Search Results

FORM NO. 13 BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR ( See  Sections 108, 109 and 110) Whereas I, ( name ), inhabitant of ( place ), have been called upon to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour to Government and all the citizens of India for the term of ( State the period ) or until the completion of the inquiry in the matter of ................................... now pending in the Court of ............................., I hereby bind himself to be of good behaviour to Government and all the citizens of India during the said term or until the completion of the said inquiry, and, in case of my making default therein, I hereby bind myself to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees. Dated, this .................. day of ......................, 20...                     ( Signature ) ( Where a bond with sureties is to be executed, add ...............................). We do hereby declare ourselves sureties for the above-named  .......................... that he will be of good behaviour to Government and all the citizens of India during the said term or until the completion of the said inquiry; and, in case of his making default therein, we bind ourselves, jointly and severally, to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees. Dated, this....................day of................,20... ( Signature ) Download Word Document In English. (Rs.5/-) Download PDF Document In Hindi. (Rs.5/-)

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.25/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.25/-) SUIT BY PRINCIPAL AGAINST AGENT FOR MISCONDUCT / NEGLIGENCE Nature of grievance: Suits by principals against agents: Where an “Agent” misconducts or neglects in his duties towards the “Principal” – A Suit may be filed for the rendition of Accounts, within 3 years from the date, when the principal becomes aware of the alleged misconduct or neglect of the “Agent”, under Article 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Reliefs prayed: (As may be appropriate and applicable to the facts of one’s case) a)     That the Defendant be ordered and decreed to render true and correct Account, for being an Agent of the Plaintiffs, for the years ______; b)     That the Defendant be further ordered and decreed to pay such sum, as may be found due from him, on taking of such Accounts; c)     That the Defendant be further ordered and decreed to pay interest on the said aforesaid sum, as may be assessed. d)     The Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that ___________  (declaration, in the absence of which the rights of the Plaintiff is frustrated); e)     The Defendants be permanently injuncted from acting (permanently restrained from doing of certain acts), such acts which would otherwise frustrate the rights of the Plaintiffs, or such acts, which would otherwise run contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. f)      The Defendants be ordered and decreed by way of Mandatory Injunction to __________ “perform certain acts”; Interim and Ad-Interim Reliefs: Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Hon’ble Court so as to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, be pleased – g)     That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, the Hon’ble Court, in the dues exercise of powers u/s 94 and O.38 of CPC, 1908, Issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison (as may be applicable to the facts of the case); h)     That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, the Hon’ble Court, in the dues exercise of powers u/s 94 and O.38 of CPC, 1908, Direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property; (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) i)       That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, the Hon’ble Court, in the dues exercise of powers u/s 75 and O.26 of CPC, 1908, be pleased to appoint Court Commissioner, so as to carry out examination of Accounts of the Defendants for the years ______, and file Report before this Hon’ble Court; j)       That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, the Hon’ble Court, in the dues exercise of powers u/s 75 and O.26 of CPC, 1908, be pleased to appoint Court Commissioner, to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation; or to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit; or to perform any other ministerial act. k)     Interim/ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses ______ as aforesaid. l)       Such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as may be necessary. Material facts of the case: The Plaintiffs, most respectfully submit that, having regard to the nature of reliefs prayed for in this Suit, the following facts become germane to the controversy herein; And, the reasonable satisfaction of the existence or the non existence, as the case may be, of these facts, may entitle the Plaintiffs the judgment in their favour. The chronology / chain of events, which has led to the present situation, and has constrained the Plaintiffs to seek certain Reliefs from this Hon’ble Court. [In the chronology / chain of events, the following facts should be set out in clear terms, at appropriate juncture.] 1.      The facts showing the existence / subsistence of the Principal / Agent relationship: 2.      The facts showing the ceasing of the Principal / Agent relationship, if it is so: 3.      The incident of cessation of Agency: (a)       where an agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority; (b)       by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; (c)       by the business of the agency being completed; (d)       by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; (e)       by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors. 4.      The Notice, if any, given by the Principal before terminating Agency: 5.      The facts showing that the Agent has misconducted or neglected in his duties towards the Principal: 6.      The facts showing that due to aforesaid misconduct / negligence, the Plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary and / or other losses: 7.      The facts showing that the Plaintiffs took all possible steps to mitigate / minimize the losses which has occasioned due to the aforesaid misconduct / negligence of Defendant:  [To claim any relief in the nature of declaration] The facts showing that the Plaintiff is entitled to some legal position, or to some property, or to some right of any nature whatsoever; and the facts and circumstances showing that the Defendant is doing some act by which the Defendant deny such rights of the Plaintiffs; [To claim any relief in the nature of permanent injunction] The facts showing that the Plaintiff is entitled to some legal position, or to some property, or to some right of any nature whatsoever; and the facts and circumstances showing that the Defendant is doing some act by which the Defendant interferes with such rights of the Plaintiffs; [To claim any relief in the nature of mandatory injunction] The facts showing that the Defendant is under obligation under the law or under the contract, to perform certain acts, which he is neglecting to do, and the Courts can compel performance of such acts, and the performance of such acts are essential pending the final disposal of the Suit, and the failure of performance of such acts may render the Suit infructuous. In Money Claim Suits, to claim interim relief, “of arrest of the Defendant to cause him to furnish security for his appearance, pending the disposal of the Suit”, any one of the facts must be shown to have exist – Facts and circumstances showing that, with intent to delay the plaintiffs, or to avoid any process of the Court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree which may be passed against him, the defendant, has absconded or left the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or Facts and circumstances showing that, with intent to delay the plaintiffs, or to avoid any process of the Court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree which may be passed against him, the defendant is about to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or Facts and circumstances showing that, with intent to delay the plaintiffs, or to avoid any process of the Court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree which may be passed against him, the defendant has disposed of or removed from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court his property or any part thereof, or Facts and circumstances showing that, with intent to delay the plaintiffs, or to avoid any process of the Court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree which may be passed against him, the defendant is about to leave India under circumstances affording reasonable probability that the plaintiff will or may thereby be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree which may be passed against the defendant in the suit. In Money Claim Suits, to claim interim relief of “directing the Defendant to furnish security of certain sum of money, either by furnishing the bank guarantee or by depositing the said sum of money in the Court”, or to effect the conditional attachment of his immovable property, pending the disposal of the Suit”, any one of the facts must be shown to have existed. Facts and circumstances showing that, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree which may be passed against him, the defendant is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or Facts and circumstances showing that, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree which may be passed against him, the defendant is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.100/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.95/-) Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC Section 397: Challenging Improper framing of Charges or Irregular trial Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The Accused / convict would be the Applicants herein; and the concerned State would be the Respondents, alongwith the complainant, if there was a prosecution on a private complaint. Jurisdiction of Courts: 1.      The Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction. However, Sessions Court must first be approached, despite the fact that if the Applicant loses in the Sessions Court, he cannot file second Revision, although he may adopt any other legal remedy like Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 or may invoke Writ jurisdiction or Article 227 jurisdiction of High Court. 2.      For Sessions Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be situated within the local jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. 3.      For High Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be within its jurisdiction, that is to say, the Magistrate Court must be situated in the State in which High Court exercises its jurisdiction. Material facts to be pleaded: 1.      The facts showing that “Charge” was not formally framed in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant herein, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused thereby to the Applicant herein. 2.      The facts showing that there was error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charges in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant herein, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused thereby to the Applicant herein. 3.      The facts showing that there was misjoinder of charges, in respect of certain offences, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant herein, in respect of those offences, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused thereby to the Applicant herein. 4.      The facts showing that there was error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or there was error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, and failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby to the Applicant herein. 5.      The facts showing that no valid charge could be framed against the Applicant herein, having regards to the facts of the case and having regard to certain facts stands proved. Limitation period: The Limitation period is 90 days from the date of the impugned order (the order which is under challenge). The time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order is allowed to be deducted while calculating the limitation period. If there is delay in approaching the Court, a condonation Application may be filed alongwith the Revision Application, setting out therein the number of days of delay and the reasons / grounds to condone the said delay. Court fee : The Court fee would vary from State to State. In Maharashtra, the Court fee is paid on the basis of number of pages of documents annexed with the Revision Application, and Rs.5/- is charged for every two pages. Compliance to conditions, if any: If applicable: There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by _____ of                    Court at…………. INDEX SR.NO  DATE EXHIBIT       PARTICULARS PAGE   NOS 1 Proforma (Roznama) A to D     Application 1 to Vakalatnama (If any) List of Documents            “A” “B” “C” “D” “E” “F” “G” Affidavit in support of the Application _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by ______ of                    Court at…………. Mr. / Ms._______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person Office Notes, Office Memorunda of Corom. Appendices. Court’s order or Court’s of Judge’s Direction (This page is called proforma as stated in the Index. In sub-ordinate courts, on each of the hearing date, a very brief Note is prepared in respect of each of the matter which are listed on that day. In this Note, the Presiding Judge / Magistrate records (a) Name of the parties / Advocates who appeared on that day, (b) Applications or Affidavits or any other document filed, if any filed by any of the parties, (c) brief direction to both or any of the party to take any step in furtherance of the proceeding, (d) and next date of hearing along with the recording of next stage of the case. The blank pages are annexed with the Complaint bearing only the short title of the case. The aforesaid brief Note is pasted on this page. This Roznama is very important source of information (for recalling / refreshing) for both the parties as well as for the presiding Judge to acquaint themselves about the past happenings in the case.) BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… (1)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1)The State of _____) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by ______ of                    Court at…………. THE HUMBLE REVISION APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED 1.      The facts of the case – (a) (b) (c) (d) 2.      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Order / judgment dated ______ Applicant begs to prefer this Revision Application on the grounds set out hereinafter. 3.      Infirmities in the impugned finding, sentence or Order: (The Applicant needs to deal with the observations made in the impugned findings, sentence or order, and assailing those, either on facts or on law or on both. 4.      GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) a)     It is a case where “Charge” was not formally framed in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or b)     It is a case where there was error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charges in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or c)     It is a case where there was misjoinder of charges, in respect of certain offences, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of those offences, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or d)     It is a case where there was error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, and failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; or e)     It is a case where no valid charge could be framed against the Applicant herein having regards to the facts of the case and having regard to certain facts stands proved. 5.      The main points to be emphasized upon: 6.      Jurisdiction of the Court: A Para narrating facts that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Application. 7.      The Applicant states that no other Revision Application, except the present one, has been filed against the impugned finding, Sentence, Order, before this Hon’ble Court. 8.      The Applicant craves leave to refer and rely upon certain exhibited documents, and would rely upon authorities, in support of Applicant’s case. 9.      The Applicant craves leave to add, amend, delete any of the foregoing Paras / grounds, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court. 10. That the present Revision Application has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 11. The Applicant therefore, most humbly prays – a)     To call for the records and proceedings of this Case from the Ld. Magistrates Court / Sessions Court; b)     To quash and set aside the impugned finding / Sentence / Order dated _____; c)     Be pleased to pass order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge. d)     Be pleased to direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner the Hon’ble Court thinks fit; e)     Be pleased to quash the conviction recorded against the Applicant herein; f)      Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application, the operation of impugned finding / Sentence / Order be stayed; g)     The impugned finding, sentence be reversed or altered to the extent __________ ; h)     To pass such other and further Order and to grant such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY FOR ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the Applicant do hereby state on solemn affirmation that what is stated in the paragraphs ___ to ____ is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in paragraphs ______ to ______ is based on the information, belief and legal advice, and I believe the same to be true and correct. (Solemnly affirmed at _________) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate Before me VAKALATNAMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by ______ of                    Court at…………. To, Registrar / Registrar General The Sessions Court / _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at ______                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… ______________                                                     …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by ______ of                    Court at…………. LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by ________ of                    Court at…………. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the ……

