CRIMINAL PLEADINGS

EXERCISE-1

COMPLAINT

FACTS

Mr. Arjun Tendulkar assaulted Miss. Shruthi Hassan near Bus Stand on 12th

May, 2018 at 9.00 am, motivated by ill will. Miss Shruthi Hassan intends to file a

complaint in court under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code.

1
 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TIRUPATI AT TIRUPATI.

Criminal Complaint No. 13 OF 2012

Miss.Kriti, D/o. Harihar Singh

aged about 21 years, resident at 43/790,K.S.

Road, Rajampet, Kadapa District. Tirupati.

……... Complainant

VERSUS

Mr.Zaheer , S/o.Sunil,

aged about 26 years, resident at 7/90,

T. Nagar, Rajampet, Kadapa District, Tirupati.

........…….. Accused.

Police Station- Rajampet

Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

The complainant Shruthi Hassan most respectfully sheweth,

(1) That complainant is studying 3rd year of B.Tech., in CUSB University,

Tirupati, she knew the accused well.

2
(2) That the accused had been behind her for last 6 months, but she never cared

him. He wrote a love letter to her and she admonished him, then one day he

pulled her upper saree in the class room and on her report he suspended

college for a month. This happened on 1st of May 2012.

(3) That on 12th of May 2012, she came to Tirupati Bus Station along her friends

Yogi, Anitha, Valli to bid forewell to the hockey team of her college going to

Visakhapatnam in Tirumala Express. She came out of the station and went to

the Bus Station at about 8.00 pm along with her friends, she found the accused

near auto stand.

(4) That, while she was bargaining auto the accused came there and abused her

that, she was responsible for his suspension from the college, tried to grab her

right hand. When she protested he immediately stabbed on her left and right

cheeks and also on her back with his fists, she cried loudly and the auto

rickshaw drivers and passengers handed over him to police constable near the

Bus Station. But he did not take the accused to police station that it was a non-

cognizable offence. Hence thus complaint was made directly.

Prayer

The complaint therefore prays that the honourable court may be pleased to

take cognizance of the offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code and

punish him according to law.

Date: 1 May 2012 Miss.Kriti

Place: Tirupati Complainant

3
 EXERCISE-2 (I)
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FOR MAINTAINANCE UNDER
SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898.

IN THE COURT OF SECOND ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

TIRUPATI

Criminal Appeal No.196 OF 2018

Miss.Kriti, D/o. Harihar Singh,

aged about 21 years, resident at 43/790,K.S.

Road, Rajampet, Kadapa District. Tirupati.

…… Petitioner

VERSUS

Arun Prakash, Mr. S/o. Satya Prakash,

aged about 26 years, resident at 7/90,

T. Nagar, Rajampet,

Kadapa District, Tirupati.

….. Respondent

(Under Section 125 and 128 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898).

GROUNDS

(1) That a lawful marriage between respondent and applicant on 15th of December 2017

at Tirupati.

4
 (2) That just after marriage the respondent along with his family stated to demand dowry.

Initially, the applicant’s parents managed to meet the demands. But, later on the greed

increased of the respondent’s family took a revengeful attitude.

(3) That the petitioner submits that he filed the above appeal for grant of separate

maintenance on 31st of December 2017 against the respondent seeking a sum of Rs.

5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to be awarded

(4) That the Honorable Court, after due contest, by order dated 6th of January 2018

granted maintenance to the petitioner directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.

4000/- ( Rupees Four thousand only) per month to the petitioner from 1st of January

2018 and keep praying in future.

(5) The petitioner submits that, the respondent has not paid any maintenance so far, and

these disobeyed the order of this Honorable court.

(6) The petitioner further submits that the arrears of maintenance from 1st of January

2017 to 31st of March 2018 to Rs. 60000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only).

(7) It is therefore prayed that the honorable court may be pleased to commit the

respondent to prison for such kind has the law required or till he paid the arrears of

maintenance.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed to pass an order directing the respondent to pay to the applicant

Rs.60000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) per month as maintenance

Date: 1 April 2018 Miss.Kriti

Place: Tirupati Petitioner

5
 (II)
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FOR TRANSFER OF
CRIMINAL CASES

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, RANCHI AT RANCHI

Criminal Application no. 115 of 2016

In the matter of;

Satya Prakash, son of HariharVinod Singh

aged about 21 years, resident at

H/No.167, Indraprastha Colony, Ranchi .

…………. …………………Applicant

VERSUS

Rajan Singh, son of Singh,

Aged about 25 years, resident at

H/No.289 Kanke Road, Ranchi.

………. …………………..Respondent

Application for transfer under section 408, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Respectfully Sheweth,

1. That the criminal case on the complaint of the petitioner was registered vide FIR No.

356 dated 21st of December 2016 under section 406 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1898. and 420,170 Indian Penal Code,1860, P.S Kanke, District Ranchi

and the challan was submitted in the court on 24th of October 2016 at Judicial

Magistrate Ranchi.

