BEFORE THE HON’BLE ___ ADDL.

SESSIONS JUDGE,

CRIMINAL COURT, DINDOSHI

AT MUMBAI

F.I.R. NO. ___ OF 2017

_________________________________ …APPLICANT

/ACCUSED

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT

THROUGH JUHU POLICE STATION

APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE

OF THE ACCUSED

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

The Applicant herein craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to

most humbly state and submit that:

DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT AND SUBJECT F.I.R. -

1. The Applicant is a successful businessman and does not have

any criminal antecedents to his discredit.The Applicant is a

law abiding citizen of India having his residential address as

 mentioned in the cause title of the present Application. The

Applicant has been arraigned as an accused in the First

Information Report being Criminal Case No. ___ of 2017 dated

________________ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said FIR’).

2. The said FIR, which discloses the alleged commission of

offences under sections 354, 323, 504 and 427 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the alleged

offences’), was registered with the Juhu Police Station at the

instance of a certain ________________________ (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Complainant’). Annexed hereto and marked

as Annexure A is a copy of the said FIR.

3. The said FIR was registered on the basis of an entirely fictional

and concocted representation of events made by the

Complainant to the Juhu Police Station. There is absolutely no

grain of truth in any of the baseless allegations levelled against

the Applicant by the Complainant.

4. The Applicant is filing this petition seeking his discharge from

the said FIR.

5. The alleged chain of events recorded in the said FIR, which

loosely sketch out the commission of the alleged offences, may

be summed up as under:
 ALLEGED CHAIN OF EVENTS AS PER THE SAID FIR –

6. The Complainant apparently came into virtual contact with

the Applicant in March 2017, through the medium of an

online casual dating application called ‘Tinder’. Thereafter, the

Applicant supposedly met the Complainant regularly and thus

they both got well acquainted with each other and eventually

became friends.

7. This supposed friendship between the Applicant and the

Complainant then progressed further, culminating in the

eventual development of an alleged love affair between the

Applicant and the Complainant.

8. During the initial few months of this alleged love affair, the

relationship between the Applicant and the Complainant

appeared to be cordial in nature, but as time progressed and

they started meeting each other more frequently, they realised

that they both were as different from each other as Mars and

Venus. Neither of them could get along with the other as they

both had very different temperaments and did not share even

a single common interest with each other.

 9. Accordingly, the Applicant was thus not at all inclined to take

this alleged romantic relationship with the Complainant any

further and made all possible attempts to limit their alleged

love affair/friendship and interacted with the Complainant as

if he were only her acquaintance.

10. In sharp contrast to the Applicant’s view of this alleged love

affair, the Complainant seemingly developed strong romantic

feelings for the Applicant and possessed a determined desire to

marry the Applicant. The Complainant went to the extent of

expressing this desire to the Applicant, but in response, the

Applicant had very politely refused to marry the Complainant.

11. Thereafter, the Accused and the Complainant had a serious

quarrel with each other which resulted in both of them calling

off their alleged love affair. The Applicant had no contact at all

with the Complainant after the break-up of their alleged love

affair.

12. The Complainant goes on to further allege that the Applicant

owes her an amount equal to INR 10,000/- (rupees ten

thousand only).

13. The Complainant goes on to contend that on 11 th May 2017,

the Complainant went with her friends, viz. ____________ and

 _______________, to the Hotel Rami Guestline, R-Adda, Juhu,

Mumbai. At this point of time the Applicant came to R-Adda

and happened to meet the Complainant and thereafter the

Complainant and the Applicant had a conversation after which

both of them went down and roamed around in an

autorickshaw.

14. Subsequently, the Applicant apparently started persuading the

Complainant to continue their alleged love affair once again,

which prompted the Complainant to say “Let’s go to your

house and speak to your parents”. After the Complainant

made the said demand to go to the Accused’s house and meet

his parents, both of them proceeded to the apartment building

where the Applicant stayed.

15. At this juncture, the Applicant went up to his house while the

Complainant was waiting on the ground floor of his building.

Then, supposedly, the Complainant called the Applicant to

demand the money which he owed her but the Applicant chose

not to respond to the Complainant’s calls.

16. As she failed to obtain a response from the Applicant, the

Complainant proceeded to his house and the Applicant’s

mother apparently opened the door for the Complainant. On

seeing the Applicant’s mother, the Complainant went on to

 make demands on the Applicant’s mother to pay her the

money which the Applicant allegedly owed her.

17. At this point, the Applicant hastily came to the door of his

apartment and dragged the Complainant into the lift. It is

alleged that the Applicant pulled the Complainant’s hair and

touched her in an inappropriate and unseemly manner on her

chest.

