Section 354 S.P. review – pending charge sheet. PLEASE HELP !!!! THANK YOU !!!

[Fridric Klaus]

PLEASE REPLY – THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!

We had a pending court case against our neighbors in SDO Sadar court regarding Cr. P.C 133, as they had forcibly closed off common passageway. However, one day they resorted to violence and viciously beat us up including our 70 years old fragile and sick mother. As a result, we called police and filed an FIR with true facts.

However, opposite party filed a false counter FIR the same day, after about 4 hours, using false allegations of their 4 month pregnant wife. My mother’s incision wound and injury was acknowledged and given by town’s government medical college and hospital on their prescription, while opposite party despite making serious false allegation of vicious beating on her pregnant belly was examined by the government’s medical college and NOT A SINGLE abnormality or injury was found by them (as she was not even touched) and she was not even admitted in government hospital, because everything she wrote in her counter FIR were blatant lies.

Both parties are on bail currently.

IPC Sections imposed on opposite party based on our true FIR were :

IPC 323: Voluntarily causing hurt –1 Year or Fine or Both –Non-Cognizable–Bailable–Compundable:The person to whom the hurt is caused

IPC 341: Wrongfully restraining any person–Simple Imprisonment for 1 Month or Fine or Both–Cognizable — Bailable–Compundable: The person restrained

IPC 504: Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace–2 Years or Fine or Both–Non-Cognizable–Bailable– Compundable: The person insulted

IPC 506:

(1) Criminal intimidation — 2 Years or Fine or Both –Non-Cognizable — Bailable
(2) If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, Etc.– 7 Years or Fine or Both –Non-Cognizable — Bailable
Compundable : The person intimidated

IPC 379: Theft –Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.– Cognizable– Non-Bailable– Compoundable:The owner of the property stolen

IPC 34

IPC Sections imposed on us based on opposite party’s false FIR , with the help of bribing concerned officers were:

IPC 323: Voluntarily causing hurt –1 Year or Fine or Both –Non-Cognizable–Bailable–Compundable:The person to whom the hurt is caused

IPC 341: Wrongfully restraining any person–Simple Imprisonment for 1 Month or Fine or Both–Cognizable — Bailable–Compundable: The person restrained

IPC 504: Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace–2 Years or Fine or Both–Non-Cognizable–Bailable– Compundable: The person insulted

IPC 506:

(1) Criminal intimidation — 2 Years or Fine or Both –Non-Cognizable — Bailable
(2) If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, Etc.– 7 Years or Fine or Both –Non-Cognizable — Bailable
Compundable : The person intimidated

IPC 354 : Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty — 1 to 5 years + Fine — Cognizable — Non-Bailable — NOT COMPUNDABLE ??

IPC 34

Dy. S. P Review = He made all sections against us and opposite parties to be TRUE.

S. P. Review =

Based on Dy. S.P. review report and independent witnesses, he dropped sections 354 and 506 from us, while section 506 from opposite parties and had instructed Investigation officer to submit incident diary to court and report progress to S.P. office.

So, per S.P. review report, following sections are to be considered true against us: 323 / 341 / 504 / 34

While following sections are to be considered true against opposite parties: 323 / 341 / 504 / 379 / 34

However, opposite party is saying that I.O is his close friend from college days, and even I.O himself had threatened us that he would ignore S.P. review during charge sheet and all sections would remain true against us ( including heinous section 354 and 506, from false and heinous allegation ) as per Dy.S.P review report ???

Please answer the following questions:

(1) Does Investigation Officer have power to reinstate sections dropped by S.P. review against us while framing charge sheet ? Can he simply ignore S.P. review ?

(2) Will the court honor and accept S.P. review report and accept those 2 false and heinous charges dropped against us , while section 379 being held true against opposite parties, as spelled out in S.P. review ?

(3) Is there fabricated and false case/ FIR against us, ripe for quashing by High Court – each one of their claim in their concocted story is false – even the government medical college hospital had denied that she ( 4 month old pregnant ) was ever admitted to hospital – she had come there but all tests, including ultrasound, was ABSOLUTELY normal and was never admitted contrary to what she had written in her false FIR that she is admitted to government medical college and hospital and her treatment is ongoing ?

(4) What should we demand from government medical college about her visit and diagnostic tests via R.T.I as we are hearing that on some hospital register it is also mentioned that there was NO mark of external injury on that pregnant woman ?

(5) What else we should we do to solidify our defense and what other evidences we should try to gather as they have bribed a few people to act as their false witnesses ?

I would be immensely grateful to your precious time and it would be highly appreciated !!!

Thank you very much !!!!!

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

As per the provisions of Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Police Officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police of a district has the same legal powers with regard to investigation of an offence as the officer in charge of a police station (SHO) has.

The power of the SP to give directions to the investigating officer is generally contained in the relevant rules, regulations, police manual, etc., of the State concerned, framed under legal provisions. If lawful directions in writing are given by the SP to the investigating officer, and if the latter does not obey them, he may be subjected to disciplinary action for violation of such directions. It is very rare that a subordinate officer would disobey lawful directions given in writing by a senior officer, and even such rare violation may be subject to disciplinary action.

The court will go by the charge sheet which is filed by the investigating officer before it. It is the duty of the investigating officer to comply with the directions of the senior officers. The court takes cognizance on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the I.O.

Of course, if the SP feels that the I.O. is doing mischief and not filing charge sheet correctly, he may change the I.O. and the other I.O. may then do the needful.

For quashing the FIR, you can approach the high court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at any time after registration of FIR and before filing of the charge sheet. If the charge sheet is already filed, there is no point in going for quashing of FIR before high court; instead file a discharge petition before the trial court.

About the RTI query, you have yourself partly replied the question. Ask whatever relevant information you want to get. It is not possible for us to reply on detailed questions of facts.

We can try to answer your general legal questions. It is not possible to answer what defences can be taken, since it involves detailed study of all relevant papers which is not within the scope of this website. Please consult some lawyer at your place.

     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Author]

Posts