How to Draft a Revision or Quash Petition in Criminal Cases
Start by writing the full name of the court and mention its jurisdiction, for example High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
Mention the provisions under which the application is filed, like Section 482 read with 397 and 401 CrPC.
Prepare the cause title – give the case number, names of petitioners, their relation, age, and address, and also the names of the respondents (State and complainant).
Introduce who the petitioners are, and their relation to the opposite parties.
Narrate the background of the case – include facts like marriage, family disputes, money transfers, property dealings, or complaints lodged.
Refer to the Magistrate’s order that is being challenged, and state its date and in which case number it was passed.
Explain briefly why that order is wrong or illegal, for example violation of law, misuse of police powers, or freezing of accounts without reason.
List the grounds on which you rely, one by one, in short and clear sentences.
In the prayer section, ask the High Court to set aside the Magistrate’s order and grant relief, like de-freezing of bank accounts or staying further proceedings.
At the end, put the date, place, signature of advocate, and petitioner’s signature.
Finally, attach supporting documents like vakalatnama, affidavit, certified copies of the impugned order, FIR, and other annexures.
Sample Draft
Note:
All names, dates, places, and facts mentioned in this draft are purely imaginary and used only for illustrative purposes. They do not relate to any real person, case, or incident.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
C.R.R. No. of 2024
In the matter of:
An application under Section 528 read with Section 438 and Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
And
In the matter of:
An application praying for setting aside of the order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar, in G.R. No. 982 of 2023 arising out of Husnabad Police Station Case No. 214 of 2023 dated 16.12.2023;
Parties
- Smt. Anusha Reddy, Wife of Praveen Reddy, Daughter of Srinivas Reddy, aged about 31 years;
- Sri Praveen Reddy, Son of Raghavender Reddy, aged about 32 years;
Both the Petitioners are presently residing at H.No. 5-3-21, Teachers’ Colony, Husnabad, Siddipet District – 505467;
…Petitioners
Versus
- The State of Telangana;
- Sri Srinivas Reddy, Son of Late Laxma Reddy, aged about 67 years, residing at H.No. 1-4-92, Subhash Nagar, Karimnagar – 505001;
…Opposite Parties
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.
The humble petition of the Petitioners above named most respectfully –
Sheweth –
-
- Your Petitioners are law abiding, peace loving citizens of India and both are residents of H.No. 5-3-21, Teachers’ Colony, Husnabad, Siddipet District – 505467, as mentioned in the cause title appearing hereinabove.
- The Opposite Party No. 2, that is the de facto complainant, is the father of the Petitioner No. 1. The Petitioner No. 2, being the husband of the Petitioner No. 1, is thus the son-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2.
- The Petitioner No. 1 and the Petitioner No. 2 got married on March 9, 2023 as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the said marriage was duly registered before the Marriage Officer at Karimnagar in the presence of the parents and other family members of both the Petitioners.
- The father, that is the Opposite Party No. 2 herein, and the mother of the Petitioner No. 1 namely Smt. Lakshmi Reddy, are businesspersons and both the parents of the Petitioner No. 1, as Partners having equal share, run and operate a Partnership Firm under the name and style of M/s Raghava Constructions, having its head office at 2-6-44, Ashok Nagar, Karimnagar – 505001.
- For the purpose of marriage, especially for the purchase of jewellery, wedding garments and for meeting other expenses of the marriage of the Petitioners, the parents of the Petitioner No. 1 transferred money to her account from time to time, primarily from the account of the said Partnership Firm. Out of the said sum of money transferred to her Bank account at State Bank of India, Husnabad Branch, A/c No. XXXXXXXX, the Petitioner No. 1 purchased jewellery, wedding garments and gifts for the marriage and for meeting the other expenses of her marriage. Copies of some of the bills of such purchases which were retained by the Petitioner No. 1 are annexed herewith and are collectively marked as Annexure – “A”.
