Daily Archives: June 9, 2013

this woman drowns two of her children and husband is booked for 498A ..what nuts ?? is she NORMAL ? Sweta did not inform the police personnel that her two children had already drowned. After collecting basic information about her, police handed her over to the family. When grilled by the family members about the whereabouts of the children, Sweta told them that the children had followed her into the water and they had drowned.

Suicide bid: Two kids drown, woman rescued

TNN May 22, 2013, 06.38AM IST

HYDERABAD: Lake Police rescued a 25-year-old housewife who tried to commit suicide by jumping into Hussainsagar along with her two children on Monday night. Sadly, by the time police got information about the children they had drowned.

The woman was identified as Sweta Agarwal, wife of Vijay Agarwal, a software engineer from Chilkalguda. Sweta had married Vijay in 2006 and the couple has two children, Khushi Agarwal, 5, and Tanush Agarwal, 3.

According to the police, Sweta was being harassed by her husband and in-laws over petty issues like cooking and cleaning. Unable to face the daily harassment, Sweta along with her two children walked out of her home on Monday afternoon without informing anyone.

As Sweta and their two children remained untraceable till late in the evening, Vijay lodged a complaint with police and a missing case was registered at the Chilkalguda police station on Monday night.

At about 11.30pm on Monday, Lake Police Station constable Venkatesh and Shankar, a home guard, noticed a woman screaming for help near Sanjeevaiah Park . The two jumped into the water and pulled out Sweta, who was struggling to keep her head above the water.

Sweta did not inform the police personnel that her two children had already drowned. After collecting basic information about her, police handed her over to the family.

When grilled by the family members about the whereabouts of the children, Sweta told them that the children had followed her into the water and they had drowned. Shocked family members informed police and on Tuesday, bodies of Khushi and Tanush were fished out from the lake by expert swimmers.

"After leaving the house, Sweta went to Necklace Road and waited near the road-side of Sanjeevaiah Park with her children. Later in the night, she tried to commit suicide. According to her, she asked her children to remain on the bank, but after she entered the water, they too followed her and drowned before she could reach them," Chilkalguda inspector B Anjaiah said.

Based on a complaint lodged by Sweta, police have registered a case under section 498-A (subjecting a married woman to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Vijay and his family members. Sweta was booked under section 309 (attempt to commit suicide).


Send policemen not registering FIR to jail, MHA tells states; DON’T copy complaint to Charge sheet=> MRAs tell police ; Get us the moolah fast, say false 498, DV filing women, ..now who will be heard ??? your guess please….

Send policemen not registering FIR to jail, MHA tells states


09th June 2013 10:50 AM

Policemen refusing to register FIR will face up to one year in jail with the Centre issuing strict instructions to states to prosecute such cops.

The Home Ministry told the states and Union Territories to clearly instruct all police stations that failure to register FIR on receipt of information about any cognisable offence will invite prosecution of the duty police officer under IPC Section 166A (public servant disobeying law) which will invite imprisonment up to one year.

In its latest directive, the Ministry told the states and UTs that policemen should be sensitised to respond to complaints with alacrity, whether it is from man or woman, and must apprehend the accused immediately after the complaint, as there is tendency of persons committing crimes to slip away when there is delay on extraneous grounds like jurisdiction.

There have been allegations that police was dithering in registering FIR in the December 16, 2012 Delhi gang rape case over jurisdictional issue.

There were also allegations that when a five-year-old child was raped in East Delhi in March, police initially refused to register the complaint.

Citing legal position, the Home Ministry advisory said the police must register an FIR upon receipt of information of the commission of a cognisable offence.

Further, if after registration of FIR, upon investigation, it is found that the subject matter relates to jurisdiction of some other police station, the FIR may be appropriately transferred to the police station under which the case falls.

"Moreover, if at the time of registration of FIR, it becomes apparent that the crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the police station, the police should be appropriately instructed to register a ‘Zero’ FIR, ensure that the FIR is transferred to the concerned police station," it said.

The Home Ministry said there should be clear instruction by the state governments that the delay over the determination of the jurisdiction leads to avoidable wastage of time which impacts the victim and also leads to offenders getting an opportunity to slip from the clutches of law and that should be stopped.



Dowry allegation: Seeking immediate police action, Woman stages sit-in dharna @ Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

Dowry abuse: Woman stages sit-in dharna

By Express News Service – COIMBATORE

09th June 2013 08:29 AM

In a bid to make police act on a dowry harassment complaint filed by her, a 21-year-old woman staged a sit-in protest in front of the City Police Office on Saturday.

According to sources, Soudha Bebe, a resident of Pillayarpuram, staged the protest demanding that the police investigate on her complaint against her husband and in-laws for harassing her demanding dowry.

According to police, Soudha was married to one Asraf Ali (27), a painter, last month. However, Asraf and his family even after taking `1 lakh and 4.5 sovereign gold were allegedly harassing her demanding more.

Soudha alleged that she had earlier lodged a complaint with the AWPS but no action was taken on it.



if you murder someone you’ll be hanged, but what IF the government murders you *on paper* ??!!!

BBC report

Thousands of people have been declared dead in India, despite the fact they are alive and well. Unscrupulous relatives are accused of bribing officials in order to seize their land.


Husbands can’t complain; Indian court case that started 1878, yep 18xy NOT 19xy !!

25 March 2013 Last updated at 06:52 GMT

The Indian court case that started in 1878

Disputed graveyard site in VaranasiThe litigation over the disputed graveyard in Varanasi has been going on since 1878

A court case about a piece of land in Doshipura, Varanasi, first started when India was under British rule and Lord Lytton was its governor-general, Rutherford Hayes was the 19th president of the US and the Wright brothers were still 25 years away from flying their first aeroplane.

Millions of cases are pending in courts throughout India, a state of affairs which has led to the creation of fast-track courts, most recently in the Delhi gang-rape case. Some trials have lasted for decades, and sometimes for more than a century. BBC Hindi reports on one such long-running case.

Today, President Barack Obama is the 44th US president, Pranab Mukherjee is the 13th president of independent India, and a man landing on the moon is old news.

Yet, the Doshipura court case, which has been pitting Shia Muslims against Sunnis over two acres of land (87,000 sq ft) for more than a century, is one of the oldest in India.

It began in 1878 – long before India became an independent country in 1947 – and until now, no settlement has been reached.

Jaffar Imam is a Shia Muslim.

His father, grandfather, great-grandfather and their fathers before them fought this case: "They had to, so now we have to fight," he says.

Khalilur RahmanKhalilur Rahman holds the Shia community in Varanasi responsible for the dispute

The other party in the case is Khalilur Rahman, an 80-year-old Sunni Muslim.

He says: "We don’t want to contest this, but if someone comes at you, what do you do?"

No solution

It is believed that the maharaja of Benares (as Varanasi was then known) was the original owner of the land.

The Shias say the maharaja gave them the land as a gift out of religious duty; the Sunnis say the plot is actually an old cemetery and the Shias have no religious authority over it.

The Sunnis says the plot contains the uncemented graves of two Sunnis.

The case has been through dozens of courts, but no effective solution has ever been found.

In most courts, the Shia claim has been accepted, while the Sunni claim has been rejected.

Continue reading the main story

India’s fast-track courts

  • Some 1,200 fast-track courts were operating in India as of March 2012
  • In Delhi, six fast-track courts were ordered for the trial of cases related to crimes against women, especially rape. Some other states such as Punjab and Maharashtra are also setting up fast-track courts for this purpose
  • In 2000, central government started a scheme for more than 1,700 fast-track courts to try to clear the backlog of cases clogging up the judicial system, partly related to a shortage of judges
  • Funding is an issue because the central government said it could no longer fund them after March 2011, leaving future funding decisions to individual states

In 1976, the Sunnis took the case to India’s Supreme Court. On 3 November 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Shias.

The Supreme Court directed the administration in Varanasi to construct a boundary wall around the plot and relocate the two graves elsewhere.

But the government of the state of Uttar Pradesh, where Varanasi is located, told the court that removing the graves could lead to violence and so far, nothing has been done.


The Supreme Court has now asked the state government why the ruling of the highest court in the land has been left hanging for 32 years. It seems to want to settle the matter through negotiations.

Mr Imam says each time the Sunnis lose, the court says the land should be given to the Shias. But the Sunnis say the graves cannot be destroyed.

The Shias say that Mughal emperor Shah Jahan first buried his wife Mumtaz Mahal in Burhanpur, and later shifted her grave to the Taj Mahal in Agra. If her tomb could be removed, they ask, then why can’t these be relocated?

But Mr Rahman says: "From the beginning, the courts were angry about this case. We are ready to have both Sunnis and Shias use this land for religious purposes."

Mr Imam counters by saying: "Even the highest court of the land is not being respected here. We are not going to allow Sunnis to carry out religious rituals on this piece of land.

"We are a minuscule minority and there are hundreds of thousands of Sunnis in this area; that’s why nobody listens to us. But we have full faith in the judiciary," he adds.

And so, the battle continues…