If police refuse then approach the High Court with that evidence. As a retired magistrate I say that it is sufficient to issue FIR. Ask the police you should call your dead brother to give statement before them. Make allegation in the High Court petition that that girl might have physically bribed Strictures will be passed against the police by High Court. The proforma 482 petition is as follows.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Criminal Petition No.616/2018
(Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court Bengaluru)
MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
The petitioner respectfully submits as follows:
1.The address of the petitioner for the purpose of issuance of summons, notices etc., is that of his advocates Sri. Nagaraju, Advocate, No. 96, In front of Park, “Santhrupthi”, 3rd Main Road, ITI Layout, Chandra Layout, First Stage, Bangalore-560039, and also the address shown in the cause title. Whereas the address of the respondents for similar purpose is as shown in the cause title. Respondent no.1 is the Deputy Commissioner of Police, White Field Range, Bengaluru. Respondent No.2 is the Inspector of Police, White Field Police Satiation, Bengaluru.. Respondent No.1 is the Unit Head of White Field area Police Stations, hence he is made as party to this petition. The Respondent No.2 is the Inspector of Police, White Field Police Satiation in whose jurisdiction the offence was occurred and he who filed report under section 174 of Cr.P.C. hence he is made as party to this petition. The 2nd Respondent himself suo-motto recorded the statement of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Bengaluru has accepted the UDR report bearing No.48/2016 dated 03/07/2017, against which the complaint preferred this petition and under challenge. No FIR was issued in this case. The Investigating Officer namely respondent no.4 soon after receiving complaint from Sri. Jagadeesh the father of the deceased registered it as UDR No.48/16 under sectin 174 of Cr.P.C. and to that effect he has made endorsement on the complaint itself. No crime is registered is registered and not issued any FIR and not conducted any preliminary investigation. The respondent on the receipt of complaint came to the conclusion that it is UDR case and accordingly registered as UDR case. The present petitioner is no other than the son of the Complaint that is Sri. Jagadeesh. Thus there is non availability of the FIR in this case which can be made out from the endorsement on the complaint which part of UDR under section 174 of Cr.P.C.
1. The petitioner’s younger sister by name J Gowthami was given in marriage to Parthasarathy and their marriage was performed in the year 2007. On 27.11.2016 the petitioner received a phone call from his relative that his sister J Gowthami committed suicide in her husband house at Whitefield, Bengaluru City. The petitioners immediately rushed to the hospital (Columbia Asia), at Whitefield and was informed that on 26.11.2016 in the night at about 1.00 AM she committed suicide. On that fateful day the deceased Gowthami was residing in her house with her husband and two childrens. The father of petitioner and deceased is an innocent and illiterate person knowing only to sign. All the family members of deceased went to the house of deceased on the day of funeral. At that time the father of husband of deceased requested not to make hue and cry about the incident otherwise he will be badly treated. Under the influence of father of son in law, the father of deceased kept mum as at that time he was not having any evidence to show that it was an unnatural death of his daughter. The police in specific Respondent No.4 that is Inspector of Police, Whitefield, prepared computerized complaint and without explaining the contents therein taken the signature of father of deceased. The husband of deceased also threatened the father of deceased not to reveal anything before the police thus the father of deceased kept mum. The petitioner was also asked keep quiet, since petitioner was not having any material in his hand at relevant point of time kept mum. Thus funeral ceremony was celebrated and all the relatives of deceased including her parents and brothers went to their respective places.
2. The Petitioner further submits that, on 27.11.2017, the family members of deceased wanted to celebrate first death anniversary of deceased in evening on that day. In the morning petitioner was checking all the belongings of his deceased sister which were brought from her in-laws house after the death. At that time to the surprise of petitioner he got one diary and on reading the same it has been brought on record that his deceased sister silently swallowed all the dowry harassments given by her in-laws including her husband, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. It appears from the wordings of diary notings that the deceased does not want to give trouble to her parents in respect of dowry troubles being given by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The deceased was a silent and soft spoken woman as such she never revealed dowry tortures given by above persons. She also not spoken such dowry harassments met by her, to any of her friends or kith and kin as such there was no occasion for the petitioner to know about the tortures given to the deceased by her husband and in-laws. The deceased silently went on noting down major ill treatment incidents in her diary in her hand writing. The following are three such major incidents which led her to take extreme step of suicide under the forcible circumstances. The deceased was not having any alternative except to surrender to death silently. The petitioner came to know about these hard believing facts when he found the diary of deceased and read the contents. The Respondent No.4/Inspector of Police never made any bonafide efforts to find out the cause of death of the deceased. He directly registered the complaint as UDR without issuing any FIR. He has not discharged the duties and responsibilities casted upon him. He treated the death as a casual suicide and never tried to record statements of any relatives or friends of the deceased. Instead in order to hide that truth came under the influence of husband and father-in-law of deceased and extraneous considerations the Respondent No.4/Inspector of Police got computerized typed a formal complaint and made the father of deceased to signed on it without disclosing the contents therein.