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.150/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.145/-) Section 482  Quashing of F.I.R. --Summons Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The original Accused would be the Applicant; and the original complainant and the concerned State would be the Respondents. Jurisdiction of Courts: The High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain these Applications. 1.      Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, recognizes the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 2.      Some of the landmark rulings of Apex Court which illustrate the scope and powers of High Courts to grant relief under this jurisdiction. Para 18: In State of Haryana & Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (respondents) [1990], this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are: (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 uncontroverted 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 mala fide 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." 3.      In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka [2008], the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4.      In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] this Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 5.      The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – [1989 Patna HC]. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, the Apex Court held as under [1989] …..When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]" (emphasis supplied). Material facts to be pleaded: In so far quashing of F.I.R is concerned – The facts showing that 1.      The allegations made in the F.I.R., 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 Applicant; 2.      The allegations  made in the F.I.R. 156(3) Application and other materials, accompanying the said F.I.R. do not disclose any cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; 3.      The allegations made in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, where no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; 4.      The allegations made in the F.I.R. are so vague, absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to call for any investigation by the Police; 5.      There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; 6.      The criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. 7.      That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material evidences which are on record; 8.      That the Courts below committed an error in appreciating the material evidences on record; 9.      That the Courts below failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record. In so far challenge to issuance of Summons / Warrant u/s 204 of CrPC is concerned – The facts showing that 1.      The allegations made in the complaint, even, if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence; 2.      The allegations made in the complaint and the evidences furnished in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Applicants, and do not make out any case against the Applicant; 3.      That there are merely general allegations against the Applicants, without any specific attribution of incriminating acts and omissions, and the whole complaint against the present Applicants is based on speculation of facts, assumptions, imaginations and guessing; 4.      That there are no evidences adduced against the Applicants, and therefore there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicants, and therefore, the essential requirement of law set out in section 204 of CrPC, 1973 is not satisfied; 5.      That the evidences adduced against the Applicants are so weak and grossly inadequate to call the Applicants to face criminal prosecution; 6.      That requirement of law contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973 is not complied with; 7.      There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; Limitation period to initiate Criminal Complaint u/s200: There is no limitation period. Court fee: No Court fee. Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) INDEX Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit Page No. 1 Synopsis, Authorities, Points to be urged 2 Memo of Application 4 “A” 5 “B” 6 “C” 7 “D” 8 “E” 9 “F” 10 Vakalatnama IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) SYNOPSIS Sr.No . Date Particulars Exhibit 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Any other as may be applicable. THE AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED Judgment at the time of hearing. THE POINTS TO BE URGED (a) “acts” and “omission” attributed towards the accused person in the FIR / Complaint does not constitute any offence; or (b) No incidence of offence as alleged in the FIR / Complaint has happened; or (c) the FIR / Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons ; (d) There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the accused person as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. (e) That Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands that “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty” except according to the procedure established by law. In Criminal jurisprudence, the only safeguard available to an innocent person is the “scrupulous and strict adherence” to the procedure prescribed in concluding the “guilt of the accused person”. Thus, whenever, any of the “prescribed procedure” is not “duly followed and complied with”, and where such non compliance, expressly or by necessary implication, frustrate the personal liberty of the accused person, the violence to fundamental right of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is imminent. And therefore the impugned Order of the Ld. Magistrate is in breach of fundamental right of the Applicant, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (f) That it is elementary principle of criminal jurisprudence that criminal liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or position in a Company. (g) That institution of any judicial proceedings against a person carries an implicit degree of coercion and no judicial proceedings should be triggered at the whims and fancies of the litigants, which otherwise amounts to sheer harassment, embarrassment, and substantial expenses to the person saddled with unwarranted litigation and most importantly, causes the waste of the precious time of the court in hearing the frivolous and meritless litigations. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20__ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 IN THE MATTER OF Sections 482 and ____ of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; AND Sections ____ of the IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;                 AND FIR registered  / Impugned Order passed by Ld. Magistrate in Criminal Complaint (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVENAMED                                                              MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH. 1.      A very brief introduction of the parties to the case. 2.      The brief facts of the case which are germane to the present controversy, are – (a)  The Applicants state that pursuant to FIR / Complaint No._____ dated ________ filed by the Respondent No.2 hereinabove, the concerned SHO of the said Police station registered an FIR / Ld. Magistrate passed an Order dated ____, inter alia, for the issuance of Process against the Applicants, returnable on _______. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” the copy of impugned Order dated _____ and Exhibit “C” the copy of FIR / Complaint filed by Respondent No.2 dated _____ (b)    (c)    (d)  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Order dated ______ Applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court recognized u/s 482of CrPC, 1973, on the grounds set out hereinafter. 3.      Infirmities in the impugned Order: (The Applicant needs to deal with the observations made in the impugned order, and the findings recorded in pursuant thereto, and assailing those observations and findings, either on facts or on law or on both.  Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance LG 19). Where in case it is argued that the allegations made in the F.I.R. / Application 156(3) / Complaint do not constitute any offence, then, with the aid of table of offence stated hereinafter, it may be demonstrated that the acts and omissions attributed towards the present Applicants do not constitute any offence. 4.       The Applicant says that the table hereinbelow, in the first column lay down certain ingredients of the applicable offence / facts to be proved, and, then in the next column, spells out the facts alleged against the Applicant, clearly indicating that no offence can said to be committed by the present Applicants. (Therefore, the Applicant has to set out in the table, against each of the ingredient, the relevant portion of his Application / pleading, which would demonstrate that the requirement of respective ingredient of the offence is not met, or in the alternative, the Applicant may mention the Para number of his Application which sets out the factual aspect of the present case indicating the non-existence of the particular respective ingredient of the offence.) 5.      Other submissions, if any. 6.      The Applicants state that after careful reading of FIR / Complaint as a whole, it can safely be argued that (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) – In so far quashing of F.I.R is concerned – a)     The allegations made in the F.I.R., 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 Applicant; b)     The allegations  made in the F.I.R. 156(3) Application and other materials, accompanying the said F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; c)     The allegations made in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, where no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; d)     the FIR / Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons; e)     The allegations made in the F.I.R. are so vague, absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to call for any investigation by the Police; f)      There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; g)     The criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. h)     That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material evidences which are on record; i)       That the Courts below committed an error in appreciating the material evidences on record; j)       That the Courts below failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record. In so far challenge to issuance of Summons / Warrant u/s 204 of CrPC is concerned – a)     The allegations made in the complaint, even, if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence; b)     The allegations made in the complaint and the evidences furnished in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Applicants, and do not make out any case against the Applicant; c)     That there are merely general allegations against the Applicants, without any specific attribution of incriminating acts and omissions, and the whole complaint against the present Applicants is based on speculation of facts, assumptions, imaginations and guessing; d)     That there are no evidences adduced against the Applicants, and therefore there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicants, and therefore, the essential requirement of law set out in section 204 of CrPC, 1973 is not satisfied; e)     That the evidences adduced against the Applicants are so weak and grossly inadequate to call the Applicants to face criminal prosecution; f)      That requirement of law contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973 is not complied with; g)     There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; h)     There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the accused person as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. 7.      The Applicants submit that Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands that “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty” except according to the procedure established by law. In Criminal jurisprudence, the only safeguard available to an innocent person is the “scrupulous and strict adherence” to the procedure prescribed in concluding the “guilt of the accused person”. Thus, whenever, any of the “prescribed procedure” is not “duly followed and complied with”, and where such non compliance, expressly or by necessary implication, frustrate the personal liberty of the accused person, the violence to fundamental right of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is imminent. And therefore the impugned Order of the Ld. Magistrate is in breach of fundamental right of the Applicant Nos.3, 5 and 6, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8.      The Applicants submit that institution of any judicial proceedings against a person carries an implicit degree of coercion and no judicial proceedings should be triggered at the whims and fancies of the litigants, which otherwise amounts to sheer harassment, embarrassment, and substantial expenses to the person saddled with unwarranted litigation and most importantly, causes the waste of the precious time of the court in hearing the frivolous and meritless litigations. 9.      Grounds for Relief: (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) – In so far quashing of F.I.R is concerned – a)     The allegations made in the F.I.R., 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 Applicant; b)     The allegations  made in the F.I.R. 156(3) Application and other materials, accompanying the said F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; c)     The allegations made in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, where no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; d)     the FIR / Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons; e)     The allegations made in the F.I.R. are so vague, absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to call for any investigation by the Police; f)      There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; g)     The criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. h)     That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material evidences which are on record; i)       That the Courts below committed an error in appreciating the material evidences on record; j)       That the Courts below failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record. In so far challenge to issuance of Summons / Warrant u/s 204 of CrPC is concerned – a)     The allegations made in the complaint, even, if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence; b)     The allegations made in the complaint and the evidences furnished in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Applicants, and do not make out any case against the Applicant; c)     That there are merely general allegations against the Applicants, without any specific attribution of incriminating acts and omissions, and the whole complaint against the present Applicants is based on speculation of facts, assumptions, imaginations and guessing; d)     That there are no evidences adduced against the Applicants, and therefore there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicants, and therefore, the essential requirement of law set out in section 204 of CrPC, 1973 is not satisfied; e)     That the evidences adduced against the Applicants are so weak and grossly inadequate to call the Applicants to face criminal prosecution; f)      That requirement of law contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973 is not complied with; g)     There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; h)     There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the accused person as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. 10. The Applicants submit that there has been no delay in preferring this Application. 11. Jurisdiction Clause: The Applicants state that the impugned Order is passed by______ at ______Court at _____;. The Applicants states that, therefore, this Hon’ble Court can safely invoke their jurisdiction to entertain the present Application and grant reliefs as prayed; and pass authoritative Orders against the Respondents. 12. The Applicants further submit that Applicants have not filed any other proceedings in any Court of law or in the Supreme Court, against the Respondents herein, in respect of the reliefs prayed in this Application. 13. The Applicants, with the leave of the Hon'ble Court, be allowed to add / amend / delete any clause in the present Application. 14. The Applicants therefore, most respectfully pray as under – (a)  That the impugned FIR / Order of issuance of Summons / Warrant by the Ld. Magistrate at ___ Court at _____in the above Complaint No., dated ___ against Applicant Nos._____, be quashed and set aside; (b)  That during the pendency of the present Application, execution of impugned Order dated _______ and proceedings in the above Complaint be stayed; / Police would not take any coercive action against Applicant herein; (c)  Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. _____________ Advocate for the Applicants _______ Applicant Verification I, _______,  the  Applicant hereinabove,  do  hereby  solemnly  declare  that what  is  stated  in  Paras ____ are  true  to my own  knowledge, and what  is  stated  in  Paras ______ are based on information and legal advice which I  believe to be true and correct. Solemnly  declared  at  _______                     )  This      Day  of _____, 20___               )  Applicant Before me VAKALATNAMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) To, Registrar General  _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at _______.                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the …… Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at _____   ) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the Applicant Before me Steps after Institution of Application 1.      Urgent Hearing of Application, if any preferred by the Applicant, for obtaining Interim / Ad-Interim Relief; 2.      Refusal or grant of Interim / Ad-Interim Reliefs by the Court; 3.      Dismissal of Application or Issuance of Notice by Court to Respondents; 4.      Service of copy of Application upon Respondents; 5.      Reply of Respondents, if any; 6.      Oral Arguments before the Court / Submission of Written Arguments; 7.      Order.

