Daily Archives: January 2, 2012

2.5 Crore Ransom for release from arrest u/s 498a

2.5 Crore Ransom for release from arrest u/s 498a

————————————————————

Delhi High Court
Harish Kapoor vs Akansha Gupta on 4 December, 2008
Author: Aruna Suresh

“REPORTABLE”

33#

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. 3869/2007 Date of decision: 4.12.2008

# HARISH KAPOOR ….. PETITIONER ! Through : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Adv. with Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Shivkant Arora, Adv.

Versus

$ AKANSHA GUPTA …….RESPONDENT ^ Through : Mr. Kumar Sushobhan, Adv. %

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)

1. Shashank Kapur was married to Akanksha Gupta/complainant on 27.6.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi. Shashank Kapur happens to be son of the petitioner. However, disputes and differences arose between the complainant and her husband which resulted into filing of divorce petition by Shashank Kapur, her husband.

2. Complainant lodged FIR No. 259/07 dated 12.4.2007 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Punjabi Bagh against her husband, Shashank, the present petitioner and other co- accused persons with allegations of cruelty for demand for dowry.

3. Petitioner was arrested in the said case. He was produced before the learned MM on 4.5.2007 where petitioner made a proposal for settlement and agreed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores towards settlement of her claims regarding maintenance, alimony etc. with her husband Shashank Kapur and also that parties would seek mutual divorce by adopting proper forum for the same. Consequently petitioner handed over cheques No. 203022 dated 8.5.2007 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, 203021 dated 8.6.2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India and 203023 dated 8.8.2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India in terms of the settlement.

4. Complainant/respondent presented cheque No. 203023 dated 8.8.2007 for Rs. 1,25,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India in her account for encashment which was dishonoured on 20.8.2007 with the remarks “Payment Stopped by the Drawer”. Complainant thereafter issued legal demand notice dated 31.8.2007 under the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) and when petitioner and other accused persons failed to make the payment on demand of the dishonoured cheque, complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the present petitioner and Girish Kapur, the other co-accused.

5. Vide order dated 5.11.2007 the learned trial court while dismissing the complaint being complaint No. 18112/2007 against accused Girish Kapur was pleased to summon the petitioner.

6. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that alone said three cheques were given pursuant to the settlement which was entered into between the parties under duress and coercion and the said cheques were to be encashed by the respondent at different stages. It is argued that the cheque in question was not given for discharge of debt or any other liability nor does petitioner had any liability towards the respondent. The cheque in question was to be encashed at the time of quashing of FIR No. 259/2007 after respondent and her husband got divorced, however, they had not yet divorced each other and this made the settlement ineffective. Hence, since the settlement did not materialize and ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are not made out, the impugned complaint and summoning order deserve to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent states that petitioner had liability towards the respondent, since it was agreed in the settlement before the trial court that petitioner would pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores and only on this ground the petitioner was granted bail by the trial court on 4.5.2007. Since, petitioner had liability to pay the amount under the settlement therefore, he has been rightly summoned by the trial court for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

8. Section 138 of the NI Act so far as the relevant for the purposes of the present case reads as follows:

“Sec. 138. Dishnour of
cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
funds in the accounts.–Where any
cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a
banker for payment of any amount
of money to another person from
out of that account for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability, is
returned by the bank unpaid,
either because of the amount of
money standing to the credit of
that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it
exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account by an
agreement made with that bank,
such person shall be deemed to
have committed an offence and
shall, without prejudice to any
other provision of this Act, be
punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two
year, or with fine which may
extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in
this section shall apply unless–

(a)….
(b)….
(c)….

Explanation.–For the purposes of
this section, “debt or other
liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”

9. For enforcing her claim under Section 138 of the NI Act, complainant had to show that the cheque issued in her favour by the petitioner was against any legally enforceable debt or liability.

10. As per the mutual settlement between the parties, petitioner had issued three post-dated cheques of different amounts totalling to Rs. 2.5 crores. As per the settlement, the impugned cheque for Rs. 1.25 crores was to be got encashed by the respondent at the time of quashing of the FIR.

11. Admittedly, no petition for seeking quashing of the FIR has been filed by the respondent or by Shashank Kapur. It is also not disputed that this compromise was arrived at and the cheque was issued by the petitioner when he was in custody and was produced before the Court and had sought his release on bail. Court had granted bail in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent. Under these circumstances, the impugned cheque cannot be considered as a cheque issued for consideration or in discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability towards the complainant/respondent. Petitioner being father-in-law of the complainant was not under any obligation, legally or otherwise, to make arrangements and discharge the liability of Shashank Kapur, his son, towards the respondent for her permanent alimony or for return of istridhan or dowry articles. The post-dated cheque issued in a criminal case in a compromise between the parties cannot be considered as payment of any debt or other liability which is legally enforceable against petitioner.