6
 2. That the criminal case is pending in the court of Mr. Amar Singh Magistrate Ranchi

who is recently appointed at Ranchi but it has been observed that a close relative of

accused Rahul Shreeraj is a close friend of the said judge, and he usually came in the

court and meet the judge in his chamber.

3. That the complainant/ petitioner is not satisfied on the said judge and is suspicious

about the activities of his friend, that he will approach to the judge and decision will

be against the petitioner.

4. That the accused is absent and absconder from the concern court and it is reported that

he is serving at abroad and will not come in the court and his friend is trying to acquit

him from the charge on the basis of relation with the concern judge.

5. That the complainant has no confidence on the concern judge that’s why this

application for transfer for criminal case is filled.

6. That the complainant/ petitioner is regularly appearing in the court but the accused

party is not attending the court being a source full terms.

PRAYER

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the present case pending in the court of Mr. Amar

Singh,Ranchi may kindly be transferred to any other Magistrate at Ranchi in the interest

of justice.

Date: 25 December 2016 Satya Prakash

Place: Ranchi Applleant

Mr. Ajith Singh

Counsel of the Appellant

7
 EXERCISE-3

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

Facts

M. Bhaskar, aged about 60 years V.A.O. (Village Administrative Officer) of Peruru Village,

resident at House no. 24/2790, MG Road, Chandigarh, is put up for trial for an offence

Under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Criminal Breach of Trust by a public servant.

The prosecution case against him is that he failed to send the Government Treasury an

amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) out of the amount he had collect as

land revenue. An offence under Section 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a non-bailable

offence. Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under sec 409 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8
 IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Case No. 149 of 2011

State

VERSUS

Jayantilal , son of Sanjay Bhasakar,

aged about 60 years, resident at
House resident at House no. 24/2790,
MG Road, Chandigarh ……….Applicant

F.I.R. No.- 054

Application for Bail under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

Police Station: Chandigarh, dated 8th of April 2009.

Most respectfully submitted as under,

On behalf the above name accused, I beg to apply for his release on bail on

following reasons:

GROUNDS

(1) The accused was arrested on 5th of November 2011 by the Chandigarh Police on

a charge under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. the main complaint against

him being that he being the V.A.O. (Village Administrative Officer) of Peruru

village and as such being a public servant failed to maintain and show accounts

for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Government

Treasury.

(2) Though offence is non-bailable taking into consideration the fact that, the

amount involved is only Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) it is highly

probable that there must be some honest mistake on the part of the accused for

no one would think of misappropriating such a small amount as Three

Thousands.

9
 (3) The accused is a respectable old man of 60 years and is certainly not going to

abscond. Moreover his family is resident in the village for over 40 years. His

pensions and provident fund all came to more than Rs. 7000/- (Rupees Seven

Thousand only) and the missed amount will be compensate by the accused soon.

Due notice of this applications is given to the Police.

PRAYER

Therefore, pray that the said accused may be granted bail and released from

the policy custody where he is for the last 45 days.

Place: Chandigarh Jayantilal

Date- 15/12/2011 Applicant/Accused

Ajit Singh

Counsel of the Applicant

10
 EXERCISE 4 (I)
MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 101 OF 2010

Sanjay Kapoor, S/o Rajendra Kapoor,

Kuntivilla Apartment, Ambedkar Path,

Bailey Road, Patna-800014 …..Accused/Applicant

VERSUS

State of Bihar …...…… Respondent

For the following among grounds the Appellant here in begs to prefer this

appeal against the Judgment dated of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 of judicial

Magistrate, First Class. Patna in criminal case No: 101 of 2010, convicting the

appellant under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo, 6

months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- (Rupees Three Hundred

only).

Sir,

The appellant most respectfully submits the appeal on the following grounds.

GROUNDS

1. That the conviction is bad in law.

11
2. That the Judgement of the lower court offends Section 367 of the the Code of

Criminal Procedure,1973..

3. That the learned magistrate should have inferred from the conduct of your

petitioner deposed to by the investigating officer, that he was absolutely straight

forward in his dealings. The conduct of your petitioner as has been deposited to

by P.Ws. No. 52 and 4 would hardly be consistent with his guilty knowledge.

4. That the learned Magistrate should have taken into accent the representation

made to him by the alleged thief.

5. That the learned Magistrate should have bellered that the articles were purchased

bonafide for proper market price and inferred from that the absence of any guilty

knowledge of your petitioner.

6. That the articles sold were common articles of everyday use to be found in

possession of people of even modest means.

7. That the learned Magistrate should have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.s No:

56 and 7 who identified the parker pen and the Wallet alleged to belong to Sri

Anand and should have hold that they were ordinary, common articles incapable

of identification in the absence of any special mark or name.

8. That the learned Magistrate should have believed the defence witnesses who

disposed to having seen the articles sold to the appellant some five months prior

to the incident.

12
 9. That the Lower Court ought to have given the benefit of responsible doubt to the

appellant and acquitted him.

