manjula krippender final _1

8/17/2019 Manjula Krippender Final _1

1/51

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.________OF 2016

[Arising out of the Impugned Judgment and Final Order

dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015 &

Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms Eera Through Dr.Manjula Krippendorf … Petitioner

Versus

State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. … Respondents

WITH

[CRL. M.P. NO.___________OF 2016]

[APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION]

AND [CRL. M.P. NO.___________OF 2016]

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED

COPY OF IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 29.06.2015

PAPER BOOKS

[FOR INDEX:: KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: MS AISHWARYA BHATI

[THROUGH SCLSC]


2/51

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.No. DATE OF RECORD OF

PROCEEDINGS

PAGES


3/51

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Office Report on Limitation

2. Listing Proforma

3. Synopsis and List of Dates

4. True typed copy of the Impugned

Judgment and Final Order dated

29.06.2015 passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in

Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015 & Crl.

M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15.

5. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

6. PPENDIX

i)

Section 376 (2) (L) of IPC

ii) Section 482 of Cr.P.C

7. NNEXURE P-1:

True typed copy of the curriculum

vitae of mother of the

petitioner/prosecutrix dated Nil.

8. NNEXURE P-2:

True typed copy of the compilation of

complaints 16.07.2010 made by

the mother of the petitioner to the

police authorities.

9. NNEXURE P-3:

True typed copy of the Complaint

dated 17.12.2010 submitted by the

mother of the petitioner before the

SHO, Defence Colony, New Delhi


4/51

9. NNEXURE P-4:

True typed copy of the FIR No.

197/2014 dated 12.07.2014registered by the police at Police

Station Defence Colony, New Delhi.

10. NNEXURE P-5:

True typed copy of the order dated

15.09.2014 passed by the Ld. Addl.

Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New

Delhi in C.C. No. 186/2014.

11. NNEXURE P-6:

True typed copy of the order dated

20.10.2014 passed by the Ld.

ASJ/Spl. FTC), Saket Court

Complex, New Delhi in FIR No.

192/2014 registered at P.S. DefenceColony, New Delhi

12. NNEXURE P-7:

True typed copy of the statement of

Dr. Roma Kumar of Sir Ganga Ram

Hospita, New Delhi dated

15.05.2015 recorded by the Ld.

ASJ/Special, Fast Track Court,

Saket, New Delhi in CC No.

186/2014

13. NNEXURE P-8:

True typed copy of the Petition being

Crl.M.C. No. 2524/2015 dated

09.06.2015 filed by the petitionerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi.


5/51

14. NNEXURE P-9:

True typed copy of the order dated15.06.2015 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in

Crl.M.C.No. 2524/2015 along with

Cr. M.A. No. 8839/15 & 8918/15.

15. pplication for Condonation of delay

in filing Special Leave Petition.

16. pplication for exemption from filing

certified copy of the impugned order

dated 29.06.2015.


6/51




IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms Eera Through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf … Petitioner

Versus

State


OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is within Limitation.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of

_____days in filing the SLP against the Impugned

Judgment and Final Order dated 29.06.2015

passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi in Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015 & Crl. M.As

No. 8839/15 & 8918/15 and petition forCondonation of______delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of_______days in Re-filing the petition

and petition for Condonation of______days in re-

filing has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER

NEW DELHI

DATED: 02.2016


7/51

S Y N O P S I S

The present petition for Special Leave to Appeal is

directed against the Impugned Judgment and Final

Order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C.No.

2524/2015 & Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15,

whereby the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose

of the Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015 & Crl. M.As No.

8839/15 & 8918/15 of the petitioner.

It is respectfully submitted that in the present case

the petitioner who is represented by her mother Dr.

Manjula Krippendorf, who is an old lady and has given

several contributions to the health programmes of

Government of India and also served as a Commissioned

Medical Officer in the Army Medical Corps including

Combat services and also in other Govt. Health

Organization.

It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is of

38 years but she is suffering from Cerebral Palasy (R.

Hemiparesis), and a Mild-Iintellectual challenge. After the

heinous crime her communication level fell to that of a


8/51

child of 3-4 years and prior to the henious crime, she had

the developmental and communication level of 8-9 years.