12. In Lalit Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – (2008) 5 SCC 638 wherein a second cheque was issued on compromise in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, which on presentation was also dischonoured, it was observed that since second cheque was issued in terms of the compromise, it did not create a new liability and therefore, as the compromise did not fructify, the same could not be said to be issued towards the payment of debt.

13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, since a post-dated cheque was issued which was to be encashed at the time of quashing of the FIR and that too upon a settlement arrived at between the father-in-law and daughter-in-law, it cannot be said that this cheque was issued towards payment of a debt which could be legally enforced by the complainant/respondent against the petitioner. Legally she is entitled to enforce her claims for istridhan, dowry articles and maintenance against Shashank Kapur, her husband, however, respondent is not entitled to enforce such rights against the petitioner and the petitioner under no circumstance was legally liable to pay any amount for settlement of the marital dispute between his son and the respondent.

14. As stated above, respondent deposited this cheque for encashment in her account before approaching the Court for quashing of the FIR and therefore, the petitioner was within his rights to stop the payment of the cheque as respondent/complainant had failed to fulfill her part of the obligation in terms of the settlement. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is manifestly clear that the settlement did not fully fructify between the parties and petitioner had no legal liability nor had any debt towards the complainant which could be legally enforced as a debt against the petitioner by the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act.

15. Hence, no offence can be said to have been made out against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial court erred in summoning the petitioner on the basis of averments contained in the complaint as he failed to appreciate that the impugned cheque was not issued towards payment of any legally enforceable debt but was for purposes of settlement against the marital dispute between the petitioner’s son and the respondent.

16. Hence, petition is allowed. The complaint case No. 18112/2007 and summoning order dated 5.11.2007 are hereby quashed.

17. Attested copy of the order be sent to the trial court immediately.

(ARUNA SURESH)

JUDGE

December 04, 2008

jk

Source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/461332/

Wife claims 1 Crore Permanent Alimony in 2011 AFTER divorce in USA circa 1989 !!!!

Wife claims 1 Crore Permanent Alimony in 2011 AFTER divorce in USA circa 1989 !!!!

======================================================

Family court chennai dismisses wife’s petition saying the foreign decree is final. On Revision application by wife, Madras High court allows the wife’s plea !! …..

======================================================

Madras High Court
Manorama Akkineni : vs Unknown on 30 March, 2011
DATED: 30.03.2011

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN

C.R.P.(PD)No.2170 of 2009
and
M.P.No.2 of 2009

Manorama Akkineni : Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
Janakiraman Govindarajan : Respondent/Petitioner

Civil Revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order, dated 18.06.2009, made in I.A.No.1469/2004 in F.C.O.P.No.1886 of 2003 on the file of Learned Principal Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Ms.Nandini Sriram

For Respondent : Mr.AL.Somayaji, Senior counsel for Ms.Geetha Rameseshan

O R D E R

This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2009, of the learned Principal Family Court Judge, Chennai, made in I.A.No.1469/2004 in F.C.O.P.No.1886 of 2003.

2.The interesting question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioner and the respondent, who are the wife and the husband, having married in India on 11.06.1986 as per Hindu rites and custom and got certification, dated 28.09.1986, of the marriage between them in U.S.A. and had dissolution of the said marriage certification, dated 28.09.1986, before the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., can maintain an Original Petition before the Family Court at Chennai.

3.The short background of the matter is set out hereunder.