PRAYER

In the circumstances stated above, the petitioner prays that your honour may

be pleased to admit the appeal, call for the record.

Release your petitioner pending disposal of the appeal on bail and after

hearing the case, set aside the order of conviction and sentence or pass such other

order as the ends of Justice may call for and your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall

ever pray.

Place: Patna Sanjay Kapoor

Date: 21.09.2010 Applleant

Ajit Singh

Counsel of the Appellant

13
 (II)
MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHIEF JUSTICE AT JHARKHAND

Criminal Appeal no. 149 of 2012

Under section 377, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Jagdeeshan Singh, S/o Ram Singh,

Resdident at, H/no.201, Shanti Vihar,

Ambedkar Path, Bailey Road, Ranchi, 834009. …… Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Jharkhand …… Respondent

Appeal against order of the learned

Session Judge 149 of 2009 in

Session Trail no 114 of 2011 in

State of Jharkhandr v. Harilal Jagdeeshan

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his companion Judges of High Court. The appellant most

respectfully submits that the appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Session judge

aforesaid on the following amongst other ground of appeal.

GROUNDS

1. Because the judgment or order of the learned Session Judge is illegal and against the

evidence on record.

2. Because the conviction and the sentence passed are against the law and against the

weight of the evidence on record.

3. Because the conviction and sentence are not maintainable in law and facts on record.

14
 PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the conviction and sentence

passed against accused person may be set aside and the accused be acquitted.

Place- Ranchi Jagdeeshan

Singh

Date- 14/05/2011 Applleant

Ajit Singh

Counsel of the Appellant

15
 EXERCISE-5

REVISION APPLICATION (I)

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSION JUDGE, AT PATNA

Criminal Revision no- 149 of 2016

Under Section- 397, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Lal Bahadur, S/o Karan Singh,

Resident at, H/no.102, Ambedkar Path,

Bailey Road, Patna – 800014 …...….. Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Bihar ……... Respondent

The Revision Petition against the Order dated 12/06/2016 passed by the court of Add.

District Magistrate in Criminal case no 149 of 2009 titled as Raghubar Prasad v/s State of

Bihar.

Sir,

The petitioner above named most respectfully submits this revision, petition against the

order aforesaid on the following amongst order-

GROUNDS

1. Because the order passed by the learned Magistrate is incorrect, illegal in the manner

of giving order, recorded and passed.

16
 2. Because the order of the learned Magistrate aforesaid is illegal and against the facts

on record.

3. Because the proceeding before the Court of Magistrate are irregular due to the

fallowing reason:-

(i) The Learned Lower Court did not record statement of all witnesses tendered

by the petitioner accused.

(ii) Also, did not appreciated the evidence of petitioner.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the record of the criminal case no 149 of 2016

State of Bihar v/s Raghubar Prasad be called for examined and the revision petition may be

allowed and the order passed therein to be set aside. It is further prayed that the sentence may

be suspended pending the criminal revision in this court and the accused petitioner be

released on bail.

Place- Patna Lal Bahadur Ajit Singh

Date- 18/10/2016 Appellant Advocate

17
 REVISION APPLICATION (II)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF HYDERABABD, AT HYDERABAD

Criminal Revision no. 211 of 2012

(Under sec 397, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

Vishal Singh, Son of Ram Singh,

residing at House Number 287,

Nacharam, Hyderabad

…….. Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Andhra Pradesh …. Respondent

In the matter of revision against the order dated 30th of January 2011 passed

by the Session Judge, Hdyderabad in Criminal case no. 140 of 2010, State of Andhra

Pradesh v. Vishal Singh..

To

His lordship the Chief Justice and his companion judge of the said honourable Court.

That the learned session judge convicted the applicant and one Mukesh Rao

under the mentioned section and sentenced him to undergo Vigorous imprisonment

for a period of four month and to pay a five of Rs.100 or in default to undergo further

rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

18
 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, your petitioner begs to more the

honourable court in its Revisional Jurisdiction on the following.

GROUNDS

1. That the order of the lower court is against law.

2. That the learned presidency magistrate erect in believing the complaints who

were interested witness.

3. That the learned presidency magistrate was wrong in dis-believing the two

respectable and independent witnesses examined on behalf of the defence.

4. The learned magistrate has erred in not complying with the mandatory provisions

of the Cr. P.C. whereby an opportunity to explain away the circumstances

appearing against them was refused.

The learned magistrate has not maintained a full record of the evidence and hence certain

admissions by the prosecution given in their cross examination are not available.

PRAYER

The petitioner therefore prays that your lordship may be graciously pleased to

call for the record of the case and issue a rule upon the presidency.

Judge Session court and upon the opposite party to show cause why the

aforesaid, order complained of should not be vacated and to release the petitioner on

bail pending the disposal of this revision applications and your lordships may be

pleased to pass such other order or orders as the circumstances of the case demand.

And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.

19
Place-Hyderabad Vishal Singh Ajit Singh

Date- 20/02/2012 Petitioner Advocate

20
21