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.95/-) Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 Section 397: Challenging unlawful dismissal of Complaint u/s 256 CrPC Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The original complainant would be the Applicant herein; and the concerned State would be the Respondents alongwith the persons who were made Accused in the complaint. Jurisdiction of Courts: 1.      The Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction. However, Sessions Court must first be approached, despite the fact that if the Applicant loses in the Sessions Court, he cannot file second Revision, although he may adopt any other legal remedy like Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 or may invoke Writ jurisdiction or Article 227 jurisdiction of High Court. 2.      For Sessions Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be situated within the local jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. 3.      For High Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be within its jurisdiction, that is to say, the Magistrate Court must be situated in the State in which High Court exercises its jurisdiction. Material facts to be pleaded: Section 256 of CrPC, 1973, stipulates that if the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader of by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. 1.      The limited issue in these Revision Application is to satisfy the Court that the order of dismissal of complaint and acquittal of accused, due to absence of complainant on the date of hearing, is harsh / bad in law / against the interest of justice. The other grounds could be – 2.      That the circumstances were such which were beyond the control of the Applicant / complainant to remain present on the date of hearing; 3.      That the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing was not necessary, and the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have dispensed with the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant and should have proceeded with the case; 4.      That the complainant was duly represented by Advocate for conducting the prosecution and the trial was not in any manner frustrated due to the absence of Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing; 5.      That in the interest of justice, the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have adjourned the matter instead of taking a harsh step of dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused, especially when the offences alleged against the accused are grave in nature; Limitation period: The Limitation period is 90 days from the date of the impugned order (the order which is under challenge). The time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order is allowed to be deducted while calculating the limitation period. If there is delay in approaching the Court, a condonation Application may be filed alongwith the Revision Application, setting out therein the number of days of delay and the reasons / grounds to condone the said delay. Court fee: The Court fee would vary from State to State. In Maharashtra, the Court fee is paid on the basis of number of pages of documents annexed with the Revision Application, and Rs.5/- is charged for every two pages. Compliance to conditions, if any: N. A. Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. INDEX SR.NO  DATE EXHIBIT       PARTICULARS PAGE   NOS 1 Proforma (Roznama) A to D     Application 1 to Vakalatnama (If any) List of Documents            “A” “B” “C” “D” “E” “F” “G” Affidavit in support of the Application _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. Mr. / Ms._______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person Office Notes, Office Memorunda of Corom. Appendices. Court’s order or Court’s of Judge’s Direction (This page is called proforma as stated in the Index. In sub-ordinate courts, on each of the hearing date, a very brief Note is prepared in respect of each of the matter which are listed on that day. In this Note, the Presiding Judge / Magistrate records (a) Name of the parties / Advocates who appeared on that day, (b) Applications or Affidavits or any other document filed, if any filed by any of the parties, (c) brief direction to both or any of the party to take any step in furtherance of the proceeding, (d) and next date of hearing along with the recording of next stage of the case. The blank pages are annexed with the Complaint bearing only the short title of the case. The aforesaid brief Note is pasted on this page. This Roznama is very important source of information (for recalling / refreshing) for both the parties as well as for the presiding Judge to acquaint themselves about the past happenings in the case.) BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… (1)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1)The State of _____) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. THE HUMBLE REVISION APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED 1.      The facts of the case – (a) (b) (c) (d) 2.      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Order / judgment dated _______ Applicant begs to prefer this Revision Application on the grounds set out hereinafter. 3.      Infirmities in the impugned Order: (The Applicant needs to deal with the observations made in the impugned order, and the findings recorded in pursuant thereto, and assailing those observations and findings, either on facts or on law or on both.) 4.      GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) a)     That the circumstances were such which were beyond the control of the Applicant / complainant to remain present on the date of hearing; b)     That the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing was not necessary, and the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have dispensed with the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant and should have proceeded with the case; c)     That the complainant was duly represented by Advocate for conducting the prosecution and the trial was not in any manner frustrated due to the absence of Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing; d)     That in the interest of justice, the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have adjourned the matter instead of taking a harsh step of dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused, especially when the offences alleged against the accused are grave in nature; 5.      The main points to be emphasized upon: 6.      Jurisdiction of the Court: A Para narrating facts that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Application. 7.      The Applicant states that no other Revision Application, except the present one, has been filed against the impugned Order, before this Hon’ble Court. 8.      The Applicant craves leave to refer and rely upon certain exhibited documents, and would rely upon authorities, in support of Applicant’s case. 9.      The Applicant craves leave to add, amend, delete any of the foregoing Paras / grounds, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court. 10. That the present Revision Application has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 11. The Applicant therefore, most humbly prays – a)     To quash and set aside the impugned Order dated _____; b)     The Ld. Magistrate be directed to restore the Complaint; c)     To pass such other and further Order and to grant such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY FOR ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the Applicant do hereby state on solemn affirmation that what is stated in the paragraphs ___ to ____ is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in paragraphs ______ to ______ is based on the information, belief and legal advice, and I believe the same to be true and correct. (Solemnly affirmed at _________) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate Before me VAKALATNAMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. To, Registrar / Registrar General The Sessions Court / _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at Mumbai.                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the …… Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the Applicant

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.120/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.115/-) CrPC sec. 397 , 401  Section 397: Challenging unlawful Rejection of S.313 Application Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The Accused made in Criminal complaint made u/s 200 are the Applicants herein; and, the original complainants and the concerned State would be the Respondents. Jurisdiction of Courts: 1.      The Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction. However, Sessions Court must first be approached, despite the fact that if the Applicant loses in the Sessions Court, he cannot file second Revision, although he may adopt any other legal remedy like Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 or may invoke Writ jurisdiction or Article 227 jurisdiction of High Court. 2.      For Sessions Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be situated within the local jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. 3.      For High Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be within its jurisdiction, that is to say, the Magistrate Court must be situated in the State in which High Court exercises its jurisdiction. Material facts to be pleaded: 1.      That the complainant has misused the judicial process, and has misled the Hon’ble Court. 2.      That there is palpable infirmity in the purported evidences relied upon by the Complainant, on the basis of which, the Hon’ble Court have pleased to issue summons u/s 204. 3.      Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons; 4.      That by virtue of mandate of Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, this Hon’ble Court is empowered to examine the accused at any stage of inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him; 5.      There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the accused person as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. Limitation period: The Limitation period is 90 days from the date of the impugned order (the order which is under challenge). The time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order is allowed to be deducted while calculating the limitation period. If there is delay in approaching the Court, a condonation Application may be filed alongwith the Revision Application, setting out therein the number of days of delay and the reasons / grounds to condone the said delay. Court fee: The Court fee would vary from State to State. In Maharashtra, the Court fee is paid on the basis of number of pages of documents annexed with the Revision Application, and Rs.5/- is charged for every two pages. Compliance to conditions, if any: If applicable: There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. INDEX SR.NO  DATE EXHIBIT       PARTICULARS PAGE   NOS 1 Proforma (Roznama) A to D     Application 1 to Vakalatnama (If any) List of Documents            “A” “B” Affidavit in support of the Application _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. Mr. / Ms._______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person Office Notes, Office Memorunda of Corom. Appendices. Court’s order or Court’s of Judge’s Direction (This page is called proforma as stated in the Index. In sub-ordinate courts, on each of the hearing date, a very brief Note is prepared in respect of each of the matter which are listed on that day. In this Note, the Presiding Judge / Magistrate records (a) Name of the parties / Advocates who appeared on that day, (b) Applications or Affidavits or any other document filed, if any filed by any of the parties, (c) brief direction to both or any of the party to take any step in furtherance of the proceeding, (d) and next date of hearing along with the recording of next stage of the case. The blank pages are annexed with the Complaint bearing only the short title of the case. The aforesaid brief Note is pasted on this page. This Roznama is very important source of information (for recalling / refreshing) for both the parties as well as for the presiding Judge to acquaint themselves about the past happenings in the case.) BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… (1)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1)The State of _____) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. THE HUMBLE REVISION APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED 1.      The facts of the case – a)     The Respondent No.2, the original Complainant hereinabove has filed a Complaint u/s 200 or 190 of CrPC. b)     The Applicant, the original accused submits that the Respondent No.2 / Complainant has misused the judicial process, and has misled the Hon’ble Court. c)     The Applicant in this backdrop, preferred a Misc. Application before the trial Court, and inter alia, urged the Hon’ble Court to exercise their powers u/s 313(1)(a) of CrPC, 1973, and permit the Applicant herein to show palpable infirmity in the purported evidences relied upon by the Complainant, on the basis of which, the Hon’ble Court have pleased to issue summons u/s 204. d)     The Hon’ble Court have however were pleased to reject the said Misc. Application. 2.      The Applicant would submit that Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, appears to be most salutary provision to protect innocent persons who are falsely charged / accused as having committed an offence. The said section enables the accused person to personally move an Application or make a formal request, before the concerned Magistrates Court, to allow him to make due representation before the Court, for to present to the Court any credible evidence he has to show his innocence, or for to impeach the credibility of evidence appearing against him in the Complaint or Chargesheet, and seeking immediate acquittal. The said Application or formal request may be made at any stage of the trial or may be made even at the stage of Inquiry contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973. If the Magistrate is satisfied, he may acquit the accused person, without any trial, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Complainant / State prosecution. 3.      Fortunately, there is a recent Apex Court ruling on Section 313. In the said ruling, although the issue before the Court was not the examination of accused before evidences are led, yet the Hon’ble Court have unambiguously stated that the said powers may be exercised at any stage of the inquiry or trial. Nar Singh versus State of Haryana [2015] Para 9: The power to examine the accused is provided in Section 313 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "313. Power to examine the accused.