- Prior thereto on August 28, 2020, a plot of land admeasuring about 200 sq. yards along with a two-storied house built thereupon being premises number 3-5-10, Subhash Nagar, Karimnagar, was gifted to the Petitioner No. 1, jointly by her parents, that is the Opposite Party No. 2 herein and her mother. Subsequently, on March 27, 2023, the Petitioner No. 1 sold out the said property as was gifted to her by her parents to one Mahesh Kumar upon execution of a duly registered Deed of Sale and the consideration amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees seventy lakhs) as received from such sale was deposited in her SBI Husnabad Bank Account.
A copy of the said Deed of Gift executed by the parents of the Petitioner No. 1 in her favour on 28.08.2020 is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – “B”.
A copy of the registered Sale Deed executed on March 27, 2023, whereby the Petitioner No. 1 sold out the said property to Mahesh Kumar, is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – “C”.
A copy of the Bank statement of the Petitioner No. 1 reflecting crediting of the amount received from sale of the gifted property is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – “D”. - Your Petitioner No. 1 states that the relationship with her father, that is the Opposite Party No. 2, was cordial like any other father and daughter, however, the Opposite Party No. 2 got involved in multiple affairs with other women and as a consequence the mother of the Petitioner No. 1 started to be victimised and became a victim of severe domestic violence in all manner. Since the Petitioner No. 1 supported her mother and requested her father to reconcile with her mother, the Petitioner No. 1 too came under the grudge of her father. Upon her marriage with the Petitioner No. 2, he too came under the grudge of the Opposite Party No. 2.
- Thereafter the Opposite Party No. 2 initiated a series of litigations and legal proceedings which include filing of a Divorce case against his wife that is the mother of the Petitioner No. 1 and proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Petitioner No. 1 was also impleaded in some of the said criminal proceedings.
Copy of the Plaint of the Matrimonial Suit is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – “E”.
Copies of the proceedings under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code are annexed herewith and are collectively marked as Annexure – “F”. - As derived from her mother, the Petitioner No. 1 came to know that over an incident that occurred on 07.11.2023 when the mother of the Petitioner No. 1 and the Petitioner No. 1 herself were abused and assaulted by the Opposite Party No. 2 and thereafter over an incident that occurred on 04.12.2023 when the mother of the Petitioner No. 1 was brutally assaulted by the Opposite Party No. 2, the mother of the Petitioner No. 1, that is Smt. Lakshmi Reddy, was compelled to submit a written complaint with the Husnabad Police Station and on the basis of the same a criminal proceeding was initiated being Husnabad Police Station Case No. 198 of 2023 dated 04.12.2023 under Section 498A, 323, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Opposite Party No. 2 and others.
A copy of the formal FIR and the written complaint pertaining to Husnabad Police Station Case No. 198 of 2023 dated 04.12.2023 are annexed herewith and collectively marked as Annexure – “G”. - Solely as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by Smt. Lakshmi Reddy and in order to wreck vengeance upon the Petitioners herein for supporting her, the Opposite Party No. 2 lodged the instant baseless, false and frivolous complaint against the Petitioners herein, being Husnabad Police Station Case No. 214 of 2023 dated 16.12.2023, under Section 341, 323, 506, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
- The Petitioners have been enlarged on bail in connection with the instant criminal proceeding and apparently, the investigating agency has submitted Chargesheet being No. 56/2024 dated 31.05.2024 under Section 341, 323, 506, 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners. It is pertinent to mention that the charges have not yet been framed in the instant case.
- Your Petitioners most respectfully state that prior to submission of the Chargesheet, and during course of investigation, the SBI Husnabad Account of the Petitioner No. 1 being No. XXXXXXXX was freezed at the instance of the Investigating Officer of the case, in a blatant illegal manner, thereby infringing upon the fundamental rights of the Petitioner No. 1, without any reasonable ground and without according any prior opportunity or hearing.
A copy of the intimation from the Bank of the Petitioner No. 1 regarding freezing of her Account is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – “H”. - Upon coming to know about such dereliction on the part of the Investigating Officer and the Bank authority, the Petitioners submitted an application before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar on February 1, 2024, highlighting such blatant illegal act.