18. As the lift reached the ground floor, the Applicant supposedly

thrashed and clobbered the Complainant to try and push her

out of the lift and this apparent altercation was said to have

been witnessed by the watchman of the Applicant’s apartment

building.

19. During this entire episode, the Complainant claims that she

tried to call the police for help but the Applicant allegedly

snatched her iPhone 6 and chucked it on the ground, thereby

damaging it.

20. After this, when the Complainant began walking up the stairs

of the Applicant’s apartment building to inform his parents of

the said alleged incident, the Applicant started to abuse the

Complainant, which forced the Applicant’s brother to intervene

 between the quarrelling alleged lovers and pacify the

Complainant.

21. On the basis of the said alleged chain of events, the

Complainant has sought to make out the commission of

certain offences by the Applicant which may be described as

under:

OFFENCES SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT ON THE BASIS OF

THE SAID ALLEGED CHAIN OF EVENTS–

22. The Complainant has fabricated the afore described alleged

chain of events to loosely establish a case that the Applicant

has committed the following offences as described in the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) –

i. Assaulting or using criminal force to woman with the

intent to outrage her modesty (u/s. 354), the ingredients of

which are:

a) There must be an assault made on / or criminal force used

against a woman;

b) Such an assault / use of criminal force must have been done

with the intention to outrage the modesty of the woman.

ii. Voluntarily causing hurt (u/s. 323), the ingredients of which

are:

a) There must be bodily pain, disease or infirmity caused to any

person;

b) There must be no provocation involved.

iii. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the

peace (u/s. 504), the ingredients of which are:

a) There must be an intentional insult which provokes another

person;

b) Such intentional insult and provocation must be made with

the intention or knowledge that such an intentional insult and

provocation will cause the victim to breach the public peace,

or commit any other offence.

iv. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

(u/s. 427), the ingredients of which are:

a) There must be some mischief caused;

b) Such mischief must cause loss or damage to the amount

of fifty rupees or upwards.

23. The Applicant submits that a perusal of the entire alleged

chain of events reveals that not even a single one of the said

offences can be held to be made out against the Applicant.

Therefore, the said FIR deserves to be quashed and the

 Applicant deserves to be discharged on the following, amongst

other grounds:

GROUNDS FOR DISCHARGING THE APPLICANT –

24. That the Complainant has not filed the said FIR with clean

hands and she is guilty of suppressing material facts and

misleading and abusing process of law. The said FIRhas only

been filed as an attempt to illegally harass and pressurize the

Applicant to pay the Complainant certain money which the

Complainant believes she is owed by the Applicant and to

harass the Applicant for refusing to enter into a relationship

with her;

25. That only when the Applicant refused to entertain the

Complainant’s unfathomable demands that the Complainant

filed the said FIR to falsely implicate the Applicant and

pressurize him into meeting her unjustified demands.

26. That by filing the said FIR, the Complainant has sought to

frame completely groundless charges against the Applicant,

merely with the aim to besmirch the reputation of the

Applicant.
27. That the Applicant has had no interaction or relationship with

the Complainant as has been alleged by her in the said FIR.

28. That the Applicant has been charged with committing the

offences under sections354, 323, 504 and 427 of the IPC out

of which only the offence under section 354 of the IPC is non-

bailable, while the rest of the other sections are all bailable.

29. That for a charge to lie u/s. 354 of the IPC, the Complainant

must prima facie elucidate how the Applicanthas not only

assaulted the Complainant, but also that actual criminal force

has been used by the Applicant on the Complainant with the

intention of outraging her modesty. The said FIR has

completely failed to elucidate either of these two quintessential

ingredients of the offence u/s. 354 of the IPC.

30. That a furtheranalysis of the said alleged chain of events

brings forth the following anomalies in the case sought to be

brought against the Applicant vide the said FIR:

i. The Applicant and the Complainant were allegedly in a

consensual romantic relationship for a long period of time and

thus there is no possibility of the Applicant ever having used

criminal force against the Complainant with an intent to

outrage her modesty. The relationship which the Applicant

 allegedly had with the Complainant, precludes any possibility

of there ever arising a situation in which the Applicant could

be deemed to have intended to outrage the modesty of the

Complainant.

ii. Even after the apparentbreak-up of the Applicant and the

Complainant, when the Complainant met the Applicant at R-

Adda, while the Complainant was out with her friends, she

wilfully left the company of her friends to spend time in the

company of the Applicant. This clearly demonstrates the level

of comfort which the Complainant had with the Applicant and

renders the alleged chain of events as completely unreliable.