- (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (2). No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1). (3). The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4). The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5). The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section." Para 10: There are two kinds of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The first under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. relates to any stage of the inquiry or trial; while the second under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. takes place after the prosecution witnesses are examined and before the accused is called upon to enter upon his defence. The former is particular and optional; but the latter is general and mandatory. In Usha K. Pillai V/s. Raj K. Srinivas & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 208, this Court held that the Court is empowered by Section 313 (1) clause (a) to question the accused at any stage of the inquiry or trial; while Section 313(1) clause (b) obligates the Court to question the accused before he enters his defence on any circumstance appearing in prosecution evidence against him. 4.      There is also ruling of Bombay High Court in this regard, wherein Hon’ble Justice R. C. Chavan, in his 187 page judgment (Unreported), extensively dealt with the issue of false complaints, speedy justice, extensive use of many of the provision of Criminal Procedure Code to reduce the length of litigation, when inherent powers of the High Court may be invoked u/s 482, etc. [Judg dated 22nd March, 2012] [Paras 88 to 90] Bombay High Court, in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers versus State of Maharashtra primarily dealt with exercise of the powers of the High Court under Section 482, and thus also dealt with all the relevant and concerned provisions of CrPC, 1973. In the said judgment, at Para 90, the Court has said that the Accused can make a due representation before the trial Court u/s 313 of the CrPC, to prove his innocence and so as to avoid the hardship and agony of facing the trial. The Hon’be Bombay High Court, in the said para, inter alia, said – “Section  313, of the Code enables a trial court to examine, the  accused  on  the  circumstances  appearing, against  him  in  evidence  at  any  stage,  apart, from the duty to undertake such examination at, the  end  of  the  trial.  If  the  courts  make, proper  use  of  this  power,  the  accused  could, have  an  opportunity  to  say  something  in  his, defence, should he so wish, which may curtail, trial”. The portions Paras 88, 89 and 90 are reproduced – Para 88. It  was  also  urged  that  recourse  to inherent powers becomes necessary as the trial courts  have  no  power  to  look  into unimpeachable  material  which  could  show  that trial is unwarranted & that such material can be noticed only by the High Court in exercise of  inherent  powers.  This  argument  does  not seem to be jurisprudentially sound. The right of the accused to silence need not be equated to obligation  to  remain  silent.  It  is  not clear  as  to  how  a  person  who  is  to  face  a trial  could  be  forced  to  remain  silent. Historical  basis  for  the  right  of  silence recognized in a person accused is the torture which  he  was  subjected  to  in  making confessions. Therefore he cannot be forced to speak.  He  was  also  not  to  be  forced  to disclose  his  defence  in  advance  of  trial  to prevent  his  being  prejudiced  by  the prosecution bringing up fresh evidence to book him, rather than put him to trial on the basis of evidence collected before a charge-sheet is filed. But when he has the protection of the court, should he so desire, why could he not state his defence? There is a good chance that trial  may  be  obviated  and  in  any  case curtailed if he is, not forced, but permitted to speak out. As an illustration one may take case of voluntarily causing hurt. The accused may admit that he did cause hurt but set up right of private defence, in which case need to record much of evidence could be curtailed. In  any  case  it  defies  logic  that  an  accused who cannot be heard till a charge is framed by courts  below  has  the  same  right  when  before the  High  Court  on  the  specious  plea  that  if there  is  no  provision  in  the  code  to  do something, it can be done by invoking inherent powers. Para 89. The  learned  senior  counsel  for  the applicants  submitted  that  this  issue  is  no longer res integra and a Three Judge Bench of the  Supreme  Court  has  already  ruled  to  the contrary in  State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568. Para 90. Even so it may not be necessary to gag, persons accused in a bulk of matters which are landing up in this court from processes issued, for offence  punishable  under  section  138  of, the Negotiable Instruments Act. In these cases, the complainant files an affidavit in lieu of, his  evidence  &  since  a  full  bench  of  this, court has already ruled that such affidavit is, a  substitute  for  verification  to  be  recorded, when a complaint is filed, even at the stage, of  recording  plea,  there  is  evidence     or, circumstances  appearing  in  evidence-  against, the  accused.  Evidence  does  not  mean  only  a, completed deposition after cross examination, since  there  could  be  many  cases  where  there, may not be any cross examination. In warrant, trials  instituted  on  complaints  at  the  stage, of  framing  of  charge  there  is  already, precharge  evidence  of  the  complainant, available     which  has  to  be  of  such  quality, that  if  un-rebutted,  it  would  warrant, conviction  of  the  accused.  In  all  types  of trial by using the provisions of Sections 292, to  296  of  the  Code,  there  could  be  evidence, against  the  accused  even  before  oral, examination  of  witnesses  begins.  Section  313, of the Code enables a trial court to examine, the  accused  on  the  circumstances  appearing, against  him  in  evidence  at  any  stage,  apart, from the duty to undertake such examination at, the  end  of  the  trial.  If  the  courts  make, proper  use  of  this  power,  the  accused  could, have  an  opportunity  to  say  something  in  his, defence, should he so wish, which may curtail, trial. Since first part of section 313 of the, Code  is  as  yet  not  rendered  a  dead  letter, there is no reason why this tool may not be, used.  If intelligently used a large number of, litigants may not be required to rush to this, court. 5.      Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands that “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty” except according to the procedure established by law. In Criminal jurisprudence, the only safeguard available to an innocent person is the “scrupulous and strict adherence” to the procedure prescribed. Thus, whenever, any of the “prescribed procedure” is not “duly followed and complied with”, and where such non compliance, expressly or by necessary implication, frustrate the personal liberty of the accused person, the violence to fundamental right of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is imminent.                     6.      The Applicant submits that institution of any judicial proceedings against a person carries an implicit degree of coercion and no judicial proceedings should be triggered at the whims and fancies of the litigants, which otherwise amounts to sheer harassment, embarrassment, and substantial expenses to the person saddled with litigation. 7.      The grounds for Relief: a)     That there is not an iota of evidence on record against these Accused to suggest their involvement in the alleged offence u/s _____ b)     Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons; c)     The allegations made in the complaint and the evidences furnished in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Applicants, and do not make out any case against the Applicant; d)     That there are merely general allegations against the Applicants, without any specific attribution of incriminating acts and omissions, and the whole complaint against the present Applicants is based on speculation of facts, assumptions, imaginations and guessing; e)     That there are no evidences adduced against the Applicants, and therefore there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicants, and therefore, the essential requirement of law set out in section 204 of CrPC, 1973 is not satisfied; f)      That requirement of law contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973 is not complied with; g)     There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; h)     There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the Applicant herein as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. i)       There could be many other grounds on which the impugned order may said to be bad in law. Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance sr no.19). 8.      Jurisdiction of the Court: A Para narrating facts that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Application. 9.      The Applicant states that no other Revision Application, except the present one, has been filed against the impugned Order, before this Hon’ble Court. 10. The Applicant craves leave to refer and rely upon certain exhibited documents, and would rely upon authorities, in support of Applicant’s case. 11. The Applicant craves leave to add, amend, delete any of the foregoing Paras / grounds, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court. 12. That the present Revision Application has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 13. The Applicant therefore, most humbly prays – a)     The trial Court be directed to decide said Misc. Application in accordance with law; b)     To call for the records and proceedings of this Case from the Ld. Magistrates Court; c)     To quash and set aside the impugned Order dated _____; d)     Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application, the proceedings at the trial court be stayed; e)     To pass such other and further Order and to grant such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY FOR ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the Applicant do hereby state on solemn affirmation that what is stated in the paragraphs ___ to ____ is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in paragraphs ______ to ______ is based on the information, belief and legal advice, and I believe the same to be true and correct. (Solemnly affirmed at _________) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate Before me. VAKALATNAMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. To, Registrar / Registrar General The Sessions Court / _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at Mumbai.                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the ……

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.140/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.130/) Section 482 Rejection of Sec 313 Application Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The Accused made in Criminal complaint made u/s 200 or 190 are the Applicants herein; and, the original complainants and the concerned State would be the Respondents. Jurisdiction of Courts: The High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain these Applications. 1.      Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, recognizes the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 2.      Some of the landmark rulings of Apex Court which illustrate the scope and powers of High Courts to grant relief under this jurisdiction. Para 18: In State of Haryana & Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (respondents) [1990], this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are: (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 uncontroverted 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 mala fide 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." 3.      In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka [2008], the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4.      In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] this Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 5.      The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – [1989 Patna HC]. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, the Apex Court held as under [1989] …..When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]" (emphasis supplied). Material facts to be pleaded: 1.      That the complainant has misused the judicial process, and has misled the Hon’ble Court. 2.      That there is palpable infirmity in the purported evidences relied upon by the Complainant, on the basis of which, the Hon’ble Court have pleased to issue summons u/s 204. 3.      Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons; 4.      That by virtue of mandate of Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, this Hon’ble Court is empowered to examine the accused at any stage of inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him; 5.      There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the accused person as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. Limitation period to initiate Criminal Complaint u/s200: There is no limitation period. Court fee: No Court fee. Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) INDEX Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit Page No. 1 Synopsis, Authorities, Points to be urged 2 Memo of Application 4 Impugned Order of the Ld. Magistrate dated “A” 5 “B” 6 “C” 7 “D” 8 “E” 9 “F” 10 Vakalatnama IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ___________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) SYNOPSIS Sr No. Date Particular of events Exhibit Pg. No. THE ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Any other as may be applicable. THE AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED Judgment at the time of hearing. THE POINTS TO BE URGED a)     That there is not an iota of evidence on record against these Accused to suggest their involvement in the alleged offence u/s _____ b)     Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons; c)     The allegations made in the complaint and the evidences furnished in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Applicants, and do not make out any case against the Applicant; d)     That there are merely general allegations against the Applicants, without any specific attribution of incriminating acts and omissions, and the whole complaint against the present Applicants is based on speculation of facts, assumptions, imaginations and guessing; e)     That there are no evidences adduced against the Applicants, and therefore there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicants, and therefore, the essential requirement of law set out in section 204 of CrPC, 1973 is not satisfied; f)      That requirement of law contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973 is not complied with; g)     There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; h)     There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the Applicant herein as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20__ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 IN THE MATTER OF Sections 482 and ____ of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; AND Sections ____ of the IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;                 AND Failure in exercise of powers conferred u/s 313 of CrPC, 1973; AND Impugned Order passed by Ld. Magistrate in Criminal Complaint (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVENAMED                                                              MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH. 1.      The facts of the case – a)     The Respondent No.2, the original Complainant hereinabove has filed a Complaint u/s 200 or 190 of CrPC. b)     The Applicant, the original accused submits that the Respondent No.2 / Complainant has misused the judicial process, and has misled the Hon’ble Court. c)     The Applicant in this backdrop, preferred a Misc. Application before the trial Court, and inter alia, urged the Hon’ble Court to exercise their powers u/s 313(1)(a) of CrPC, 1973, and permit the Applicant herein to show palpable infirmity in the purported evidences relied upon by the Complainant, on the basis of which, the Hon’ble Court have pleased to issue summons u/s 204. d)     The Hon’ble Court have however were pleased to reject the said Misc. Application. The Applicant have also preferred Revision before Sessions Court, which also came to be rejected. 2.      The Applicant would submit that Section 313 of CrPC, 1973, appears to be most salutary provision to protect innocent persons who are falsely charged / accused as having committed an offence. The said section enables the accused person to personally move an Application or make a formal request, before the concerned Magistrates Court, to allow him to make due representation before the Court, for to present to the Court any credible evidence he has to show his innocence, or for to impeach the credibility of evidence appearing against him in the Complaint or Chargesheet, and seeking immediate acquittal. The said Application or formal request may be made at any stage of the trial or may be made even at the stage of Inquiry contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973. If the Magistrate is satisfied, he may acquit the accused person, without any trial, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Complainant / State prosecution. 3.      Fortunately, there is a recent Apex Court ruling on Section 313. In the said ruling, although the issue before the Court was not the examination of accused before evidences are led, yet the Hon’ble Court have unambiguously stated that the said powers may be exercised at any stage of the inquiry or trial. Nar Singh versus State of Haryana [2015] Para 9: The power to examine the accused is provided in Section 313 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "313. Power to examine the accused.- (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (2). No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1). (3). The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them. (4). The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed. (5). The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section." Para 10: There are two kinds of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The first under Section 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. relates to any stage of the inquiry or trial; while the second under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. takes place after the prosecution witnesses are examined and before the accused is called upon to enter upon his defence. The former is particular and optional; but the latter is general and mandatory. In Usha K. Pillai V/s. Raj K. Srinivas & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 208, this Court held that the Court is empowered by Section 313 (1) clause (a) to question the accused at any stage of the inquiry or trial; while Section 313(1) clause (b) obligates the Court to question the accused before he enters his defence on any circumstance appearing in prosecution evidence against him. 4.      There is also ruling of Bombay High Court in this regard, wherein Hon’ble Justice R. C. Chavan, in his 187 page judgment (Unreported), extensively dealt with the issue of false complaints, speedy justice, extensive use of many of the provision of Criminal Procedure Code to reduce the length of litigation, when inherent powers of the High Court may be invoked u/s 482, etc. [Judg dated 22nd March, 2012] [Paras 88 to 90] Bombay High Court, in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers versus State of Maharashtra primarily dealt with exercise of the powers of the High Court under Section 482, and thus also dealt with all the relevant and concerned provisions of CrPC, 1973. In the said judgment, at Para 90, the Court has said that the Accused can make a due representation before the trial Court u/s 313 of the CrPC, to prove his innocence and so as to avoid the hardship and agony of facing the trial. The Hon’be Bombay High Court, in the said para, inter alia, said – “Section  313, of the Code enables a trial court to examine, the  accused  on  the  circumstances  appearing, against  him  in  evidence  at  any  stage,  apart, from the duty to undertake such examination at, the  end  of  the  trial.  If  the  courts  make, proper  use  of  this  power,  the  accused  could, have  an  opportunity  to  say  something  in  his, defence, should he so wish, which may curtail, trial”. The portions Paras 88, 89 and 90 are reproduced – Para 88. It  was  also  urged  that  recourse  to inherent powers becomes necessary as the trial courts  have  no  power  to  look  into unimpeachable  material  which  could  show  that trial is unwarranted & that such material can be noticed only by the High Court in exercise of  inherent  powers.  This  argument  does  not seem to be jurisprudentially sound. The right of the accused to silence need not be equated to obligation  to  remain  silent.  It  is  not clear  as  to  how  a  person  who  is  to  face  a trial  could  be  forced  to  remain  silent. Historical  basis  for  the  right  of  silence recognized in a person accused is the torture which  he  was  subjected  to  in  making confessions. Therefore he cannot be forced to speak.  He  was  also  not  to  be  forced  to disclose  his  defence  in  advance  of  trial  to prevent  his  being  prejudiced  by  the prosecution bringing up fresh evidence to book him, rather than put him to trial on the basis of evidence collected before a charge-sheet is filed. But when he has the protection of the court, should he so desire, why could he not state his defence? There is a good chance that trial  may  be  obviated  and  in  any  case curtailed if he is, not forced, but permitted to speak out. As an illustration one may take case of voluntarily causing hurt. The accused may admit that he did cause hurt but set up right of private defence, in which case need to record much of evidence could be curtailed. In  any  case  it  defies  logic  that  an  accused who cannot be heard till a charge is framed by courts  below  has  the  same  right  when  before the  High  Court  on  the  specious  plea  that  if there  is  no  provision  in  the  code  to  do something, it can be done by invoking inherent powers. Para 89. The  learned  senior  counsel  for  the applicants  submitted  that  this  issue  is  no longer res integra and a Three Judge Bench of the  Supreme  Court  has  already  ruled  to  the contrary in  State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568. Para 90. Even so it may not be necessary to gag, persons accused in a bulk of matters which are landing up in this court from processes issued, for offence  punishable  under  section  138  of, the Negotiable Instruments Act. In these cases, the complainant files an affidavit in lieu of, his  evidence  &  since  a  full  bench  of  this, court has already ruled that such affidavit is, a  substitute  for  verification  to  be  recorded, when a complaint is filed, even at the stage, of  recording  plea,  there  is  evidence     or, circumstances  appearing  in  evidence-  against, the  accused.  Evidence  does  not  mean  only  a, completed deposition after cross examination, since  there  could  be  many  cases  where  there, may not be any cross examination. In warrant, trials  instituted  on  complaints  at  the  stage, of  framing  of  charge  there  is  already, precharge  evidence  of  the  complainant, available     which  has  to  be  of  such  quality, that  if  un-rebutted,  it  would  warrant, conviction  of  the  accused.  In  all  types  of trial by using the provisions of Sections 292, to  296  of  the  Code,  there  could  be  evidence, against  the  accused  even  before  oral, examination  of  witnesses  begins.  Section  313, of the Code enables a trial court to examine, the  accused  on  the  circumstances  appearing, against  him  in  evidence  at  any  stage,  apart, from the duty to undertake such examination at, the  end  of  the  trial.  If  the  courts  make, proper  use  of  this  power,  the  accused  could, have  an  opportunity  to  say  something  in  his, defence, should he so wish, which may curtail, trial. Since first part of section 313 of the, Code  is  as  yet  not  rendered  a  dead  letter, there is no reason why this tool may not be, used.  If intelligently used a large number of, litigants may not be required to rush to this, court. 5.      The grounds for Relief: i)       That there is not an iota of evidence on record against these Accused to suggest their involvement in the alleged offence u/s _____ j)       Complaint contains “bare allegation” without attributing “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the commission of the offences, that is to say, there is not an iota of any incriminating material against the accused so as to warrant the issuance of summons; k)     The allegations made in the complaint and the evidences furnished in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Applicants, and do not make out any case against the Applicant; l)       That there are merely general allegations against the Applicants, without any specific attribution of incriminating acts and omissions, and the whole complaint against the present Applicants is based on speculation of facts, assumptions, imaginations and guessing; m)   That there are no evidences adduced against the Applicants, and therefore there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicants, and therefore, the essential requirement of law set out in section 204 of CrPC, 1973 is not satisfied; n)     That requirement of law contemplated u/s 202 of CrPC, 1973 is not complied with; o)     There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; p)     There are unimpeachable evidence to show that the offence could not have been committed by the Applicant herein as alleged, and otherwise, the accused would be needlessly harassed of the inevitable agony of criminal trials. q)     There could be many other grounds on which the impugned order may said to be bad in law. Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance sr no.19). 6.      The Applicants submit that there has been no delay in preferring this Application. 7.      Jurisdiction Clause: The Applicants state that the impugned Order is passed by______ at ______Court at _____;. The Applicants states that, therefore, this Hon’ble Court can safely invoke their jurisdiction to entertain the present Application and grant reliefs as prayed; and pass authoritative Orders against the Respondents. 8.      The Applicants further submit that Applicants have not filed any other proceedings in any Court of law or in the Supreme Court, against the Respondents herein, in respect of the reliefs prayed in this Application. 9.      The Applicants, with the leave of the Hon'ble Court, be allowed to add / amend / delete any clause in the present Application. 10. The Applicants therefore, most respectfully pray as under – a)     The trial Court be directed to decide said Misc. Application in accordance with law; b)     To call for the records and proceedings of this Case from the Ld. Magistrates Court; c)     To quash and set aside the impugned Order dated _____; d)     Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application, the proceedings at the trial court be stayed; e)     To pass such other and further Order and to grant such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. _____________ Advocate for the Applicant _______ Applicant Verification I, _______,  the  Applicant hereinabove,  do  hereby  solemnly  declare  that what  is  stated  in  Paras ____ are  true  to my own  knowledge, and what  is  stated  in  Paras ______ are based on information and legal advice which I  believe to be true and correct. Solemnly  declared  at  Mumbai                      )  This      Day  of _____, 2015                 )  Applicant Before me VAKALATNAMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ___________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) To, Registrar General  _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at Mumbai.                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ___________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the …… Before me. Steps after Institution of Application 1.      Urgent Hearing of Application, if any preferred by the Applicant, for obtaining Interim / Ad-Interim Relief; 2.      Refusal or grant of Interim / Ad-Interim Reliefs by the Court; 3.      Dismissal of Application or Issuance of Notice by Court to Respondents; 4.      Service of copy of Application upon Respondents; 5.      Reply of Respondents, if any; 6.      Oral Arguments before the Court / Submission of Written Arguments; 7.      Order.