It is respectfully submitted that the Accused

persons in the present matter committed a very serious

act which betrays the trust on humanity i.e. the very

serious offence under Section 376 (2) (L) of IPC with the

prosecutrix.The Accused Persons are monied people in

their locality due to which extraneous factor, they still

makes attempts to attack on the petitioner and her

mother which terrifies the prosecutrix and when any

complaint regarding the attack is made to the local

polices Station or the higher police authorities but no

mandatory step or action has been taken till date by the

police authorities concerned.

LIST OF DATES

The Petitioner is suffering from Cerebral

palsy (R Hemiparesis) and is a mildly

intellectually challenged child.

It is pertinent to mention here that

the mother of the petitioner is a eminent

and reputed doctor having great


9/51

experience in her profession who also

served in Army Hospital and many Govt.

and UN Health Organization and WHO.

She has assisted in several health

programmes in other countries like U.K.,

Germany, New York, Nigeria etc. True

typed copy of the curriculum vitae of

mother of the petitioner/prosecutrix

dated Nil is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure-P/1 (Page

16.07.2010 Complaint was made by the mother of the

petitioner to the SHO, P.S. Defence

Colony, New Delhi on attacking by a mob

of 40-60 people led by Sunil Goelalong

with three local police officers who

attacked her mother and her younger

sister’s complaint to the ACP of PS and

ACP, P.S. EOW, by the petitioner of an

attack on her and prosecutrix. True typed

copy of the compilation of complaints

16.07.2010 made by the mother of


10/51

the petitioner to the police authorities is

annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure–P/2 (Page


since 16.07.2010 to 07.07.2014, several

written complaints were forwarded from

time to time by the mother of the

proseuctrix regarding the attacks and

harassment made by the Accused

Persons on her and the prosecutrix but it

is ironical that the local police officials

even did not make any effort to protect

them in a lawful manner and no legal or

necessary action taken by local police

officials despite of informing the higher

authorities of the police department till

date and the petitioner is suffering from

dire consequences along with her

daughter but still no action has been

taken by the police authorities.


11/51

07.12.2010 On 07.12.2010, the Complainant/

mother of the prosecutrix filed a

Complaint to the SHO, P.S. Defence

Colony, New Delhi regarding an attack by

mob of 80-100 people led by Mr. Anand

Prakash and Mr. & Mrs. A. Dawra, Sajjan

Naraayan, who smashed the proseccutrix

/victim’s gate, broke her ground floor of

main entrance lock, broke the MCD

sealed basement and door handle and

physically attacked her and her mother.

17.12.2010 The mother of the petitioner submitted a

Complaint/written report to SHO,

Defence Colony, New Delhi regarding a

mob attack by 80 people upon her and

the prosecutrix victim led by one Anand

Prakash, Preeti Dadra and Sajjan Narain.

True copy of Complaint dated 17.12.2010

submitted by mother of the petitioner

before SHO, Defence Colony, New Delhi is


12/51


Annexure – P/3 (Page

09.07.2014 A zero FIR was lodged with P.S. Kotwali

City, Dehradun, Uttarakhand on the

complaint lodged by the mother of the

petitioner against the incident which

happened with the petitioner.

12.07.2014 Thereafter, the aforesaid FIR was

transferred to the police station Defence

Colony, New Delhi vide FIR No. 197/2014

against the Accused Sh. Santosh Yadav..

The Accused Shri Santosh Yadav was

arrested and upon filing the charge sheet,

the matter has been put on trial and

superficial in incomplete investigation

was started. True typed copy of the FIR

No. 197/2014 dated 12.07.2014

registered by the police at Police Station

Defence Colony, New Delhi is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure–P/4

(Page


13/51

31.07.2014 Thereafter, Charge Sheet/final report has

been filed by the police against the

Accused Santosh Yadav for the offence

punishable under Sections 376 (2) (L) of

IPC before the concerned judicial

authority and thereafter, the case was

committed to the Ld. ASJ/Special, Fast

Track Court, Saket, New Delhi vide CC

No. 186/2014 and the same is pending

for trial. .

15.09.2014 The petitioner wishes to bring to the

notice of the Hon’ble High Court that the

Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Saket, New

Delhi was pleased to pass an order qua

the recording of evidence of the

prosecutrix/petitioner Before the Ld. Trial

Court. True typed copy of the order dated

15.09.2014 passed by the Ld. Addl.

Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi

in C.C. No. 186/2014 is annexed


14/51

herewith and marked as Annexure –P/5

(Page

Further, on the count of the status

of the mother of the petitioner as well as

the health condition of the petitioner, the

Ld. Trial Court was pleased to refer the

matter to the legal services authority for

providing interim compensation to the

prosecutrix/petitioner under the

provisions of Delhi Victim Compensation

Scheme, 2011.

20.10.2014 The Ld. Trial Court was pleased to pass

an order for submitting report by the

concerned ACP and if the prosecutrix

wishes to seek police protection/

counseling, the ACP concerned to do the

needful. And further, DLSA directed to gie

interim compensation for heavy cost

medicines. True typed copy of the order

dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Ld.

ASJ/Spl. FTC), Saket Court Complex,


15/51

New Delhi in FIR No. 192/2014 registered

at P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi is


Annexure-P/6 (page


the Ld. ASJ specifically observed that

Application moved on behalf of the

mother of prosecutrix stating inter alia

that she has been raped by the Accused

and despite being a silent sufferer, has

been terrorized by some occupants of the

same building their names being

mentioned in the Application. “On the

same day, concerned ACP was directed to

file a report in this regard and also

directed that meanwhile if the prosecutrix

wishes to seek police protection,

counseling etc., the ACP concerned do

the needful and the copy of this order

was also sent to the ACP concerned.


16/51

14.11.2014 On 14.11.2014, the petitioner was

hospitalized on the date fixed by the Ld.

Trial Court, and an exemption was

sought and the same was granted by the

Ld. Trial Court. The matter was thereafter

adjourned for 19 /20.12.2014.

Further, the Ld. Trial Court ASJ was

transferred by an administrative order to

Rohini Courts, Delhi and the matter was

adjourned to 12/13.02.2015.

12.02.2015 On 12.02.2015, P.W. Narender Singh and

Head Constable Subhash Chand were

present for further examination.

30.03.2015 The mother of the petitioner who was

present was not examined as the Ld. Trial

Court felt that the petitioner/ prosecutrix

was to be examined first. However, as the

petitioner was hospitalized the matter

was adjourned for 31.03.2015. The I.O.

was further directed to comply with the


17/51

order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the

Predecessor of the Ld. Trial Court.

31.03.2015 An Application was moved by the mother

of the petitioner indicating that the order

dated 20.10.2014 was not being complied

with, in relation to providing security for

the prosecutrix/ petitioner. However, the

case was further adjourned for

15.05.2015 & 18.05.2015.

15.05.2015 The petitioner was produced by her

mother and was also accompanied by Dr.

(Mrs.) Roma Kumar, Sr. Consultant

(Psychologist), Ganga Ram Hospital and

Max Hospital, Gurgaon for interpretation

in which she stated that she knows the

prosecutrix since 1987 and suffering from

cerebral palsy. True typed copy of the

statement of Dr. Roma of Sir Ganga Ram

Hospita, New Delhi dated 15.05.2015

recorded by the Ld. ASJ/Special, Fast

Track Court, Saket, New Delhi in CC No.


18/51

186/2014 is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure–P/7(Page

Thereafter the version of I.O. was

recorded. Further, th3 mother of the

petitioner also pointed out the order

passed by the Ld. Predecessor dated

15.09.2014 wherein it has been

categorically recorded that in Camera

Trial for recording of the statement of the

prosecutrix would be video graphed but

despite pointing out the said facts, the

Ld. Trial Court proceeded in a arbitrary

manner on its own way for recording of

the evidence of the prosecurtix, which

finds mentioned in order dated

15.05.2015. Further, after putting a lot of

efforts were made to do in Camera

Recording the evidence of the prosecutrix

in a vulnerable room at Saket Court

Complex, New Delhi in which prosecutrix

did make a coherent statement in child

like language of the anatomical part of


19/51

the accused that was put in her.

However, the trial judge refused to accept

the child like language, despite the fact

that the interpreter Dr. Roma Kumar was

interpreting the child like language for

the trial judge and the case was

thereafter adjourned because the

prosecutrix was distressed and crying

instead the trial judge adjourned the in-

Camera Trial because repeated

questioning in the same was making the

child cry and distressed. Thereafter, the

matter was listed for 21.05.2015 &

27.05.2015 and the I.O. was directed to

collect the relevant information from

AADI and submit the report on

18.05.2016 at 4.00 p.m.

15.05.2015 The mother of the petitioner had brought

an expert for doing the video graphy of

the proceedings, the concerned officials of

vulnerable witness Court room of the


20/51

Saket Court Complex submitted that the

video graphy of the proceeding was not

permissible.

21.05.2015 Ms. G. Shyamla Executive Director AADI,

the NGO Action For Ability Development

and Inclusion, appeared before the Ld.

Trial Court along with the I.O. it is

submitted that on the query of the Ld.

Trial Court, mother of the petitioner

stated that prosecutrix/ petitioner has

been going to AIIMS Hospital at Neuro

Science Department and she was under

treatment of Professor Sagar,

Psychological Department and Dr. (Mrs.)

Nehra, Neuropsychology Department and

as such Ms. G. Shyamla suggested that

they would be better special educator,

interpreters in the matter.

27.05.2015 Dr. (Mrs.) Nehra and Dr. Sagar were on

vacation and further as the mother of the

petitioner as also not present, the matte


21/51

was deferred for 2nd July 2015 for the

evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix

and Dr. Veena from Dehradun Hospital

on 03.06.2015 for the evidence of the

petitioner/ prosecutrix.

Further, the proceeding recorded on

15.05.2015 has not been recorded as per

the order already passed by the

Predecessor of this Ld. Trial Court dated

15.09.2015.

Further, the petitioner submits that

the proceedings are not being conducted

by the present Presiding Officer in the

congenial manner and as provided by

law.

09.06.2015 The prosecutrix through her mother filed

a Petition being Crl.M.C.No. 2524/2015

along with Cr. M.A. No. 8839/15 &

8918/15 before the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:


22/51

“a) The matter be transferred to Special

Court under POCSO Act, since the

functional age of the child is 3-4 years.

b) The evidence of the prosecutrix/

petitioner may kindly be recorded in the

most congenial and comfortable

atmosphere and the proceedings may

kindly be video graphed and the same

may be recorded before any lady Joint

Registrar of the Hon’ble High Court.

c) To permit the petitioner to avail the

services of Dr. (Mrs.) Nehra of All India

Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr.

(Mrs.) Roma Kumar, Sr. Consultant

(Psychologist) presently working with Max

Hospital for recording the evidence of the

petitioner.

d) to grant permission for video graphy

of the entire on such terms and

conditions as tis Hon’ble Court may deem

fit.


23/51

e) Supervision of the present case be

transferred from P.S. Defence Colony to

any other branch such as crime.

f) pass such other order or direction,

as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.”

True typed copy of the Petition being

Crl.M.C.No. 2524/2015 dated 09.06.2015

filed by the petitioner under Section 482

Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure –P/8 (Page

15.06.2015 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was

pleased to pass the directions for making

necessary arrangements for video graphy

of the proceedings as the proseuctrix most

communicate through Gestures. True

typed copy of the order dated 15.06.2015

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M. C.


24/51

No. 2524/2015 along with Cr. M.A. No.

8839/15 & 8918/15 is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure –P/9(Page

29.06.2015 Vide impugned final order dated

29.06.2015, the Hon’ble High Court was

pleased to dispose of the Criminal Crl.

M.C.No. 2524/2015 & Crl. M.As No.

8839/15 & 8918/15 of the

petitioner.[IMPUGNED ORDER)

02.2016 Hence, this Special Leave Petition.


25/51


Order XXI Rule 3 (1) (a)


SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._______OF 2016

[WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF]

POSITION OF PARTIESIn Trial In High In thisCourt Court C

ourt

BETWEEN:

Ms Eera

Through Dr. Manjula

Krippendorf1,Mother

&Natural Guardian

B-56, Defence Colony,

New Delhi. Accused Appellant Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Thr. Principal Home Secretary

A-Wing, 5th Floor,

Delhi Secretariat,

New Delhi-110003.

Prose- Respondent RespondentCution No. 1 No.1

2. Santosh Kumar Yadav,

Lodged in Central Jail,

Tihar, New Delhi.