iii. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant left the company

of her friends at R-Adda, just so that she could privately meet

the Applicant and because she could spend time with him

alone and away from the prying eyes of people. The trust

which the Complainant herself very clearly placed in the

Applicant, is testament to the character of the Applicant and

thus the Complainant’s claim that the Applicant wanted to

outrage her modesty completely falls flat.

iv. Further, it was the Complainant who suggested that the

Complainant and the Applicant should go to Applicant’s house

to talk to his parents about them getting back together. Thus,

there can be no negative connotation inferred from the

 Applicant’s conduct as he never asked the Complainant to go

anywhere with him and it was only the Complainant’s desire

to meet his parents that resulted in the Complainant landing

at the Applicant’s house.

v. In a clear contradiction, the Complainant claims in the said

FIR that she stayed downstairs upon reaching the Applicant’s

houseand then went up to his house of her own accord, for the

sole purpose of collecting the Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten

thousand only) which was supposedly owed to her by the

Applicant. The Complainant has therefore clearly contradicted

her earlier stand of having gone to the Applicant’s house for

the purpose of meeting the Applicant’s parents and thus the

Complainant has contradicted her own alleged story and the

same cannot be relied on to affix liability on the Applicant for

the said offences.

vi. The Complainant states that upon reaching the Applicant’s

flat, it was the Complainant who got agitated and started

harassing the Applicant’s mother, thereby instigating the

quarrel between the alleged lovers. Thus, it was the

Complainant who resorted to violent behaviour and caused

insult and injury to the Applicant and his mother. It is thus a

fallacy for the Complainant to allege that the Applicant

committed any violent acts against the Complainant.

vii. The Complainant has stated that thereafter she entered the lift

of the Applicant’s building along with the Applicant, after the

alleged quarrel with the Applicant was over and it was only

after reaching the ground floor that the Applicant started

assaulting her. The Complainant claims thatthe watchman on

duty in the Applicant’s building at the time of the alleged

incident was the onlyeye-witness who observed the Applicant

supposedly assaulting her. The Complainant has thus

concocted a frivolous story which cannot possibly be verified

by the testimony of multiple reliable eye witnesses.

viii. The Complainant has proceeded to further allege that the

Applicant broke her phone, during the course of the supposed

altercation, when she tried to call the police. The Complainant

has failed to lead any form of evidence which could in any

manner support her claim that the Applicant caused damage

to her phone and thus she has merely raised frivolous

allegations against the Applicant to frame a false case against

him.

ix. A bare perusal of the alleged chain of events as recounted by

the Complainant in the said FIR, makes it abundantly clear

that the incident as alleged by the Complainanthas not taken

place in actuality. There is no coherence or authenticity in any

 of the allegations recorded in the said FIR. The same is a mere

concoction of the Complainant and thus it is apparent that the

Applicant has not committed any of the alleged offences.

x. The alleged chain of events does not in any manner disclose

the presence of the necessary ingredients of the alleged

offences as the Complainant states that the Applicant resorted

to violence against the Complainant because of the quarrel

which had apparently erupted between them. Therefore, the

essential ingredient of the offence under section 354 of the

IPC, i.e., the intention to outrage her modesty israther

glaringly missing from the Complainant’s narration of the

alleged chain of events. In the absence of any such intention, a

charge under section 354 of the IPC cannot be sustained or

pleaded since the intention of the Applicant is sine qua non for

the commission of such an offence.

31. To sustain an allegation that an offence under section 323 of

the IPC has been committed it has to be alleged that the

Applicanthas caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the

Complainant. The said FIR does not contain any statement of

the Complainant which makes out the commission an offence

under section 323 of the IPC for the reasons which may be

described as under:
i. The Complainant has alleged in the said FIR that the Applicant

caused bodily pain to her by having a physical quarrel with

her and pulling her hair. However, it is pertinent to note that

the Complainant claims that the said hurtful act was done by

the Applicant while both of them were alone in the lift of the

Applicant’s building. The Complainant has sought to avoid any

possibility of her version of the events being contradicted by

any third party witness, by concocting the alleged chain of

events in such a manner that the commission of the said

hurtful act cannot possibly be corroborated or denied by any

third party witness. This renders version of events as

described in the said FIR as highly suspect and untenable at

law.

ii. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant has no criminal

antecedents and is a law-abiding citizenand the only reason

that the Applicant came into contact with the Complainant on

the night of the alleged incident was because the Complainant

wanted to get back together with the Accused. It is therefore

evident that the Applicant had no criminal intentionsor

ulterior motives with respect to the Complainant, and the said

FIR has only been filed to level trumped up charges against

the Applicant.
iii. The Complainant’s motive to file the said FIR appears highly

suspiciousas she claims that the reason she and the

Applicantdecided to go to to the Applicant’s house was so that

they could talk to the Applicant’s parents about their

relationship. However, she has later gone on to state thatshe

waited under the Applicant’s building when the Applicant went

up to speak to his parents and thereafter she only went

upstairs to pursue the supposed moneywhich was owed to her

by the Applicant and the first thing which she did upon

meeting the mother of the Applicant, whom she apparently

wanted to have relationship with, was to demand the money

supposedly owed to her. She did not even mention anything

about her desire to have a relationship with the Applicant.