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.115/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.110/-) Section 482   Unlawful Rejection of 156(3) Application Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The Applicants in the 156(3) Application are also the Applicants herein; and the Respondents would be the concerned State, and also the proposed accused. Jurisdiction of Courts: The High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain these Applications. 1.      Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, recognizes the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 2.      Some of the landmark rulings of Apex Court which illustrate the scope and powers of High Courts to grant relief under this jurisdiction. Para 18: In State of Haryana & Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (respondents) [1990], this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are: (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 uncontroverted 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 mala fide 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." 3.      In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka [2008], the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4.      In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] this Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 5.      The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – [1989 Patna HC]. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, the Apex Court held as under [1989] …..When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]" (emphasis supplied). Material facts to be pleaded: 1.      The allegations made in 156(3) Application, prima facie makes out a cognizable offence against Respondent No.2, justifying an investigation by police; 2.      The allegations  made in 156(3) Application and other evidences and materials, accompanying the said Application clearly discloses a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; 3.      That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material and  evidences which are on record; 4.      That the Ld. Magistrate committed an error in appreciating the material evidences on record; 5.      That the Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record. Limitation period to initiate Criminal Complaint u/s200: There is no limitation period. Court fee: No Court fee. Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Applicant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused)) INDEX Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit Page No. 1 Synopsis, Authorities, Points to be urged 2 Memo of Application 4 “A” 5 “B” 6 “C” 7 “D” 8 “E” 9 “F” 10 Vakalatnama IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Applicant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused)) SYNOPSIS Sr.No . Date Particulars Exhibit 1 Application u/s 156(3) filed by present Applicants 2 Impugned Order passed by Ld. Magistrate 3 4 5 6 THE ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Any other as may be applicable. THE AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED Judgment at the time of hearing. THE POINTS TO BE URGED a)     The allegations made in 156(3) Application, prima facie makes out a cognizable offence against the Respondent No.2; b)     The allegations  made in 156(3) Application and other evidences amd materials, accompanying the said Application clearly discloses a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; c)     That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material facts and evidences which are on record; d)     That the Ld. Magistrate committed an error of law in appreciating the material evidences on record; e)     That the Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record… f)      Any other ground as deem necessary in the facts of the case, including the ground of jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court to pass impugned order. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20__ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 IN THE MATTER OF Sections 482 and ____ of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; AND Sections ____ of the IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;                 AND Impugned Order passed by Ld. Magistrate in Application filed u/s 156(3) (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Applicant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused) THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVENAMED                                                              MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH. 1.      A very brief introduction of the parties to the case. 2.      The brief facts of the case which are germane to the present controversy, are – (a)    (b)    (c)  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Order dated ______ Applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court recognized u/s 482of CrPC, 1973, on the grounds set out hereinafter. 3.      Infirmities in the impugned Order: (The Applicant needs to deal with the observations made in the impugned order, and the findings recorded in pursuant thereto, and assailing those observations and findings, either on facts or on law or on both.  Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance LG 19). Where in case it is argued that the allegations made in the Application 156(3) prima facie made out a cognizable offence against the Respondent No.2 herein, then, with the aid of table of offence stated hereinafter, it may be demonstrated that the acts and omissions attributed towards Respondent No.2 makes out a strong case against them, warranting a throughout investigation by Police. 4.       The Applicant says that the table hereinbelow, in the first column lay down certain ingredients of the applicable offence / facts to be proved, and, then in the next column, spells out the facts alleged against the Applicant, clearly indicating that cognizable offence has been committed by the present Respondent No.2. (Therefore, the Applicant has to set out in the table, against each of the ingredient, the relevant portion of his Application / pleading, which would demonstrate that the requirement of respective ingredient of the offence is clearly met, or in the alternative, the Applicant may mention the Para number of his Application which sets out the factual aspect of the present case indicating the existence of the particular respective ingredient of the offence.) 5.      Other submissions, if any. 6.      Grounds for Relief: (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) – a)     The allegations made in 156(3) Application, prima facie makes out a cognizable offence against the Respondent No.2; b)     The allegations  made in 156(3) Application and other evidences amd materials, accompanying the said Application clearly discloses a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; c)     That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material facts and evidences which are on record; d)     That the Ld. Magistrate committed an error of law in appreciating the material evidences on record; e)     That the Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record… f)      Any other ground as deem necessary in the facts of the case, including the ground of jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court to pass impugned order. 7.      The Applicants submit that there has been no delay in preferring this Application. 8.      Jurisdiction Clause: The Applicants state that the impugned Order is passed by______ at ______Court at _____;. The Applicants states that, therefore, this Hon’ble Court can safely invoke their jurisdiction to entertain the present Application and grant reliefs as prayed; and pass authoritative Orders against the Respondents. 9.      The Applicants further submit that Applicants have not filed any other proceedings in any Court of law or in the Supreme Court, against the Respondents herein, in respect of the reliefs prayed in this Application. 10. The Applicants, with the leave of the Hon'ble Court, be allowed to add / amend / delete any clause in the present Application. 11. The Applicants therefore, most respectfully pray as under – a)     That the impugned Order dated ______ be quashed and set aside; b)     That ______ Police station, through their SHO, be directed to Register FIR against the Non Applicants / Proposed Accused, as set out in the Criminal Application No._________, and take action in accordance with law; c)     Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. _____________ Advocate for the Applicants _______ Applicant Verification I, _______,  the  Applicant hereinabove,  do  hereby  solemnly  declare  that what  is  stated  in  Paras ____ are  true  to my own  knowledge, and what  is  stated  in  Paras ______ are based on information and legal advice which I  believe to be true and correct. Solemnly  declared  at  _______                     )   This      Day  of _____, 20___               )  Applicant Before me VAKALATNAMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 (Full title) _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Applicant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused)) To, Registrar General  _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at ________.                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Applicant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused)) LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Applicant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused)) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at ______) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the Applicant Before me Steps after Institution of Application 1.      Hearing of Application; 2.      Dismissal of Application or Issuance of Notice by Court to Respondents; 3.      Service of copy of Application upon Respondents; 4.      Reply of Respondents, if any; 5.      Oral Arguments before the Court / Submission of Written Arguments; 6.      Order.

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.90/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.85/-) 397 , 401 of CrPC Challenging unlawful Rejection of 156(3) Application Section 397: Challenging unlawful Rejection of 156(3) Application Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The Applicant in the 156(3) Application is also the Applicant in 156(3) Application; and the Respondents would be the concerned State, and also the proposed accused. Jurisdiction of Courts: 1.      The Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction. However, Sessions Court must first be approached, despite the fact that if the Applicant loses in the Sessions Court, he cannot file second Revision, although he may adopt any other legal remedy, like Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 or may invoke Writ jurisdiction or Article 227 jurisdiction of High Court. 2.      For Sessions Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be situated within the local jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. 3.      For High Court to exercise Revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates Court must be within its jurisdiction, that is to say, the Magistrate Court must be situated in the State in which High Court exercises its jurisdiction. Material facts to be pleaded: 1.      The allegations made in 156(3) Application, prima facie makes out a cognizable offence against Respondent No.2, justifying an investigation by police; 2.      The allegations  made in 156(3) Application and other evidences and materials, accompanying the said Application clearly discloses a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; 3.      That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material and  evidences which are on record; 4.      That the Ld. Magistrate committed an error in appreciating the material evidences on record; 5.      That the Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record. Limitation period: The Limitation period is 90 days from the date of the impugned order (the order which is under challenge). The time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order is allowed to be deducted while calculating the limitation period. If there is delay in approaching the Court, a condonation Application may be filed alongwith the Revision Application, setting out therein the number of days of delay and the reasons / grounds to condone the delay. Court fee: The Court fee would vary from State to State. In Maharashtra, the Court fee is paid on the basis of number of pages of documents annexed with the Revision Application, and Rs.5/- is charged for every two pages. Compliance to conditions, if any: If applicable: There is an express legal bar engrafted in the CrPC, 1973, or under _______  (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused ) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. INDEX SR.NO  DATE EXHIBIT       PARTICULARS PAGE   NOS 1 Proforma (Roznama) A to D     Application 1 to Vakalatnama (If any) List of Documents            “A” “B” “C” “D” “E” “F” “G” Affidavit in support of the Application _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused ) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. Mr. / Ms._______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person Office Notes, Office Memorunda of Corom. Appendices. Court’s order or Court’s of Judge’s Direction (This page is called proforma as stated in the Index. In sub-ordinate courts, on each of the hearing date, a very brief Note is prepared in respect of each of the matter which are listed on that day. In this Note, the Presiding Judge / Magistrate records  (a) Name of the parties / Advocates who appeared on that day,  (b) Applications or Affidavits or any other document filed, if any filed by any of the parties,  (c) brief direction to both or any of the party to take any step in furtherance of the proceeding,  (d) and next date of hearing along with the recording of next stage of the case. The blank pages are annexed with the Complaint bearing only the short title of the case. The aforesaid brief Note is pasted on this page. This Roznama is very important source of information (for recalling / refreshing) for both the parties as well as for the presiding Judge to acquaint themselves about the past happenings in the case.) BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… (1)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Applicants / (Original Complainants) Versus (1)The State of _____) __________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                                                  (2)________________) __________________) __________________) __________________)                                          .... Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused ) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. THE HUMBLE REVISION APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED 1.      The facts of the case are – (a) (b) (c) (d) 2.      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Order / judgment dated _______Applicant begs to prefer this Revision Application on the grounds set out hereinafter. 3.      Infirmities in the impugned Order: (The Applicant needs to deal with the observations made in the impugned order, and the findings recorded in pursuant thereto, and assailing those observations and findings, either on facts or on law or on both.  Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance Sr no.19). The Parameters laid down by Apex Court for Registration of FIR are – The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana versus BhajanLal (1992). In this case the HC had quashed the FIR. The SC set aside the HC order and held as follows – It may further be noted that, for the registration of FIR u/s 154, the word information does not qualify with the word reasonable or credible. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence, the Police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. Reasonableness or credibility of the said information in not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Also – Gurmito versus State of Punjab 1996 (P & H); RanbirYadav versus State of Bihar 1995 (SC). It is submitted that the Applicant has aptly spelled out the incriminating acts of the proposed accused / Non Applicants in their Criminal Application and submissions made thereafter during that proceedings, and for the sake of brevity do not repeat the same. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT “B” the copy of Criminal Application ______; EXHIBIT “C” the copy of Legal Submissions filed in the said Application. Where in case it is argued that the allegations made in the Application 156(3) prima facie made out a cognizable offence, then, with the aid of table of offence stated hereinafter, it may be demonstrated that the acts and omissions attributed towards the present Applicants clearly satisfies principal ingredient of each of the offences alleged of. 4.       The Applicant further says that the table hereinbelow, in the first column lay down certain ingredients of the applicable offence / facts to be proved, and, then in the next column, spells out the facts alleged against the Respondent No.2, clearly indicating that offence has been committed by Respondent No.2. (Therefore, the Applicant has to set out in the table, against each of the ingredient, the relevant portion of his Application / pleading, which would demonstrate that the requirement of respective ingredient of the offence has been duly met, or in the alternative, the Applicant may mention the Para number of his Application which sets out the factual aspect of the present case indicating the existence of the particular respective ingredient of the offence.) 5.      It is submitted that after the registration of FIR, the Police conduct an investigation under chapter XII of the code. The police are empowered to perform several acts including to take statements of witnesses u/s 161 of the code; to conduct searches and seizures u/s 100, 165 and 102 of the code; to call for the production of documents and other things u/s 91, 94 of the code; require the attendance of witnesses u/s 160 of the code. The Applicant most respectfully submits that the object of every investigation is to find out whether the offence alleged have been committed, and if so, who has committed it. The nature and the attributes of an FIR: The Apex Court in the case of Rotash versus State of Rajasthan (2007), inter alia, observed to say that – The First Information Report, as is well known, is not an encyclopedia of the entire case.  It need not contain all the details. (Para 15). 6.      Therefore, a strong case for the investigation by Police was made out in respect of the offence of ________ etc, committed by the proposed accused / Non Applicants in the 156(3) Application. 7.      GROUNDS FOR RELIEF (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) a)     The allegations made in 156(3) Application, prima facie makes out a cognizable offence against the Respondent No.2; b)     The allegations  made in 156(3) Application and other evidences amd materials, accompanying the said Application clearly discloses a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police; c)     That the impugned Order is contrary to law and contrary to material facts and evidences which are on record; d)     That the Ld. Magistrate committed an error of law in appreciating the material evidences on record; e)     That the Ld. Magistrate failed to appreciate the credible material evidence on record… f)      Any other ground as deem necessary in the facts of the case, including the ground of jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court to pass impugned order. 8.      There could be many other grounds on which the impugned order may said to be bad in law. Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance sr no.19). 9.      The main points to be emphasized upon: 10. The Applicant further submits that only a proper investigation of the case would reveal the culpability of the proposed Accused. The Applicant therefore submits that gross miscarriage of justice would occasion if the reliefs prayed are not granted. 11. The Applicant submits that it is in the interest of the civilized communities that crimes should not go unpunished. Moreover, a crime is a wrong which the State deems injurious to the public at large, and the law must reach on all miscreants who take the laws of the land for granted. 12. Jurisdiction of the Court: A Para narrating facts that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Application. 13. The Applicant states that no other Revision Application, except the present one, has been filed against the impugned Order, before this Hon’ble Court. 14. The Applicant craves leave to refer and rely upon certain exhibited documents, and would rely upon authorities, in support of Applicant’s case. 15. The Applicant craves leave to add, amend, delete any of the foregoing Paras / grounds, with the leave of this Hon’ble Court. 16. That the present Revision Application has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 17. The Applicant therefore, most humbly prays – a)     That the impugned Order dated ______ be quashed and set aside; b)     That ______ Police station, through their SHO, be directed to Register FIR against the Non Applicants / Proposed Accused, as set out in the Criminal Application No._________; c)     Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit having regard to facts and circumstances of the case. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY FOR ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the Applicant do hereby state on solemn affirmation that what is stated in the paragraphs ___ to ____ is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in paragraphs ______ to ______ is based on the information, belief and legal advice, and I believe the same to be true and correct. (Solemnly affirmed at _________) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate Before me. VAKALATNAMA BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused ) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. To, Registrar / Registrar General The Sessions Court / _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at Mumbai.                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused ) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application BEFORE THE HON’BLE SESSIONS COURT / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ AT CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.            OF 20__ IN …………. / / ………… _______________                                                  …..Applicants (Original Complainants) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original proposed Accused ) In the matter of Revision Application u/s 397 / 401 of CrPC in respect of impugned Order dated ____                  passed in _____ by Ld. Magistrate of                    Court at…………. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the Applicant Before me.

O.22 R.9: Application to set aside abatement of Suit The accrual of cause of action to file this Application: Where the Plaintiff or the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff fails to take out appropriate Application within 90 days from the date of their knowledge of the death of the Plaintiff / Defendant, as the case may be, and the Suit abates as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff or the person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff may make an Application under this Rule, praying to set aside the abatement or dismissal of the Suit, by showing cogent and reasonable grounds due to which they were prevented from adopting appropriate proceeding in that behalf. The Application may be taken in the form of a Notice of Motion / Notice / Exhibit / Chamber Summons, as may be prescribed under the applicable provision of law, and duly verified by the Applicant. A broad approach to drafting of any Application may be undertaken in three chronological “Heads” – (1) Reliefs prayed for / claimed: It is of central importance that any Relief prayed / claimed for, must be duly articulated, keeping in mind (a) the nature of jurisdiction being exercised by the court having regard to the nature of Application which is sought to be filed / moved; (b) the rights / interest claimed by the Applicant; (c) the obligations and liabilities of the opposite party. (2) Grounds for Reliefs prayed for / claimed; (both factual and legal): Grounds for Reliefs prayed for / claimed, implies (a) the essence / conclusion of material facts or proposition of facts which supports the reliefs prayed for / claimed; and (b) the provision of law / judgments of the Apex Court or High Courts, which supports the reliefs prayed for / claimed. (3) Material facts of the case: Narration of material facts thereby substantiating the grounds on which the reliefs are claimed. O.22 Rule 9: Effect of abatement or dismissal (1) Where a suit abates or is dismissed under this Order, no fresh suit shall be brought on the same cause of action. (2) The plaintiff or the person claiming to be the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or the assignee or the receiver in the case of an insolvent plaintiff may apply for an order to set aside the abatement or dismissal; and if it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit, the Court shall set aside the abatement or dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit. (3) The provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877) , shall apply to applications under sub-rule (2). Explanation.-Nothing in this rule shall be construed as barring, in any later suit, a defence based on the facts which constituted the cause of action in the suit which had abated or had been dismissed under this Order. Download Word Document In English. (Rs.10/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.10/-)

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.115/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.110/-) Section 482 Unlawful dismissal of Complaint sec 256 CrPC, 1973 Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The original complainant would be the Applicant herein; and the concerned State would be the Respondents alongwith the persons who were made Accused in the complaint. Jurisdiction of Courts: The High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain these Applications. 1.      Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, recognizes the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 2.      Some of the landmark rulings of Apex Court which illustrate the scope and powers of High Courts to grant relief under this jurisdiction. Para 18: In State of Haryana & Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (respondents) [1990], this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are: (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 uncontroverted 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 mala fide 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." 3.      In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka [2008], the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4.      In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] this Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 5.      The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – [1989 Patna HC]. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, the Apex Court held as under [1989] …..When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]" (emphasis supplied). Material facts to be pleaded: Section 256 of CrPC, 1973, stipulates that if the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader of by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. 1.      The limited issue in these Application is to satisfy the Court that the order of dismissal of complaint and acquittal of accused, due to absence of complainant on the date of hearing, is harsh / bad in law / against the interest of justice. The other grounds could be – 2.      That the circumstances were such which were beyond the control of the Applicant / complainant to remain present on the date of hearing; 3.      That the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing was not necessary, and the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have dispensed with the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant and should have proceeded with the case; 4.      That the complainant was duly represented by Advocate for conducting the prosecution and the trial was not in any manner frustrated due to the absence of Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing; 5.      That in the interest of justice, the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have adjourned the matter instead of taking a harsh step of dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused, especially when the offences alleged against the accused are grave in nature; Limitation period to initiate Criminal Complaint u/s200: There is no limitation period. Court fee: No Court fee. Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. Draft Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Complainant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused INDEX Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit Page No. 1 Synopsis, Authorities, Points to be urged 2 Memo of Application 4 Impugned Order of the Ld. Magistrate “A” 5 Impugned Order of the Ld. Sessions Judge “B” 6 “C” 7 “D” 8 “E” 9 “F” 10 Vakalatnama IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Complainant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) SYNOPSIS Sr.No . Date Particulars Exhibit 1 Complaint filed by Applicants 2 3 4 5 6 Impugned Order THE ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Any other as may be applicable. THE AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED Judgment at the time of hearing. THE POINTS TO BE URGED a)     That the circumstances were such which were beyond the control of the Applicant / complainant to remain present on the date of hearing; b)     That the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing was not necessary, and the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have dispensed with the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant and should have proceeded with the case; c)     That the complainant was duly represented by Advocate for conducting the prosecution and the trial was not in any manner frustrated due to the absence of Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing; d)     That in the interest of justice, the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have adjourned the matter instead of taking a harsh step of dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused, especially when the offences alleged against the accused are grave in nature; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20__ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 IN THE MATTER OF Sections 482 and ____ of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; AND Sections ____ of the IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881;                 AND Impugned Order passed by Ld. Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Dismissing the u/s 256 of CrPC, 1973 (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Complainant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVENAMED                                                              MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH. 1.      A very brief introduction of the parties to the case. 2.      The brief facts of the case which are germane to the present controversy, are – (a)    (b)    (c)  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Order dated ______ Applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court recognized u/s 482of CrPC, 1973, on the grounds set out hereinafter. 3.      Infirmities in the impugned Order: (The Applicant needs to deal with the observations made in the impugned order, and the findings recorded in pursuant thereto, and assailing those observations and findings, either on facts or on law or on both.  Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance LG19). 4.      Other submissions, if any. 5.      Grounds for Relief: (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) – a)     That the circumstances were such which were beyond the control of the Applicant / complainant to remain present on the date of hearing; b)     That the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing was not necessary, and the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have dispensed with the personal attendance of the Applicant / complainant and should have proceeded with the case; c)     That the complainant was duly represented by Advocate for conducting the prosecution and the trial was not in any manner frustrated due to the absence of Applicant / complainant on the said date of hearing; d)     That in the interest of justice, the Ld. Magistrate, in the judicious exercise of discretion, should have adjourned the matter instead of taking a harsh step of dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused, especially when the offences alleged against the accused are grave in nature; 6.      The Applicants submit that there has been no delay in preferring this Application. 7.      Jurisdiction Clause: The Applicants state that the impugned Order is passed by______ at ______Court at _____;. The Applicants states that, therefore, this Hon’ble Court can safely invoke their jurisdiction to entertain the present Application and grant reliefs as prayed; and pass authoritative Orders against the Respondents. 8.      The Applicants further submit that Applicants have not filed any other proceedings in any Court of law or in the Supreme Court, against the Respondents herein, in respect of the reliefs prayed in this Application. 9.      The Applicants, with the leave of the Hon'ble Court, be allowed to add / amend / delete any clause in the present Application. 10. The Applicants therefore, most respectfully pray as under – (a)  To quash and set aside the impugned Order dated _____; (b)  The Ld. Magistrate be directed to restore the Complaint; (c)  To pass such other and further Order and to grant such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. _____________ Advocate for the Applicants _______ Applicant Verification I, _______,  the  Applicant hereinabove,  do  hereby  solemnly  declare  that what  is  stated  in  Paras ____ are  true  to my own  knowledge, and what  is  stated  in  Paras ______ are based on information and legal advice which I  believe to be true and correct. Solemnly  declared  at  ______          )  This      Day  of _____, 20___               )  Applicant Before me VAKALATNAMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Complainant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) To, Registrar General  _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at ________                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Complainant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Complainant) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Accused) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at ______) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the Applicant Before me Steps after Institution of Application 1.      Hearing of Application; 2.      Dismissal of Application or Issuance of Notice by Court to Respondents; 3.      Service of copy of Application upon Respondents; 4.      Reply of Respondents, if any; 5.      Oral Arguments before the Court / Submission of Written Arguments; 6.      Order.

Download Word Document In English. (Rs.120/-) Download PDF Document In Marathi. (Rs.115/-) Section 482: Application u/s 464 and 465 CrPC, 1973 Instructions for drafting Parties to the Application: The Accused / convict would be the Applicant herein; and the concerned State would be the Respondents, alongwith the complainant, if there was a prosecution on a private complaint. Jurisdiction of Courts: The High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain these Applications. 1.      Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, recognizes the inherent powers of the High Courts to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 2.      Some of the landmark rulings of Apex Court which illustrate the scope and powers of High Courts to grant relief under this jurisdiction. Para 18: In State of Haryana & Ors. (appellant) v. Bhajan Lai & Ors. (respondents) [1990], this Court after referring to various decisions of this Court, enumerated various categories of cases by way of illustration wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised by the High Court. They are: (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 uncontroverted 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 mala fide 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." 3.      In Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka [2008], the Supreme Court, among other things, said, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 4.      In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] this Court summarized some of the categories of cases where inherent power should be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding against the accused, stating: (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. Want of sanction; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 5.      The inherent powers of the HC is a wide and wholesome power. If the court has to examine and determine whether the continuation of criminal proceedings would be just or would be improper, there is no reason why there should be any limitation on the powers of the court to look into all the materials available on record. There is nothing in law to place any such limitation on the powers of the HC. Surendra Kumar Yadav versus State of Bihar – [1989 Patna HC]. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Muradali Khan and others, the Apex Court held as under [1989] …..When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the .accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, RupanDeol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa.]" (emphasis supplied). Material facts to be pleaded: 1.      The facts showing that “Charge” was not formally framed in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant herein, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused thereby to the Applicant herein. 2.      The facts showing that there was error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charges in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant herein, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused thereby to the Applicant herein. 3.      The facts showing that there was misjoinder of charges, in respect of certain offences, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant herein, in respect of those offences, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused thereby to the Applicant herein. 4.      The facts showing that there was error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or there was error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, and failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby to the Applicant herein. 5.      The facts showing that no valid charge could be framed against the Applicant herein, having regards to the facts of the case and having regard to certain facts stands proved. Limitation period to initiate Criminal Complaint u/s200: There is no limitation period. Court fee: No Court fee. Verification Clause: 1.      Whereas Parties to the litigation makes series of submissions and allegations against each other, it is a basic requirement of law that Parties must specify in the Verification clause, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of their pleadings, as what facts are which are true to their own knowledge; and what facts are based on the information, belief and legal advice. 2.      Further, Section 297(2) of CrPC, 1973, among other things, stipulates that whoever party is obliged to file an Affidavit in any of the proceedings before the Court, the said Party is obliged to specify in his said Affidavit, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of his affidavit, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such other facts he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent is obliged to state the grounds of such belief. In the absence of such compliance, a proceedings cannot be said to be duly instituted, and is vulnerable to challenge to be dismissed. Affidavit is required to be filed in Complaints filed u/s 200 of CrPC, 1973, and in other proceedings initiated before the Magistrates Court, Sessions Court or before the High Court. 3.      The person verifying his pleadings is obliged to sign. The Person verifying is also required to state the date and the place at which it was signed. 4.      This requirement of law is based on the principle that whoever comes before the Court, must come with the clean hands and also must come with certain facts and his case should not be based on general, vague or speculative facts. 5.      Therefore, the law requires that whatever is stated by the Party in his proceedings, he must clarify that which statement is made from his own knowledge and which statement is made, based on other information, or based on legal advice. 6.      This is significant from another perspective, where in cases, if the submissions made by the Party were turned out to be false, then, the said Party may be held guilty of perjury / contempt of the Court for knowingly making false statement and misleading the Court, in cases, where he had verified the concerned false Paras emanating from his own knowledge. 7.      The profound object of this verification clause therefore is to prevent or cease frivolous submissions / Applications. 8.      The consequences of not verifying correctly may entail penal consequences. The Apex Court, comprising three Judges Bench, in the case of S.R. Ramaraj Versus Special Court, Bombay, 2003, have inter alia, observed that, “A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law”. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______- CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) INDEX Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit Page No. 1 Synopsis, Authorities, Points to be urged 2 Memo of Application 4 “A” 5 “B” 6 “C” 7 “D” 8 “E” 9 “F” 10 Vakalatnama IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) SYNOPSIS Sr.No . Date Particulars Exhibit 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The IPC / Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Any other as may be applicable. THE AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED Judgment at the time of hearing. THE POINTS TO BE URGED a)     It is a case where “Charge” was not formally framed in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or b)     It is a case where there was error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charges in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or c)     It is a case where there was misjoinder of charges, in respect of certain offences, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of those offences, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or d)     It is a case where there was error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, and failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; or e)     It is a case where no valid charge could be framed against the Applicant herein having regards to the facts of the case and having regard to certain facts stands proved. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20__ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 IN THE MATTER OF Sections 482 and ____ of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; AND Sections ____ of the IPC AND Impugned Order passed by Ld. Magistrate in Criminal Complaint (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ________ THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANTS ABOVENAMED                                                              MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH. 1.      A very brief introduction of the parties to the case. 2.      The brief facts of the case which are germane to the present controversy, are – (a)    (b)    (c)  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned Order dated ____ Applicant invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court recognized u/s 482of CrPC, 1973, on the grounds set out hereinafter. 3.      Infirmities in the impugned Order: (The Applicant needs to deal with the observations made in the impugned order, and the findings recorded in pursuant thereto, and assailing those observations and findings, either on facts or on law or on both.  Please refer (Link of Illegal / perverse orders of the Court, grievance LG 19). 4.      Other submissions, if any. 5.      The Applicants submit that Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands that “No person shall be deprived of his life and liberty” except according to the procedure established by law. In Criminal jurisprudence, the only safeguard available to an innocent person is the “scrupulous and strict adherence” to the procedure prescribed in concluding the “guilt of the accused person”. Thus, whenever, any of the “prescribed procedure” is not “duly followed and complied with”, and where such non compliance, expressly or by necessary implication, frustrate the personal liberty of the accused person, the violence to fundamental right of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is imminent. And therefore the impugned Order of the Ld. Magistrate is in breach of fundamental right of the Applicant Nos.3, 5 and 6, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6.      The Applicants submit that institution of any judicial proceedings against a person carries an implicit degree of coercion and no judicial proceedings should be triggered at the whims and fancies of the litigants, which otherwise amounts to sheer harassment, embarrassment, and substantial expenses to the person saddled with unwarranted litigation and most importantly, causes the waste of the precious time of the court in hearing the frivolous and meritless litigations. 7.      Grounds for Relief: (as may be applicable to the facts of the case) – a)     It is a case where “Charge” was not formally framed in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or b)     It is a case where there was error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charges in respect of an offence, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of the said offence, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or c)     It is a case where there was misjoinder of charges, in respect of certain offences, and a finding, sentence or order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Applicant, in respect of those offences, and, in fact, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused thereby; or d)     It is a case where there was error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, and failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; or e)     It is a case where no valid charge could be framed against the Applicant herein having regards to the facts of the case and having regard to certain facts stands proved. 8.      The Applicants submit that there has been no delay in preferring this Application. 9.      Jurisdiction Clause: The Applicants state that the impugned Order is passed by______ at ______Court at _____;. The Applicants states that, therefore, this Hon’ble Court can safely invoke their jurisdiction to entertain the present Application and grant reliefs as prayed; and pass authoritative Orders against the Respondents. 10. The Applicants further submit that Applicants have not filed any other proceedings in any Court of law or in the Supreme Court, against the Respondents herein, in respect of the reliefs prayed in this Application. 11. The Applicants, with the leave of the Hon'ble Court, be allowed to add / amend / delete any clause in the present Application. 12. The Applicants therefore, most respectfully pray as under – a)     To call for the records and proceedings of this Case from the Ld. Magistrates Court / Sessions Court; b)     To quash and set aside the impugned finding / Sentence / Order dated _____; c)     Be pleased to pass order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge. d)     Be pleased to direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner the Hon’ble Court thinks fit; e)     Be pleased to quash the conviction recorded against the Applicant herein; f)      Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application, the operation of impugned finding / Sentence / Order be stayed; g)     The impugned finding, sentence be reversed or altered to the extent __________ ; h)     To pass such other and further Order and to grant such further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. _____________ Advocate for the Applicants _______ Applicant Verification I, _______,  the  Applicant hereinabove,  do  hereby  solemnly  declare  that what  is  stated  in  Paras ____ are  true  to my own  knowledge, and what  is  stated  in  Paras ______ are based on information and legal advice which I  believe to be true and correct. Solemnly  declared  at  Mumbai                      )  This      Day  of _____, 2015                 )  Applicant Before me VAKALATNAMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _______ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 (Full title) _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) To, Registrar General  _____ High Court Sir / Madam,              I / We,  ____________, the Applicant/s, in the above case, do hereby appoint Mr. ____________, Advocate, to act, appear and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, I / we have set and subscribed my / our hands to this writing at ________.                         Dated this     day of ______ 20____                                                                                                 __________ Applicant Accepted, Mr.______________ Advocate for ______                      ___________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________ Mobile No:________ Email Id:_________ Adv. Code: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT __________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 1.      Exhibit “A”:  2.      Exhibit “B”: 3.      Exhibit “C”:   4.      Exhibit “D”:  5.      Exhibit “E”:   6.      The documents referred and relied upon in the Application; 7.      The documents in the possession of the Respondents; 8.      Any other document, with the leave of the Hon’ble Court. _______________ Advocate for the Applicant OR Applicant – In – Person The copy Exhibits / documents annexed in the Application IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT _________ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _________OF 20___ Application u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 _______________                                      …..Applicants (Original Accused) Versus (1) The State of Maharashtra (2) ________________                                          ….. Respondents (Resp No.2 being the Original Complainant) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION                         I, ______Adult, aged about___ Indian Inhabitant of _______ / authorized signatory, the Applicant herein residing at _______ do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under – 1.      I say that I am conversant with the facts of the present Application I am therefore able to depose to the same. I have filed the above Application seeking prayers more particularly mentioned in the Application. 2.      I, for the sake of brevity, repeat and reiterate each and every statement, submissions and contentions made in the Application as if the same are specifically set out herein and form part and parcel of this affidavit. I affirm and verify the correctness of the each and every statement, submissions and contentions as set out in the Application. 3.      I further say that, facts which are set out in the Application at Paras ______ are based on information and belief and I believe it to be true, on the ground that _________. ____________ Applicant ___________ Advocate for the Applicant VERIFICATION I, ________________the abovenamed Applicant do hereby verify the contents of what is stated in the aforesaid paragraphs ___ to ____ are true and correct to my knowledge and I believe it to be true and correct; and nothing stated herein is false and nothing has been concealed.  (Solemnly affirmed at ______) This       day of           20            ) Deponent Identified / Interpreted / Explained By me _____________ Advocate for the Applicant Before me Steps after Institution of Application 1.      Urgent Hearing of Application, if any preferred by the Applicant, for obtaining Interim / Ad-Interim Relief; 2.      Refusal or grant of Interim / Ad-Interim Reliefs by the Court; 3.      Dismissal of Application or Issuance of Notice by Court to Respondents; 4.      Service of copy of Application upon Respondents; 5.      Reply of Respondents, if any; 6.      Oral Arguments before the Court / Submission of Written Arguments; 7.      Order.