(a)The petitioner/wife has filed F.C.O.P.No.1886 of 2003 before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, against the respondent/husband, for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between them on 11.06.1986, by a decree of divorce, grant of permanent custody of the minor son Arjun to the petitioner and for a direction to the respondent to pay her permanent alimony of Rs.1 crore. (b)The case of the petitioner is that she married the respondent, according to Hindu rites and custom, on 11.06.1986 at Chennai. After marriage, as the respondent was working in USA, the petitioner joined with him and lived in USA. Thereafter, the respondent ill-treated her, which forced her to approach the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A. in 1989 for divorce and for orders restraining the respondent herein from interfering with her personal life. On 21.03.1991, a son was born and he was with the petitioner. Though restraining order was granted immediately, after negotiations, the respondent agreed to allow the petitioner to return to India if the petition for divorce was not pressed and also agreed that the custody of the minor would remain with her if the respondent was granted reasonable visiting right when he comes to India. With the said agreement, the petitioner returned to India on 8th August, 1995. (c)Thereafter, in December, 2002, the respondent reopened the case on the file of Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., for declaration that the matrimonial home, stands in the joint name of the petitioner and the respondent, is the sole and absolute property of the respondent. When the petitioner resisted the said matter, the respondent wanted to re-open the question of custody of the minor son in order to pressurize her. The petitioner was forced to leave the matrimonial home because of the behaviour of the respondent. With the above averments, the petitioner filed FCOP 1886/2003 before the Principal Family Court at Chennai for the reliefs set out earlier.

4.In the said original petition, a Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent stating that the petitioner, who has approached the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, against the respondent for dissolution of the marriage based on the Certification, dated 28,.09.198, having obtained an order of divorce cannot maintain a petition before the Family Court at Chennai, India and hence the petition preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable. The judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, USA, operates as a res judicata. Even on merits also. the respondent filed a detailed counter denying various allegations made by the petitioner.

5.In the said Original Petition, the respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.1469 of 2004 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the Original Petition. The said application was allowed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, by his fair and final order dated 18.06.2009 and the present civil revision petition has been directed against the said order of rejection of original petition.

6.The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, came to the conclusion that the O.P. filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The reasons set out by the

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, are:

(i)The reliefs that have been sought for by the petitioner were comprehensively settled by mutual agreement between the parties in USA.

(ii)The judgment delivered by U.S.Court on the basis of mutual agreement is a binding force between the petitioner and the respondent and further the judgment of the foreign court binds both the parties.

(iii)Having obtained divorce from a competent court at USA, the petitioner/wife cannot maintain an Original Petition before the Family Court at Chennai, India.

7.I have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent.

8.Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when the petitioner and the respondent got married at Chennai, India, according to Hindu rites and custom, on 11.06.1986, even assuming that they got divorce before the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., the same was pertaining to the marriage certification between them which took place on 28.09.1986 in U.S.A. and hence the present O.P. that has been filed by the petitioner for dissolution of the marriage between herself and the respondent on 11.06.1986 could be maintained at the Family Court at Chennai. However, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that when once the petitioner has obtained divorce before the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., she cannot maintain a petition before the Family Court at Chennai for dissolution of the marriage.

9.While carefully considering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, I am of the considered view that the petition for dissolution of the marriage filed at Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., was pertaining to the Certification of Marriage, dated 28.09.1986, between the petitioner and the respondent, which was obtained in U.S.A.

10.Yet another interesting aspect that has to be considered is when the petitioner and the respondent got married at Chennai on 11.06.1986, according to the Hindu rites and custom, whatever be the reason for their marriage again at USA on 28.09.1986 cannot be considered to be a valid marriage at all. When the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is subsisting in view of their marriage at Chennai on 11.06.1986, the certification of the marriage, dated 28.09.1986, between them obtained in USA may not have any sanctity at all. May be, the petitioner and the respondent, in order to solve the problem pertaining to VISA, etc., could have got certification of the marriage at USA. However, in the eye of law, it can only be a second ceremony of their marriage at USA. When that is the factual aspect, merely because the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., has granted divorce, it cannot be said that the said order covers the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which has taken place at Chennai on 11.06.1986, according to Hindu rites and custom.

11.In Hinduism, man and woman represent the two halves of the divine body. In Hindu dharma, marriage is viewed as a sacrament and not a contract. Hindu marriage is a life-long commitment of one wife and one husband, and is the strongest social bond that takes place between a man and a woman. Hindu marriage was strictly based on absolute trust, mutual affection, capacity to adjust and sharing the responsibilities equally. At every stage of the wedding ceremony when the incantations (Mantras) from the Vedas were uttered, prayers were offered to ensure a smooth life. The duties were demarcated and freedom given to both. The union being sacred, the vow did not give room for separation. The significance of taking seven steps was that the couple should never give scope for differences of opinion and should an occasion arise, both should respect the sentiments of the other, thereby ensuring that no confrontation takes place. The main objectives behind a Hindu marriage are the follow: (i)Performance of religious duty – Dharma

(ii)Giving birth to children – Praja

(iii)Sex satisfaction – Rati.