Accused Respondent Respondent

No. 2 No.2

TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE


26/51

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NEWDELHI.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. This is a petition for Special Leave to Appeal under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India filed by the

petitioner, which is directed against theImpugned


passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi in Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015 & Crl. M.As

No. 8839/15 & 8918/15, whereby the Hon’ble High

Court was pleased to dispose of the Criminal

M.C.No. 2524/2015 & Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 &

8918/15 of the petitioner.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

The following questions of law arise for

consideration by this Hon’ble Court

i) Whether the judgment/ final order passed by the

both the Ld. courts below is not sustainable in the

eyes of law as while passing the impugned order the

Hon’ble High Court ignored the prayer regarding


27/51

that the matter be transferred to the Special Court

established under POCSO Act since the functional

age of the prosecutrix / child is 3 to 4 years and the

other prayer that the supervision / investigation of

the present case can be transferred from PS.

Defence Colony to any other branch such as Crime

?

ii) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in not

appreciating the fact that in the present case the

prosecutrix is represented by her mother. The

prosecutrix is a child with cerebral palasy (R

Hamiparesis) and a mild intellectual challenge with

I.Q. 90, functioning at 8-10 years levels per the Dr.

opinion, while her chronological age is 38 years.

However after the heinous crime her functional and

communication level fell due to the trauma of

heinous crime to that of a child of 3-4 years level. It

clearly shows that the developmental level of the

prosecutrix is declining day by day as she has no

adequate treatment and care following the crime.

Therefore, the prosecutrix should be treated as a


28/51

child with special care and attention, vital for her

survival. In view of her present functional age of 3-4

years following the heinous crime and her previous

functional age of 8-10 years, the matter be

transferred to the Special Court established under

POCSO Act as she remains a child in the interest of

justice ?

iii) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in not

appreciating the fact that since 2010, the

prosecutrix and her mother have been facing dire

consequences regarding the attacks and

harassment, encroachment, house trespass etc.

regarding which several complaints and efforts were

made by the mother of the petitioner regarding the

safety and security of her and her

daughter/prosecutrix but no necessary steps have

been taken yet by the police officials despite of

approaching higher police authorities ?

iv) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in not

appreciating the fact that the prosecutrix has been

suffering from Post Traumatic stress syndrome


29/51

which affected the health and mind of the

prosecutrix and she has only her mother who is a

old lady to take care of her. In such circumstances

also, the attempts of attacks on the prosecutrix and

her mother has been continuously made by the

Accused persons and when the mother of the

petitioner approached the police station they neither

registered an FIR nor taken any mandatory or

necessary action in this regard ?

v) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in not

appreciating the fact that in such type of

consequences, the investigation of the present case

should be transferred from P.S. Defence Colony to

any other branch such as Crime for the safety and

security of the prosecutrix and her mother for fair

investigation in the interest of justice?

vi) Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in not

appreciating the fact that in the present the list of

attacks and the time to time intimation of the same

by the mother of the petitioner to the police

authorities clearly shows that the local police has


30/51

hand and gloves with the accused persons and the

goons which are simultaneously made attempts to

attack on the prosecutrix and her mother?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 2 (2):

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking

leave to appeal has been filed by her a

gainst the

Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated

29.06.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015

& Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4:

The Annexure P/1 to P/8 produced along with the

S.L.P. are true typed copy of the

pleadings/documents, which form part of the

records of the case in the court below against whose

order the leave to appeal is sought for in this

petition.

5. G R O U N D S


31/51

A. It is respectfully submitted that judgment/ final

order passed by the both the Ld. courts below is not

sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the

impugned order the Hon’ble High Court ignored the

prayer regarding that the matter be transferred to

the Special Court established under POCSO Act

since the functional age of the prosecutrix / child is

3 to 4 years and the other prayer that the

supervision / investigation of the present case can

be transferred from PS. Defence Colony to any other

branch such as Crime.

B. It is respectfully submitted that in the present case

the prosecutrix is represented by her mother. The

prosecutrix is a child with cerebral palasy (R

Hamiparesis) and a mild intellectual challenge,

functioning at 8-10 years levels per the Dr. opinion,

while her chronological age is 38 years. However

after the heinous crime her functional and

communication level fell due to the trauma of

heinous crime to that of a child of 3-4 years level. It

clearly shows that the developmental level of the


32/51

prosecutrix is declining day by day as she has no

adequate treatment following the crime. Therefore,

the prosecutrix should be treated as a child with

special care and attention, vital for her survival. In

view of her present functional age of 3-4 years

following the heinous crime and her previous

functional age of 8-10 years, the matter be

transferred to the Special Court established under

POCSO Act as she remains a child in the interest of

justice.

C. It is respectfully submitted that since 2010, the

prosecutrix and her mother have been facing dire

consequences regarding the attacks and

harassment, encroachment, house trespass etc.

regarding which several complaints and efforts were

made by the mother of the petitioner regarding the

safety and security of her and her

daughter/prosecutrix but no necessary steps have

been taken yet by the police officials despite of

approaching higher police authorities.


33/51

D. It is respectfully submitted that the prosecutrix has

been suffering from Post Traumatic stress syndrome

which effected the health and mind of the

prosecutrix and she has only her mother who is a

old lady to take care of her. In such circumstances

also, the attempts of attacks on the prosecutrix and

her mother has been continuously made by the

Accused persons and when the mother of the

petitioner approached the police station they neither

registered an FIR nor taken any mandatory or

necessary action in this regard.

E. It is respectfully submitted that in such type of

consequences, the investigation of the present case

should be transferred from P.S. Defence Colony to

any other branch such as Crime for the safety and

security of the prosecutrix and her mother for fair

investigation in the interest of justice.

F. It is respectfully submitted that in the present the

list of attacks and the time to time intimation of the

same by the mother of the petitioner to the police

authorities clearly shows that the local police has


34/51

hand and gloves with the accused persons and the

goons which are simultaneously made attempts to

attack on the prosecutrix and her mother.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:-

It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has

prima facie case as disclosed in the foregoing

paragraphs and the petitioner would suffer

irreparable loss and injuries, her mother and the

prosecutrix are not safe and their personal safety

and security is at stake if the following two prayers

i.e. (a) & (e) as mentioned in the list of dates are not

allowed by this Hon’ble Court, which are as follows:

:

“a) The matter be transferred to Special Court

under POCSO Act, since the functional age of

the child is 3-4 years.

e) Supervision of the present case be transferred

from P.S. Defence Colony to any other branch

such as crime.”

during the pendency of the present Special Leave

Petition. The balance of convenience is in favour of


35/51

the petitioner and it is a prima facie case for

allowing the above mentioned prayers.

7. MAIN PRAYER:

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that your

lordships may be pleased to:

a. Grant the Special Leave to Appeal against the

Impugned Judgment and Final Order dated

29.06.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015

& Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15,in the interest

of justice;

AND/OR

b. Pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper.

[

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to;

i) Allow following two prayers i.e. (a) & (e) as

mentioned in the list of dates by this Hon’ble

Court, which are as follows :


36/51

“a) The matter be transferred to Special

Court under POCSO Act, since the

functional age of the child is 3-4 years.

e) Supervision of the present case be

transferred from P.S. Defence Colony to

any other branch such as crime.”

during the pendency of the present Special Leave

Petition. in the interest of justice;

AND/ OR

ii) Pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER

SHALL EVER PRAY

DRAWN & FILED BY

-

………………………………………

MS AISHWARYA BHATIADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN ON: 02.2016FILED ON 02.2016


37/51



SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO._______OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:


Versus

State


CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special leave Petition is confined only to

the pleading before the Court whose order is challenged

and the other documents relied upon in those

proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds

have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special

leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the

documents/Annexures attached to the Special Leave

Petition are necessary to answer the question of law

raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in

the Special leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble

Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the

instructions given by the petitioner/person authorized by

the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the

Special Leave Petition.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

DRAWN ON: 02.2016


38/51

FILED ON: 02.2016

MS AISHWARYA BHATI ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER


39/51



CRL.M.P. NO. ___________OF 2016IN


IN THE MATTER OF:


Versus

State


APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

IN FILING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE



PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED


1. That this is an Application for condonation of delay

in filing the Special Leave Petition filed by the

petitioner along with accompanying SLP, which is




40/51


2524/2015 & Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15.

2. That the facts stated in the Special Leave Petition

may be read as part and parcel of this Application

as the same not repeated herein for the sake of

brevity. The petitioner craves the indulgence of this

Hon'ble Court to allow her to refer and rely on the

same at the time of hearing of this application.

3. It is respectfully submitted that the present SLP has

been filed through SCLSC and the cause of delay is

on account of the reasons mentioned across

following dates.

a) Date of assignment of the counsel : 13.01.2016

) Case File received by the Counsel. : 15.01.2016

c) The matter was under drafting. : 01.02.2016d) ffidavit of the petitioner were

received.

: 16.02.2016

e) SLP was finally prepared and filed. : 02.2016

4. All this has resulted in substantial delay, which is

neither intentional nor deliberate and hence

deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.


41/51

5. It is respectfully submitted that if the delay in filing

the accompanying S.L.P. is not condoned by this

Hon’ble Court, the petitioner would suffer

irreparable loss, hardship, injuries and great

injustice, which cannot be compensated in any

manner.

P R A Y E R

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships

may graciously be pleased to;

(a) condone the delay of_______days in filing the

Special Leave Petition against the Impugned


passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at

New Delhi in Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015 &

Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15, in the

interest of justice.

AND/OR

b) pass such and other order (s) as this Hon'ble

Court may deem just and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS PETITIONER IN

THEIR DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.


42/51

DRAWN & FILED BY:


DRAWN ON: 02.2016FILED ON: 02.2016


43/51


CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRL. M.P. NO.___________OF 2016

IN


IN THE MATTER OF:


VersusState


APPLICATION FOR FROM FILING CERTIFIED

COPY OF THE IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT

AND ORDER DATED 29.06.2015

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE



PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED


1. That this is an Application for from filing certified

copy of the impugned final judgment and order

dated 29.06.2015 filed by the petitioner along with

accompanying the Special Leave Petition which is


44/51




2524/2015 & Crl. M.As No. 8839/15 & 8918/15.

2. It is respectfully submitted that the certified copy of

the impugned final order dated 29.06.2015 is not

available with the petitioner at this stage but she

has applied for the same. However, due to the

urgency in the matter, the petitioner filed true typed

copy of the same as the petitioner is a minor and is

represented through her mother and the present

SLP filed by the petitioner through SCLSC and the

original case file was received by the Counsel

without certified copy of the final impugned order.

3. Therefore, in view of the above submissions, the

petitioner is seeking exemption from filing certified

copy of the impugned final order dated 29.06.2015

and this Hon’ble Court exempts the petitioner from

filing certified copy of the impugned final order in

the interest of justice.


45/51

4.

The balance of convenience is in favour of the

petitioner.

P R A Y E R

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your Lordships

may graciously be pleased to;

(b) Exempt the petitioner from filing certified copy

of the final impugned judgment and order

dated 29.06.2015, in the interest of justice.

AND/OR

b) pass such and other order (s) as this Hon'ble

Court may deem just and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS PETITIONER IN

THEIR DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY:


DRAWN ON: 02.2016


46/51

FILED ON: 02.2016


47/51

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

AT NEW DELHI

Criminal M.C.No. 2524/2015

MEMO OF PARTIES

BETWEEN:

Ms Eera

Through Dr. Manjula

Krippendorf Mother& Natural Guardian


New Delhi. …Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State

Through Standing Counsel

426, Lawyers Chambers,Delhi High Court, New Delhi.



Tihar, New Delhi. …Respondents

DRAWN & FILED BY:




48/51


49/51

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

AT NEW DELHI

Crl. M.As No. 8918/15.

MEMO OF PARTIES

BETWEEN:

Ms Eera

Through Dr. Manjula

Krippendorf Mother& Natural Guardian


New Delhi. …Petitioner

VERSUS

1. State

Through Standing Counsel

426, Lawyers Chambers,Delhi High Court, New Delhi.



Tihar, New Delhi. …Respondents

DRAWN & FILED BY:




50/51


CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.________OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:


Versus

State


A F F I D A V I T

I, Dr. Manjula Krippendorf, R/o House No. B-56, Defence

Colony, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That I am the mother of the petitioner in the

aforesaid matter and as such I am well conversant

with the facts and circumstances of the case, hence

I am competent to swear and sign this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Special Leave Petition

containing Paras from 1 to 8, Pages from to

and List of Dates from to & I.As. have been

drafted as per my instruction by our counsel

through SCLSC and I have gone through the

contents thereof and I understood the same.


51/51

3. That the Annexures enclosed with the SLP are true

typed copies of their respective originals.

4. That the contents of the aforesaid SLP and

Applications are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this_______day of February,

2016 that the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, no

part of it is false and no material has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT

manjula krippender final _1

Documents