This is a clear contradiction in her version of the events and

thus the said FIR deserves to be entirely ignored and

discarded.

iv. The Applicant submits that absolutely no bodily harm was

caused to the Complainant by the Applicant. The Complainant

has failed to adequately describe in what manner the

Applicant pulled her hair or how he touched her chest. Her

version of events suffers from several factual inconsistencies

and logical fallacies.

v. The surrounding circumstances in the present incident indicate

blatant inconsistencies in the said FIR filed at the behest of

the Complainant, wherein the Complainant has specifically

avoidedmentioning the presence ofany independent witnesses

who could possibly corroborate her version of events and this

is an evident attempt to manufacture a blatantly false

complaint against the Applicant.

32. To sustain an allegation that an offence under section 427 of

the IPC has been committed it has to be allegedthere was

mischief caused by the Applicant leading to damage

amounting to more than Rs. 50/- (rupees fifty only). As per the

Complainant’s version of events in the said FIR, the alleged

actof the Applicant breaking the Complainant’s I-Phone 6 was

witnessed by the watchman of the Applicant’s building.

However, this watchman’s statement has not even been

recorded by the police which makes it clear that the

Complainant’s story cannot possibly be corroborated by any

independent witness. The Applicant submits that no such

incident as described in the said FIRhas ever taken place and

the statement recorded in the said FIR does not establish or

sustain the charge of commission of the offence u/s.427 of the

IPC.
33. The said FIR does not contain a single allegation which can be

considered to make out any of the ingredients of the offence

u/s. 504 of the IPC as there is no allegations that the

Applicant intentionally insulted the Complainant in such a

manner as to provoke her to breach the public peace or to

commit any other offence. Thus it cannot be held that the

Applicant has committed the offence u/s. 504 of the IPC.

34. As such to sum it up from the facts and circumstances of the

matter it is evident that the said FIR is a purely frivolous

complaint which is being sought to be coloured as a serious

criminal case has been filed only with a view to harass,

humiliate and exert pressure on the Applicantto force him to

pay the Complainant the money which he allegedly owes her.

The filing of the said FIR is nothing but an abuse of the

process of law.

35. And various other grounds at the time of hearing

CONCLUSION:-

There is absolutely no material in the records of investigation of

the case to conclude that the Applicant has committed any of the

offencesalleged in the said FIR. If the totality of the statements

produced by the prosecution are taken on face value, it does not

show that any case is made out against the Applicant. As such

where there is not even an iota of prima facie case or there is no

material which even at its face value discloses the existence of any

of the ingredients constituting any of the offences alleged by the

prosecution, then the Applicant submits that under these

circumstances, the trial would be an abuse of court process as

stated earlier and hedeserves to be discharged. There is no

material or record on the basis of which an opinion would be

reasonably formed or a conclusion would be arrived at wherein the

Applicant would be found guilty of the alleged offences and

therefore the Applicant states that heis to be discharged. The

available material is not only inadequate to sustain the charges as

levelled against the Applicant, but at the highest, these are bare

assertions without any concrete evidence to show that the

Applicant was in any manner connected with the offences as

charged under sections of 354, 323, 504 and 427 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860. The Applicant, therefore, urges that he should

be discharged from the present case.

36. The Applicant craves leave to rely upon relevant case laws at

the time of hearing of this Application.

37. No other Application and/or proceeding seeking similar reliefs

is filed or is pending before this Hon’ble Court or any other

court.
38. This Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the

present application.

39. For reasons aforementioned, among others to be orally

supplemented, the Applicant prays as under:-

P R A Y E R S :-

a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the present

application;

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to discharge the Applicant

from all the allegations levelled in Criminal Case No. 247 of

2017 dated 12th May 2017 registered by the Juhu Police

Station for the offences 354, 323, 504 and 427 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

c) Such other and further orders be passed and reliefs be

granted as the facts and circumstances of the case may

require.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT SHALL

EVER REMAIN OBLIGED.

Mumbai

Dated: