04/09 but no action has been taken by the police till date against the Respondents.

11. That in a RTI reply (Annexure: V), the CPIO & Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Chaturshringhi Division, Sh. M. P.Karate has submitted that the complaint has been closed and sent to records on the false and flimsy report of PSI BASharma that since the marriage took place at Ujjain (MP) hence the case can]not be registered at Pune.

12. That it is quite surprising that for sending of same dowry from Ujjain & delivering/receiving at Pune, section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is added by the same IO PSI Sh. BASharma in the Charge]sheet against the applicant & his family. Then how the jurisdiction is not made out against the Respondents, who sent & got delivered the alleged Dowry at Pune ? It is a big question mark to be decided.

13. That PSI BA Sharma has closed the file, being in collusion with the Respondents on the false plea that the marriage took place in Ujjain (MP), which place does not fall under the jurisdiction of Pune, while it is admitted by the Respondent No]2 in her affidavit (Annexure: II) as well as by her family members i.e. Respondents No: 1, 3 in their written statements U/s 161 before the IO PSI BA Sharma that all the Stridhan articles were sent to Pune after 20 days of marriage by Respondent No]1 through a goods transport that means the alleged Dowry is received/delivered at Pune.

14. Even otherwise, the refusal by IO PSI BA Sharma to register an FIR U/s ]3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the false plea of jurisdiction invites contempt proceedings for disobeying Honfble Supreme Court guideline in this regard. More particularly in a case, in which he is well aware of all the facts and circumstance, being Investigation Officer in CR/FIR] 297 dated 4/07/2015 and have submitted Charge]sheet vide RCC No: 1784/2015 in the Ld. JMFC Court No]9, Pune.

READ  No Quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C, but finish trial in 3 months

C A S E L A W S :
Neera Singh Vs. State & others DHC Cr.MC 7262/2006 Held: The police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite dowry demand. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of Dowry.

In the present case, the girl and her family claims to have given dowry of their own despite no demand by the husband and his parents

P R A Y E R :
It is therefore most respectfully prayed to this Honfble Court that looking into the facts and circumstances of the Complaint, necessary direction may be issued U/S 156 (3) Cr. P. C.

1. To the Senior Police Inspector, Chaturshringhi Police Station, Pune for registration of FIR against the Respondents 16 U/s: 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for giving dowry and abetment in giving dowry.

2. To initiate contempt proceedings against the IO PSI BASharma for failing to comply with the Honfble Supreme Court order, stipulating that refusing to register an FIR on the complaint by the husband in a Dowry case is tentamount to the contempt of Court.

Place: Pune
Date: 10/11/2009

Applicant
Binod Sharma
Through
Mr. x. x. Padhy
Counsel for the Complainant
Chamber No]77, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi]110001

ADDRESS MEMO

Binod Sharma
address
Pin: 201304 …..Complainant

Versus

1. Mangal Das
addressh,
Pune (Maharashtra).

2.Phoolan Devi
D/o Mangal Das
address
Dussehra Maidan, Ujjain (MP)

3. Mrs. Rekha Devi
W/o Mangal Das
address
Dussehara Maidan, Ujjain (MP)

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Page No

1. Annexure: I FIR NO: 297/15 Dated 4/07/15 ]16 PS: CHATURSHRINGHI, Pune
2. Annexure: II Affidavit of Phoolan Devi Dated 5/11/2015 Submitted before the Ld. ASJ, Pune
3. Annexure: III Statements of the Respondents No] 1 to 3 U/s 161 given to PSI Sh. BA Sharma of PS: Chaturshringhi,Pune.
4. Annexure: IV Copy of Complaint submitted to Sr. PI, Chaturshringhi PS dated 16/04/09.
5. Annexure: V Reply of ACP received through RTI application.
6. Annexure: VI Citations of similar cases where FIR were registered against the Dowry givers.

(All documents are Xerox copies of the original Documents)

(Mr. x. x. Padhy)
Counsel for Applicant

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *