UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

BA.LL.B. (HONS.)(ENERGY LAWS)

SEMESTER-V

Special Leave Petition

Under the Supervision of: Mrs. Arpi Jain

NAME-AADARSH ANAND

Roll no. : R450216001

SAP ID: 500055262

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R., Order XXII Rule 2(1)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____OF 2015

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(Arising from the impugned interim order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in Crl M.C. 725/2015 and Crl. MA 2765/2015)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

STATE OF BIHAR …………. (Petitioner)

Versus

ANAND ARORA & Others

R/o A-32, Block 32, Defense Colony,

New Delhi- 110023. ...……… (Respondent)

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: - AADARSH ANAND

 INDEX

S. No. PARTICULARS PAGES

01 Office Report on Limitation

02 Synopsis and List of dates

03 Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

04 Annexure P-1: True copy of the Application filed by Respondent 1

u/s 311 CrPC dated 13.02.2015.

05 Annexure P-2: True copy of the order of ASJ-SPL. FTC-2 (Central):

Delhi dated 18.02.2015

06 Annexure P–3: True copy of the Crl. M.C. 725/2015 filed by

Respondent 1 in the Hon'ble High Court dated 23.02.2015

07 CRL.M.P No. Of 2015:- Application for permission to file SLP

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R., Order XXII Rule 2(1)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____OF 2015

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(Arising from the impugned interim order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in Crl M.C. 725/2015 and Crl. MA 2765/2015)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

STATE OF BIHAR …………. (Petitioner)

Versus

ANAND ARORA & Others

R/o A-32, Block 32, Defense Colony,

New Delhi- 110023. ...……… (Respondent)

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of 14 days in filing the same against
order dated 04.03.2015 and application for condonation of ……08 days delay has been
filed.