A copy of the aforesaid application is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – “I”. - Vide order dated 16.08.2024, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar, directed as follows –
“… That the SBI A/c. No. XXXXXXXX, Husnabad Branch standing in the name of Anusha Reddy is hereby partly de-freezed, with the following conditions:-
(i) Rs. 11,89,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighty-Nine Thousand only) shall remain freezed in A/c. No. XXXXXXXX till disposal of the case;
(ii) The holder Anusha Reddy, of A/c. No. XXXXXXXX shall make a Fixed Deposit of the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs. 14,32,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty-Two Thousand only) at SBI Husnabad Branch or any other recognized/nationalized Bank for not less than 370 days, keeping the de facto complainant Srinivas Reddy as FIRST HOLDER and Anusha Reddy as SECOND HOLDER of the said FD;
(iii) The Fixed Deposit shall remain under lien and cannot be liquidated without prior permission of the Court;
(iv) The interest accrued on the said FD shall automatically be transferred to the account of the de facto complainant Srinivas Reddy;
(v) The remaining balance in the said Account, except the freezed amount and FD amount, is allowed to be operated by the account holder Anusha Reddy as per rules and regulations of the Bank.”
15. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 16.08.2024, the Petitioners beg to prefer this present Revisional Application before this Hon’ble Court, inter alia, on the following amongst other –
GROUNDS
-
-
- For that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar erred both in law and in facts by passing such an order which virtually deprives the Petitioner No. 1 of her legitimate right to operate her own Bank Account, without there being any cogent material justifying such extreme direction.
- For that the freezing of the Bank Account itself, during investigation, was illegal and without jurisdiction, as no order from the competent Court was obtained under Section 102 CrPC, nor was the Petitioner afforded any opportunity of hearing before freezing.
-
III. For that the Learned Court below grossly failed to appreciate that the money lying in the said Account is not the subject matter of the alleged offence but includes personal savings, proceeds of sale of self-acquired property, and marriage gifts, which cannot be attached or restricted.
-
-
- For that the Learned Court below mechanically accepted the Investigating Officer’s claim of “misappropriated money” without any proof, corroboration, or prima facie evidence, thereby acting in excess of jurisdiction.
- For that the Learned Court below misdirected itself in allowing the de facto complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) to be the FIRST HOLDER of the Fixed Deposit in respect of the account belonging to the Petitioner No. 1, which is absolutely beyond the scope of law and tantamount to usurping the property of the Petitioner.
- For that the Learned Magistrate failed to consider that the criminal trial has not even commenced, charges have not been framed, and in absence of conviction or civil decree, no such deprivation of financial rights of the Petitioner could be directed.
-
VII. For that the impugned order suffers from total non-application of judicial mind, as it mixes up civil disputes of property and partnership with alleged criminal charges, thereby prejudicing the Petitioners.
VIII. For that the freezing and directing FD in joint name with the complainant amounts to pre-judging the case and indirectly granting civil relief to the complainant, which is impermissible in criminal law.
-
-
- For that the Learned Court below failed to note that the Petitioners are permanent residents of Telangana, have roots in society, and there is no apprehension of absconding or misuse of funds.
- For that the impugned order is in clear violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
- For that the Learned Court below erred in not considering that the Petitioners have already furnished adequate sureties while obtaining bail and further financial restrictions amount to double jeopardy.
-
XII. For that the Petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with investigation and trial, but denial of access to their own funds is arbitrary, unreasonable, and causes irreparable hardship.
XIII. For that the impugned order is otherwise bad in law, illegal, perverse, and unsustainable, and hence liable to be quashed and set aside.
16. The Petitioners state that unless the present Revisional Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 is set aside, grave injustice will be caused to them.
17. The Petitioners submit that they have not filed any other petition on the same cause of action before any other forum.
18. This application is made bonafide and in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
In the above circumstances, the Petitioners humbly pray that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to –
(a) Admit this Revisional Application;
(b) Call for the records of G.R. No. 982 of 2023 arising out of Husnabad P.S. Case No. 214 of 2023;
(c) Set aside the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar in the said case;
(d) Pass an order directing immediate defreezing of SBI Husnabad Account No. XXXXXXXX standing in the name of Petitioner No. 1, Anusha Reddy, and restoring her right to operate the said account without restrictions;
(e) Pass such further order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
Place: Hyderabad
Date: ………
Sd/-
(Advocate for the Petitioners)
