Monthly Archives: May 2012

Husbands beware…

Husbands beware : Even IF a compromise is “reached” the husband and his relatives may get scr$w$d because judge refuses to quash the false 498a !!!!





Harbinder Singh and others



State of Punjab and others


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Majithia, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. M.. C. Berry, Sr.DAG, Punjab.


Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the FIR No.102 dated 9.8.1999 under Sections 406, 498A and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar, on the basis of a compromise. The petitioners, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law of respondent No.2 have filed this petition duly impleading the wife as respondent. Prayer is that the matter having been amicably resolved, should now see an end to criminal prosecution as well. It is also alleged that the story presented in the FIR is a concoction and that divorce is already granted between the couple by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The compromise relied in support of the prayer is the one, which was reached between the parties at the time of grant of divorce by mutual consent. At the time of grant of this divorce, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had made statements before the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, copies of which are annexed as Annexures P-2 and P-3. Copy of divorce granted is also placed on record as Annexure P-4. Claiming that the complainant having, thus, resolved the matrimonial dispute cannot still be allowed to pursue the criminal proceedings through this FIR. It is, thus, prayed that this is aimed at just harassing and humiliating the petitioners.

Notice of motion was issued in this case. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were duly served but they did not come present nor any reply was filed on their behalf. The case was accordingly fixed for arguments.

Counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the statement of wife recorded by the Additional District Judge, has submitted that the present FIR be quashed on the basis of the compromise. A perusal of statement of respondent No.2, Annexure P-3, would show that wife had maintained therein that her father, Ramnik Singh (respondent No.3) would withdraw the complaint, which was pending against petitioner No.1, her husband and his family members in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. She also conceded to have received permanent alimony, which was to satisfy the maintenance, present and future. Claiming this to be a compromise, a prayer has been made for quashing the FIR.

This statement is dated 25.2.2003 whereas the present petition is filed on 10.2.2005 i.e. after a lapse of almost two years. In the statement made by respondent-wife, an undertaking was given by her that her father would withdraw the complaint. No material is placed on record, showing if this complaint has been withdrawn or not. The complainant in this case is father of the respondent-wife.

Though impleaded as respondent No.3, yet there is no statement made by the complainant either before the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur or in present proceedings to indicate that the criminal case registered at his instance was also compromised between the parties. Since the petitioners have sought quashing of this FIR only on the basis of a compromise, which is not forth-coming on record, it may not be appropriate to quash the proceedings on that basis, unless the aspect of compromise is substantiated to the satisfaction of the Court.

When confronted with this position, counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 949. This was a case where compromise petition was filed before the Matrimonial Court wherein an undertaking was given to withdraw all proceedings, civil and criminal, initiated against the family of the husband, by making a pointed reference to the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC coupled with Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband in this case had also agreed to withdraw the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was pending. In Ruchi Agarwal’s case (supra), the family of the wife had not remained unrepresented before the Court and rather it had taken stand that the compromise was obtained by advancing threat and coercion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not accept this argument on the ground that husband had given a consent for a divorce and, thus, the compromise had been partly acted upon. In the present case, only a statement of the respondent-wife is being relied upon. Respondent-wife and her father have chosen not to appear. It is not possible to ascertained if there is any development after the grant of divorce in this case. The petitioners have also not explained as to why they are filing this petition after expiry of a period of two years from the date of alleged settlement. In these circumstances, it cannot be said with certainty if the criminal proceedings were also compromised in this case. In the absence of stand of the respondents, it would not be fair to quash these proceedings on the basis of a compromise, which is nothing but a statement of respondent-wife recorded before the Matrimonial Court and not a compromise. Statement relied upon is not of the complainant, who is father of the wife.

In view of the above, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise and would dismiss this petition. Ordered accordingly.

January 11, 2007 ( RANJIT SINGH )

khurmi JUDGE


தாத்தாவை அடித்து நொறுக்கி, பக்கத்து அறையில் அப்பாவி சிறுமியை கற்பழித்த போலீஸ் நண்பன்

தாத்தாவை அடித்து நொறுக்கி, பக்கத்து அறையில் அப்பாவி சிறுமியை கற்பழித்த போலீஸ் நண்பன்

இந்த நாடு எங்கே போய்க்கொண்டு இருக்குது ??


குறிப்பு : வேறு கேஸ்களில் கணவணை கேள்வி கேட்கிறேன் என்று கணவனையும், அவன் குடும்பத்தாரையும் அவமானப்படுத்துவதும் இதே போலீஸ் தான் !!!

அரசே !!! உடனடியாக குடும்ப பிரெச்சனைகளில் போலீஸ் தலையீட்டை நிறுத்து !!!! நிறுத்து !!!! நிறுத்து !!!!


LUCKNOW: Three police constables and their civilian friend were arrested and sent to jail in Budaun in connection with the rape of a minor girl inside a police outpost late in the night on Sunday. Allegations are that the victim and her maternal grandfather were brought to the police outpost after the locals near Durgah Barde Sarkar got suspicious of their behaviour and informed the police. At the police outpost, the cops first allegedly demanded Rs 20,000 from the duo to let them free. When the two expressed their inability to meet their demands, the cops allegedly assaulted the old man while their civilian friend raped her at the police outpost itself.

The accused were however arrested when the same locals who had handed her over to the police, overheard her cries from inside the police outpost and informed the senior officials who reached the site and caught the accused red handed. Police then registered a case of rape and assault against three police constables on duty at the police outpost and their civilian friend involved in the crime. The four accused were later sent to jail.

A native of Rampur district, the minor girl had come to Budaun to visit Durgah Barde Sarkar situated in Lal Pul area under Kotwali police circle on Sunday evening. Two constables from the Lal Pul police outpost under Kotwali city police station – later identified as Ausaaf Ali and Majid Hussain – arrived at the scene on a motorcycle and brought the duo to the police outpost, a couple of hundred meters away from the Durgah. After sustained grilling, the cops allegedly demanded Rs 20,000 from the duo to set them free. When they expressed their inability to pay the cops, the two cops left the site leaving behind constable Sumit Kumar at the outpost on watch duty.

According to the victim, shortly thereafter constable Sumit once again started questioning the duo when he was joined by one Gopal – later identified as a local resident and a friend of the cops. Allegations are that Gopal started misbehaving with the minor girl, her grandfather objected to it. This left the two so angry that Sumit assaulted the old man while Gopal dragged the girl away to another room.

SSP Budaun RK Srivastava said that on the complaint of the girl a case of rape was lodged against the two accused and the other constables who brought the girl to the outpost were also rounded up and arrested as accused.


More at :

சதியமேவ ஜெயதேயில் சத்யம் எங்கே !!! ??? சத்யமேவ ஜெயதேயில் பொய் புகார் !! பாதிக்கப்பட்ட டாக்டர் (கணவன்) நிகழ்சிக்கு நோட்டீஸ்..

சத்யமேவ ஜெயதேயில் பொய் புகார் !! பாதிக்கப்பட்ட டாக்டர் (கணவன்) நிகழ்சிக்கு நோட்டீஸ்..


தில்லி போர்டிஸ் (Fortis) மருத்துவமனையில் வேலைசெய்யும் ஒரு டாக்டர் (வேலையை இழந்து) ஆமிர் கான் நடத்தும் சத்யமேவ ஜெயதே நிகழ்சிக்கு வக்கீல் நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்பியுள்ள்ளார் .

நிகழ்ச்சியில் தன் மனைவி சொன்ன புகார்கள் உண்மையில்லை. தன்னிடமோ, தன் குடும்பத்தாரிடமோ உண்மையை அறிந்துகொள்ள யாரும் தொடர்பு கொள்ளவில்லை, தான் எந்த விதத்திலும் கருக்கலைப்புக்கு காரணம் இல்லை என்றும், கரு ஆணா பெண்ணா என்று நிர்ணயிக்கப் பட எந்த டெஸ்டும் செய்யப்படவில்லை என்றும், தன் மனைவி தன்னை பலவந்தப் படுத்தி தன் குழந்தகைளை மைத்துனிக்கு தத்து கொடுக்க வற்புருத்தியதால் தான் வந்தது சண்டை என்றும் கூரியுள்ளார் !!

செய்திகள் பின்வருமாறு

Doc accuses Aamir’s show of defamation

Jaya Shroff Bhalla, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, May 25, 2012

First Published: 23:52 IST(25/5/2012)

Last Updated: 12:38 IST(26/5/2012)

Haryana panchayat cuts off married girls from parents’ property; Order came from a woman sarpanch, Santosh Rani.

Haryana panchayat cuts off married girls from parents’ property

Order came from a woman sarpanch, Santosh Rani.

Sukhbir Siwach, TNN May 12, 2012, 02.59AM IST

CHANDIGARH: A Haryana panchayat has banned married women in the village from seeking a share of parental property. The panchayat, which was attended by over 400 villagers, was held at Thua village in Jind last week. Social activists have sought the government’s intervention to rein in the panchayats known for their bizarre diktats, including calls for honour killings.

Activists have termed the move illegal as the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, states that daughters enjoy equal rights over family property.

Deputy commissioner of Jind, Yudhbir Singh Khyalia, has slapped a showcause notice on the village sarpanch and demanded an explanation for the violation of constitutional rights. Ironically, the order came from a woman sarpanch, Santosh Rani. “We will take action after receiving her reply,” the police officer said.

The panchayat resolution states: “Every girl will have to part with her share of parental land and hand it over to her brothers. If she has no brother, she will give it to other family members at her parental home. If a woman violates the diktat, she will face social boycott and have to pay a fine.” Village pradhan Amar Lal Kaliramna has gone a step further. He said even those who will buy land from married women will be ostracized.

Jind Bar Council member Vinod Bansal said, “If a girl approaches the court, she’ll get her share of her property. After her father’s death, property is transferred to legal heirs, which includes daughters.”



Wife complains and husband, father in law in JAIL !!!! …. just like ordering pizza :-(

Man, father held for dowry harassment

TNN | May 26, 2012, 03.35AM IST

NASHIK: A 30-year-old woman, Janavi Prashant Aher, resident of Indrayani Colony, Takli Road, Nashik, accused her husband and in-laws of harassing regarding dowry.

The police have arrested her husband, Prashant Aher and father-in-law, Shankar Chandu Aher.

In a complaint lodged at the Bhadrakali police station, Aher said that from May 11, 2004 to May 16, 2012, her husband-Prashant Shankar Aher, father-in-law Shankar Chandu Aher and mother-in-law, Sunanda Shankar Aher, residents of Radhashilpa Apartment, Kathegalli, harassed her mentally and physically to bring money from her parents.

Aher added that all the articles given by her parents after marriage were soldby her husband and in laws.