New Delhi BRANCH OFFICER

Dated:
 SYNOPSIS

1. Mr. Suresh Goyal, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Anand Arora an industrialist and high
profile person living in Goyal House‟ a palatial mansion having bar, swimming pool,
tennis court, small film screening auditorium, number of classic cars and gadgets. They
lead a posh life. Shri Suresh Goyal was studying for MBA in a well-known university.
2. Miss Sharda Gupta was aged about 24 years, daughter of Shri Vikram Gupta, a
businessman, having chain of departmental stores, leading aristocratic life, was also
studying in MBA in the same College as that of Shri Suresh Goyal. Both were in the
same class. Miss Sharda Gupta stood first, was a gold medalist. Shri Suresh Goyal also
passed but in Second Division. Both fell in love. Both families knew each other and Shri
Anand Arora and Shri Vikram Gupta being members of the Ashok Club use to visit
house of each other and have drinks.
3. Shri Suresh Goyal suggested his father to talk to Shri Vikram Gupta for his daughter
Miss Sharda Gupta, his classmate. Shri Anand Arora having closely known to Shri
Vikram Gupta readily accepted, had a talk with Shri Vikram Gupta. Both agreed for the
marriage. However Shri Anand Arora demanded dowry of substantial value,
commensurate with his social status and to spend a minimum of Rs. 1 Crore on the
wedding apart from the dowry. In order to fulfill the desire of his sweet daughter, he
accepted all the terms and conditions.
4. The marriage was performed with pomp and show on 17.07.2012 and the agreed dowry
was paid to the entire satisfaction of the Goyal family.
5. On 18th July, 2012 Wedding reception was arranged by Shri Anand Arora on a grand and
lavish scale, with the presence of more than 5000 persons including Ministers, Senior
officials, industrialists, film celebrities, social workers and persons of eminence.
6. Mrs. Sharda Goyal did not receive proper treatment from her mother-in-law, sister-in-law
as also the father-in-law. Smt. Shalini Goyal was continuously making dowry demands
for Mercedes Benj Classic Car and for a fixed deposit of Rs. 1 Crore. However a fixed
deposit of Rs. 25 lacs was given in the name of Mrs. Sharda Goyal. Treatment by all the
family members including Shri Anand Arora and his wife Smt. Shalini Goyal, became
hard and started ill-treatment with the daughter-in-law. With mental disturbance and non-
 congenial atmosphere Mrs. Sharda Goyal could not conceive. Her relations with her
husband became strained.
7. By grace of god Mrs. Sharda Goyal gave birth to a baby girl, but the goyal family was not
happy and was cursing Mrs. Sharda Goyal. No usual ceremonies and festivities were
organized. She was cursed, rebuked and sent to parental house. Mrs. Sharda Goyal was
maintaining a daily diary noting every incident minutely.
8. Goyal family planned and accordingly Mr. Anand Arora purchased on 24.5.2015 organo
phosphrus sold under the trade name of “NUVAN” from Shri Sanjay Kumar PW-1 a
shopkeeper on the pretext that he required the same to kill the flies. On 25.5.2015, the
fateful day, Smt. Sharda Goyal, her mother-in-law forcibly administered poison to the
deceased to kill her. Her son also held the body of the deceased physically and forced her
to drink. During the course of administration of poison deceased struggled as such
sustained injuries on her face, lips and neck. Shri Surendra Kumar PW-2, a servant heard
the shrieks and cries of the deceased and extreme weeping of her child.
9. The accused refused to take the deceased to the hospital on the pretext that nothing had
happened and he himself being father-in-law could look after her. PWs 5 and 6 also smelt
poisonous odor in the room. Deceased was crying that she did not want to die and she
being saved. On being asked what had happened, she raised her hand towards the accused
Shri Anand Arora and Mrs. Shalini Goyal.
10. On coming to know that his daughter has been taken to Hospital, Shri Vikram Gupta,
PW- , father of the deceased came to the hospital and on the same day he also lodged a
report at the Police Station mentioning the harassment caused by the three accused to the
deceased for dowry. He stated that all the three accused namely Shri Anand Arora, Smt.
Shalini Goyal and Shri Suresh Goyal had forcibly administered poison with intention to
kill his daughter for non-fulfillment of further demand of dowey. Death had occurred due
to mal-treatment by the accused and action be taken against them. FIR No. 466 of 2015
was registered under sections 498A, 304B, 305/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
11. The State as well as Shri Vikram Gupta filed appeal against all the three accused setting
aside conviction and non-levy of maximum imprisonment with fine as also awarding
exemplary cost all throughout. The appellants have requested that accused Anand Arora
be awarded imprisonment for life and his wife and son for seven years rigorous
 imprisonment. Domestic violence is deprecated and the police be asked why no charge
was framed. Notice issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to show cause why appeals be
not accepted and imprisonment enhanced. Hence the Special Leave Petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R., Order XXII Rule 2(1)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____OF 2015

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(Arising from the impugned interim order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in Crl M.C. 725/2015 and Crl. MA 2765/2015)

To

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS LORDSHIPS OTHER COMPANION JUSTICES

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner most respectfully showeth:-

1. The petitioner/petitioners above named respectfully submit this Special Leave Petition
under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the impugned order and
judgment dated 04.03.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl M.C.
725/2015 and Crl. MA 2765/2015. That vide the impugned order of the High Court of
Delhi application of respondent 1 to recall 13 witnesses for the purpose of further cross
examination was allowed.
2. No writ appeal or LPA lies against the impugned order.
QUESTION OF LAW

The Petitioner raises important points of law of general public importance.

1. Whether the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi was correct in allowing the
petition for recalling 13 witnesses who had already been thoroughly examined?
2. Whether the instant case falls within the confines of the province determined for
exercising positive discretion under the said provision of the constitution.
3. That a grave miscarriage of justice happened on sought of acquittal of all the accused.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2)

The petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by him against
the impugned judgment and order.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

The annexures produced along with the SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents which
formed part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose order the leave
to appeal is sought for in this petition.

GROUNDS

1. Because the scope of this special appellant jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is very
flexible. There are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying the power of the Supreme
Court. The matter lies within the complete discretion of the Supreme Court and the only
limit upon it is the ‘wisdom and good sense of the judges’ of the court.
2. Because the general principle of granting Special leave in Civil cases states that only in
exceptional cases where substantial and grave injustice is shown to have been done or
where the cases presents features of special gravity appeals can be granted.
3. Because the Supreme Court in the catena of its earlier decisions had summarized the
principles that emerged the parameters of exercising the discretion enshrined under the
said constitutional provision as following (emphasizing certain portions in italics) –
a. The powers of the court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in
Civil appeals this court does not interfere with concurrent findings of the fact save
 in exceptional circumstances. It is open to this court to invoke the power under
Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of
general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court.
b. When the point of law raised in appeal is of general public importance, appeal
cannot be dismissed in limine on the preliminary issue of maintainability on the
ground that no appeal was preferred against the earlier decision of the High Court.
c. When both the Trail and High Court departed from the rule of prudence while
appreciating the evidence, interference and acquittal by the Supreme Court is
justified.
d. Where for example, it appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be
justified by any judicial standard, the end of justice and the need to maintain
judicial discipline require the Supreme Court to intervene.
e. It would be open to the Supreme Court to interfere with concurrent finding of
fact, if the infirmity of excluding, ignoring and overlooking the abundant material
and the evidence, if considered in proper perspective would have led to a
conclusion contrary to the one taken by the court below. In the light of aforesaid
submissions, this Hon’ble Court is endowed with the said special powers, which
ought to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
4. Because the acquittal of all the accused namely, Mr. Anand Arora, Mrs. Shalini Goyal
and Mr. Suresh Goyal had projected a grave injustice to the deceased. It has been held by
the apex court that when a question of law of general public importance arises, or a
decision shocks the conscience of the court, its jurisdiction can be invoked under Article
136. Article 136 gives a residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied
that there is injustice. The principle was envisaged that the apex court should never do
injustice or allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities.
5. Where there is manifest injustice, a duty is enjoined upon this Court to exercise its suo
moto power by setting right the illegality in the judgment of the High Court as it is well
settled that illegality should not be allowed to be perpetuated and failure by this Court to
Reportable interfere with the same would amount to allow illegality to be perpetuated.
When an apparent irregularity is found by this Court in the order passed by the High
Court, the Supreme Court cannot ignore substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with
 the cause pending before it. There is no reason why the relief cannot be and should not be
appropriately molded while disposing of an appeal arising by grant of special leave under
Article 136 of the Constitution. In the light of aforesaid submissions; this Hon’ble Court
is endowed with the said special powers, which ought to be exercised in the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

1. BECAUSE the present petitioner will be put to unnecessary torture and harassment by
going through the traumatised experience once again.
2. BECAUSE vide the impugned order the recall of witnesses has already been proceeded
with by the trial court.
3. BECAUSE there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is put to such an
ordeal only to be victimised repeatedly.

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is prayed
on behalf of the appellant, that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudicate and declare that:

i. That the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the appellant be allowed.

ii. That the decision of the High Court be set aside and maximum imprisonment be awarded
to all the accused.
iii. That adequate compensation to be granted to the family of the deceased.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY

Place: Advocate for the petitioner

Date:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 [S.C.R., Order XXII Rule 2(1)]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ____OF 2015

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:-

VIKRAM GUPTA through STATE OF BIHAR ...............Deponent

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under:-

1. That the deponent is petitioner in the above mentioned petition and as such is fully aware
of the facts deposed to above.
2. That the deponent has filed the present special leave petition is for punishing the Civil,
that the contents of the said suit may be read and understood as a part of this affidavit
which is not being repeated herewith for the sake of brevity.
3. That the deponent hereby verifies that contents made in the petition are correct & true.
4. That the petition of the deponent is liable to be allowed for reliefs claimed.

…………….Deponent

Verification

I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of paragraph 1 to 4 of the above
affidavit are true to the best of knowledge & belief. Nothing material has been concealed
herewith & no part of it is untrue.

Verified at Shahdol on 12/11/17 …………….Deponent