12.It is true that with India moving at a fast pace towards Westernization, the status of the average Indian women is also changing gradually. As a greater percentage of women become better educated, financially secure and independent, their ideas and expectations as to what a marriage should be are also undergoing a change. Westernization has greatly affected our traditions, custom, morals, ethics, relationships, bonds and values. Concepts which were earlier a trademark of Indian society are now slowly becoming redundant such as the concept of joint families. Individualization is on the rise and it is taking the society in its entirety. However, the Hindu marriage has not lost its sanctity and sacredness and even today the Hindu marriage is viewed only as a sacrament and not a contract.

13.While so, the petitioner and respondent, who got married in India as per Hindu rites, on getting divorce of the subsequent second ceremony at U.S.A., cannot plead that the marriage took place between them in India, as per Hindu rites, has also been dissolved without a proper decree of divorce in India as per the provisions of Hindu Marriages Act dissolving the marriage took place between them in India.

14.One more aspect that has to be considered is that the petitioner has not only sought for dissolution of the marriage between herself and the respondent and granting custody of the minor son Arjun but, also sought for a direction to the respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1 crore as permanent alimony. Even assuming that the petitioner cannot main the relief of dissolution of marriage and grant of custody of the minor child, it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot maintain the other relief, namely a direction to the respondent to pay her permanent alimony of Rs.1 crore. This relief has not been sought for by the petitioner before the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A. Before the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., the petitioner and the respondent have settled among themselves only the dispute regarding the properties owned by them. In such circumstances, it cannot be pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner cannot maintain an original application at all before the Family Court at Chennai. The relief pertaining to permanent alimony could be maintained before the Family Court Chennai.

15.Even assuming that the petitioner cannot claim other reliefs except the relief of permanent alimony, the original petition cannot be rejected partially. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the following Judgments. (i)AIR 2006 SC 1828 – Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and others vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and Others.

(ii)2007(6) MLJ 1813 – Saraswathy Bus Service rep.by its Managing Partner, M.Ravichandran vs. Minor M.Cibiraj rep.by his next friend M.Jayanthi and M.Jayanthi.

(iii)(1982) 3 SCC 487 – Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill.

16.In the judgment in AIR 2006 SC 1828, in paragraph 11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

” 11.From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in an application for rejection of the plaint. The Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the Court exercising the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. Essentially, whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct. A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleadings relied on are in regard to misrepresentation, fraud, wilful default, undue influence or of the same nature. So long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge the plaintiff may not succeed cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In the present case, the averments made in the plaint, as has been noticed by us, do disclose the cause of action and, therefore, the High Court has rightly said that the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code cannot be exercised for rejection of the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants ”

17.In (1982) 3 SCC 487 cited supra, in paragraph 20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

” 20.The order passed by the High Court directing the striking out of paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition can hardly be supported. It is not clear from the order that the High Court proceeded to act under Order 7,Rule 11(a) or under Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code in passing the order that it did. It is rightly conceded that the High Court could not have acted under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Code. Where the plaint discloses no cause of action, it is obligatory upon the court to reject the plaint as a whole under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Code, but the rule does not justify the rejection of any particular portion of a plaint.”

In (2007) 6 MLJ 1813, a learned Judge of this Court, after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.Ramachandran vs. R.V.Janakiraman and others – AIR 1999 SC 1128, held that Court cannot dissect pleadings into several parts and strike out a portion, which does not disclose cause of action.

18.A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only on certain grounds, namely (a)When the suit has been under valued and inspite of the direction by the Court to pay court fee, the same is not paid. (b)If there is no cause of action. (c)If it is barred by any law. In the case on hand, it cannot be totally ruled out that the petitioner has no cause of action. Lack of cause of action cannot be a ground to reject the suit. In the case on hand, the facts set out earlier would not disclose that there is no cause of action. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the original petition filed by the petitioner cannot be rejected at the inception. The parties could let in evidence to substantiate the case put-forth by them.

19.The question that whether the decree of divorce granted by Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, U.S.A., can bind the parties who got married at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, is a larger question that has to be decided in the original petition. Both the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent have submitted that there is no case law on this point. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner could lay his hand only on one judgment reported in 1868 L.R. Volume I page 487 – Birt v. Boutinez. In the said decision, an Englishwoman married a Belgian in Scotland. They afterwards went through a second ceremony of marriage in Belgium. The competent Belgian Tribunal pronounced a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent purporting to dissolve the Belgian marriage. She afterwards married another person in England. In such circumstances, it has been held therein that the Scotch marriage between herself and her husband was a valid and subsisting marriage, even though they went through the second ceremony of marriage at Belgium and got divorce at Belgium Tribunal. Thus the marriage between herself and the other person at England held to be invalid. That is the only judgment that could be culled out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Thus, the larger question which is stated above is a matter to be considered by the Family Court at Chennai, after the parties letting in evidence.

20.It is not in dispute that foreign judgment on matrimonial dispute is a binding force between the parties. But, however, as stated already, the question that has to be decided in the Original Petition is whether the marriage took place at Chennai on 11.06.1986 has to be dissolved inspite of the dissolution of marriage certification between the petitioner and the respondent held at USA or not.

21.Thus, looking at from any angle, the order of Family court at Chennai rejecting the original petition at the instance of the respondent herein is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The revision petition stands allowed and the Family Court is directed to take the rejected original petition on its file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. However, I make it very clear that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of disposing of this civil revision petition and the original petition shall be disposed of by the Judge of the Family Court at Chennai, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. Connected M.P.No.2 of 2009 is closed. gb

To:

The Presiding Officer,

Principal Family Court,

Chennai 104

source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1218908/

Teenagers who had consensual sex with girls are now charged for Rape !!!

Teenagers who had consensual sex with girls are now charged for Rape !!!

IF consented sex is later termed “Rape” why won’t every lover become a rapist ???? …and every now and then there is a cry in the media that “Rape Crime” is on the rise.

==========================================================

Indiatimes|The Times of India|The Economic Times|
Teenagers held for uploading sex clips
TNN | Jan 2, 2012, 07.38AM IST

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Two teenagers who allegedly raped girls and then posted their nude video clips on internet were arrested by the Varkala police.

They have been charged under section 66C of IT Act and IPC 376 for rape, sexual abuse and for using the cyber media with malicious intentions. The teenagers were produced before the juvenile court and later let off on bail.

The incident came to light after one of the girls came across her own video clip on a friend’s mobile phone. The girl told her parents about it and one of her relatives complained about it to the police. Police then arrested both teenagers from Kallambalam after recording the statement of both girls.

The girls met the boys at a parallel college in Attingal. They won girls’ confidence by posing as lovers and would often take them to isolated bylanes in Varkala. They would engage in sexual intercourse and record it without the knowledge of the girls.

The boys would upload the clips on internet and also stream the clips via bluetooth using their mobile phones. Police said that they are in search of the third person involved in the case.

The incident came to light after one of the girls came across her own video clip on a friend’s mobile phone.

Source
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/Teenagers-held-for-uploading-sex-clips/articleshow/11333966.cms

ISKCON swamis face warrant in ‘false’ rape case

 

ISKCON swamis face warrant in ‘false’ rape case

========================================================

Rajesh Ahuja, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, January 01, 2012
First Published: 23:16 IST(1/1/2012)
Last Updated: 01:40 IST(2/1/2012)

A magistrate court in Kolkata has issued arrest warrants against top swamis and office-bearers of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in a case of criminal defamation and conspiracy.

One of the seven accused, Jay Pataka Swami, is a member of ISKCON’s top decision-making organ. All of them have been asked to appear before court on January 10.

The case is more than 11 years old. Basanti Devi, an accused, alleged in the year 2000 an ISKCON devotee by the name Sureswara Das had “raped” her. The Kolkata police arrested the alleged rapist, who was sent to judicial custody.

While in custody, he committed suicide, also in 2000, holding all the accused in the present case responsible for his death. Subsequent police investigations absolved the deceased of all charges.

“It was a deep-rooted conspiracy. After the demise of ISKCON founder Acharya Srila Prabhupada in 1979, a few of his top disciples proclaimed themselves guru. Sureswara was implicated in the false rape case because he opposed the idea,” said Anil Sarkar, the brother of Sureswara, for whom ‘Das’ was an adopted title. In 2008, after getting up resources to fight the case, Anil Sarkar moved court with a plea to initiate proceedings against the accused. However, the Calcutta high court modified the charges against them and limited the proceedings under criminal defamation and conspiracy. During the last hearing, the accused were not present in the court.

“We didn’t know about the proceedings, and will present ourselves before the court. The case is false and motivated,” said Dayaram Das, another accused who is president of ISKCON’s Kolkata chapter.

Source

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/ISKCON-swamis-face-warrant-in-false-rape-case/Article1-789868.aspx

கள்ள காதலி வெட்டி கொலை: சொத்து கேட்டு தொந்தரவு செய்ததால் காதலன் ஆத்திரம்

 

கள்ள காதலி வெட்டி கொலை:


சொத்து கேட்டு தொந்தரவு செய்ததால் காதலன் ஆத்திரம்

=================================================

பழனி அருகே சொத்து கேட்டு அடிக்கடி தொந்தரவு செய்தததால் கள்ள காதலியை அரிவாளால் வெட்டி கொன்றதாக கைது செய்யப்பட்ட காதலன் ரங்கசாமி போலீசாரிடம் ஒப்புதல் வாக்கு மூலத்தில் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

பழனி அருகே பாலசமுத்திரம் 10வது வார்டு வடக்கு தெருவைச் சேர்ந்தவர் ராசம்மாள் (வயது 40). இவரது கணவர் பெரியசாமி இறந்து 10 வருடங்களாகிறது. குழந்தையில்லை. கணவர் இறந்த பின் ராசம்மாள் தனது தாய், தந்தை, தம்பியோடு வசித்து வந்தார். 4 வருடங்களுக்கு முன்பு தாய், தந்தையும் இறந்து போனார்கள். அதன் பின் தம்பியுடன் வசித்து வந்தார். பெரியசாமிக்கு பெண் பார்த்து திருமணம் செய்து அருகே உள்ள வீட்டில் தனி குடித்தனம் வைத்தார்.

இதற்கிடையே ராசம்மாளுக்கும், பாலசமுத்திரத்தை அடுத்த குரும்பபட்டியில் வசிக்கும் ரங்கசாமி (40) என்பவருக்கும் கடந்த 3 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன் தொடர்பு ஏற்பட்டது. ரங்கசாமிக்கு பவளக்கொடி என்ற மனைவியும், துரையன், காளீஸ்வரன் என்ற 2 மகன்கள் உள்ளனர். ரங்கசாமிக்கு 3 குழி நிலம் உள்ளது. இந்த நிலத்தை தனது குடும்பத்தினருக்கு 2 குழி கொடுத்து விட்டு மீதமுள்ள ஒரு குழி நிலத்தில் விவசாயம் செய்து வந்தார்.

இதை அறிந்த ராசம்மாள் ஒரு குழி நிலத்தை தனது பெயருக்கு எழுதி தரும்படி ரங்கசாமியிடம் தொந்தரவு செய்து வந்தார். கடந்த 27ந் தேதி அன்று ரங்கசாமிக்கு உடல் நலம் சரியில்லாததால் ரங்கசாமியும் ராசம்மாளும் ஒட்டன்சத்திரத்திலுள்ள ஒரு தனியார் மருத்துவமனைக்கு சிகிச்சைக்கு சென்றனர். பின் பழனி வந்து அன்று இரவில் ராசம்மாளுடன் ரங்கசாமி தங்கியிருந்தார். அதிகாலையில் ராசம்மாள் அரிவாளால் வெட்டப்பட்டு கொலை செய்யப்பட்டு கிடந்தார்.

இச்சம்பவம் தொடர்பாக ராசம்மாளின் தம்பி பெரியசாமி கொடுத்த புகாரின் பேரில் பழனி தாலுகா போலீசார் ராசம்மாளின் கள்ள காதலன் ரங்க சாமியை கரிக்காரன் புதூர் பஸ் நிலையத்தில் பஸ் ஏற காத்திருந்த போது கைது செய்தனர். விசாரணையில் ரங்கசாமி போலீசாரிடம் தனது ஒரு குழி நிலத்தை தனது இளைய மகன் காளீஸ்வரனுக்கு உயில் எழுதி வைத்து விட்டதால், இதையறிந்த ராசம்மாள் அந்த உயிலை ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும். அதன் பின் தனது பெயருக்கு மாற்றி தர வேண்டும் என்று அடிக்கடி தகராறு செய்ததாக தெரிவித்தார்.

சம்பவத்தன்று இரவு இதுபற்றி இருவருக்கும் வாக்குவாதம் ஏற்பட்டதில் ரங்கசாமி ஆத்திரமடைந்து தன்னிடமிருந்த அரிவாளால் ராசம்மாளை வெட்டி கொன்று விட்டு தப்பி ஓடி தலைமறைவானதாக தெரிவித்துள்ளார். போலீசார் இச்சம்பவம் குறித்து மேலும் தீவிர விசாரணை நடத்தி வருகின்றார்கள்

Source :

http://www.nakkheeran.in/users/frmNews.aspx?N=68219