Scribd
Upload
42 views2 pages

Chandrachood Objection

The accused submits objections to the complainant's application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., arguing that the application is not maintainable and lacks merit. The accused claims the complainant has already closed their evidence and is attempting to introduce new documents without court permission. The accused requests the court to dismiss the application due to its lack of legal basis and potential to delay proceedings.

Uploaded by

advocate.somashekar77
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views2 pages

Chandrachood Objection

The accused submits objections to the complainant's application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., arguing that the application is not maintainable and lacks merit. The accused claims the complainant has already closed their evidence and is attempting to introduce new documents without court permission. The accused requests the court to dismiss the application due to its lack of legal basis and potential to delay proceedings.

Uploaded by

advocate.somashekar77
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

IN THE COURT OF THE XVITH ADDL.

CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE

C.C No. /2009

Sri. Narayanswamy Complainant

Vs.

Sri. B.R. Chandrachood Accused

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE


COMPLAINANT UNDER SECTION 311 OF Cr.P.C.

The accused most humbly begs to submit as under:-


1. At the outset the application filed by the Complainant is not
maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case. The application is
devoid of merits and with an intention to drag the proceedings.
2. The Complainant after cross examination on 02-06-2010 as
specifically and catagorically stated that he has no further examination
and as such evidence of Complainant was closed. At the request of
Complainant the counsel case was adjourned to 05-06-2010 for further
evidence of Complainant but the Complainant has wrongly construed the
said stage has to lead further evidence of Cost and consequences witness
who has already been examined in full.
3. The present application is filed in order to fill up the lacuna and
fit false in the evidence which cannot be permitted nor the said proviso
provides for such acts. The Complainant has not shown any cogent
reasons or grounds for invoking the said proviso and as such the said
application cannot be considered and liable to be dismissed in limine.
4. The Complainant under the guise of present application intends
to produce certain documents which cannot be permitted as the
Complainant has not sought leave of this Hon’ble court to furnish the
documents nor the said documents finds a place in the list of documents
filed by the Complainant at the time of the filing the complaint. The
Complainant trying to bring out a new case based on the proposed
document which is permissible in law. The Complainant in order to
demolish the truth elicited in cross examination has filed the application
and trying to over come the said admissions. When once the Complainant
has stated that there is no further examination then the question of
further examination at a later stage by filing the present application
cannot be entertained. That apart the present proceedings are summary
in nature the Complainant cannot resort to file the application which
authorize causes delay and protraction of the proceedings.
5. Viewed from any angle the application filed by the Complainant
cannot be considered as the same is devoid of merits, contrary to the
scope of the provision of law and contrary to settled the provision of law
by the Hon’ble High Court and Apex court.

WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be


pleased to dismiss the application filed by the Complainant with
exemplary cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

Bangalore. Advocate for Accused


Date: 11-06-2010.

You might also like