3. The Petitioner further submits that, soon after finding the diary of his deceased sister and reading the in cremating contents against her husband and in-laws immediately approached the concerned police in Whitefield and found that the case was closed by filing formal UDR Report No. 0048/2016 under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Immediately the petitioners got a copy of the same, it is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-A. The petitioner read all the contents of the diary maintained by his deceased sister and come to a conclusion that it is a clear case of dowry death and he seeks justice by knocking at the doors of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner herewith produces three material and major incidents written by his sister in the diary in her own hand writings as notings, the same are produced herewith as ANNEXURE-B, C and D. The typed copies of above diary notings are herewith produced as ANNEXURE-B1, C1 and D1 A The contents these annexures are produced below for kind perusal of Hon’ble Court:
1. The Petitioners further submits that, he suspects foil play, and further suspects murder of his sister by her husband and that it was not a suicide. On the fateful day only persons resided in the said house were the deceased, her husband and her two minor children. It appears her husband committed her murder and make believe as it was suicide. That this the alleged suicide as recorded by Respondent No.4 is doubtful and it was nothing but a full fledged murder committed by the last seen person namely her husband. Without any basis and without proper investigation Respondent No.4/Inspector of Police registered a Crime No. 48/2017 and ultimately filed a closure report under section 174 of Cr.P.C which deserves to be quashed and re-investigation required to be entrusted to Respondent No.5/ The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID. The petitioner is dissatisfied with report under section 174 of Cr.P.C. in this background the petitioner humbly seeks direction for conducting re-investigation of entire episode from beginning by Respondent No.5. It is a clear case of murder since the husband and in-laws of deceased made several demands for extra dowry which the deceased suffered silently without disclosing the same to her parents. It appears, since the deceased unable to made the dowry demands of her husband he committed murder of her on fateful night of 26.11.2016 and made everybody believe it as a suicide case, in collusion with local police that is Respondent No.4/Inspector of Police. This Hon’ble Court has ample powers to set aside the report under section 174 Cr.P.C. and issue directions for re-investigation by Respondent No.5, failing which the faith of people at large will be diminished in respect of Hon’ble Courts. The Respondent No.5 shall be directed to re-investigate into the cause of the death of the deceased from the beginning.
2. The Petitioner humbly submits that he has not filed any other petition or any other proceeding before any other Court or Authority in respect of the death of Smt. Gowthami. No other proceeding, petition or case is pending before any authority Court in respect this incident.
G R O U N D S
3. Petitioner’s father was innocent and illiterate as such he was made to sign the complaint without disclosing contents therein.
4. Petitioner strongly doubts that it was not a suicide but murder and if proper investigation is not re-in-forced then there are no chances of unearthing the truth behind the death.
5. Petitioner being full blood brother deceased wish that they should be a re-investigation into the crime which was casually closed without proper investigation by Respondent No.4.
6. The circumstances in this case reveals that the deceased was a simple tone married woman and suffered murder at the hands of her own husband on the fateful day.
7. The husband of deceased being a Software Engineer and his parents being influencing persons so they never allowed Respondent No.4 to carry out his duties and responsibilities.
8. That the material on record was not available as on the date of preliminary investigation for the reasons stated above. The evidence now traced out in a form of diary of the deceased contents the sequences of ill-treatments by her husband and in-laws. The said diary is having worthy of admissibility. There is no spur of suspicion in respect of contents of the diary which is no available as it was written in the hand writing of the deceased on the various dates of ill-treatments.
9. In the given circumstances the impugned report under ANNEXURE-A is to be held as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and improper.
10. The petitioner submits the respondent no.4 needs to have minimum curtsey to look into the suicide circumstances and could have traced out the culprits and cause of death.
11. That petitioner is having a good case and arguable case on the basis of contents of diary and cause of the death certainly will be unearthed if Hon’ble Courts directs for re-investigation.
WHEREFORE, the petitioner humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly pass to :
a. To call for entire records in UDR Report No.0048/2016 dated 03.07.2017 from the office of Respondent No.2.
b. To quash the impugned UDR Report No.0048/2016 dated 03.07.2017 filed by Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-A.
c. To issue suitable directions to Respondent No.1 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, White Field Range, Bengaluru or any other specialized investigating agency to conduct re-investigation into the above matter and book the culprits who are responsible for the death of petitioner’s sister Gowthami.
d. And to pass appropriate orders and Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
Advocate for Petitioner
Place: Bengaluru (NAGARAJU)