Daily Archives: June 23, 2013

Mamata accuses TV of false RAPE propaganda. Ok.. Then why NOT severely punish false rape filing women ??

Mamata accuses TV channels of indulging in false propaganda

Faced with criticism from different quarters over the rise in atrocities against women Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee came up with a bizarre defence of the State government on Sunday by asking at a public rally: “Are all women in the State being raped?”

Addressing an election rally at Minakha in the Basirhat area of the State’s North 24 Parganas district she vented her ire on a section of the electronic media saying that by highlighting atrocities committed on women they were “disrespecting” the people of the State.

Referring to the rape and murder of a college girl at Kamduni village in the Barasat area of the district Ms. Banerjee said that the incident was “unfortunate” and all the accused were arrested within 24 hours.

The State government would seek the death penalty for the accused, she reiterated.

In three recent incidents of rape the State government was able to ensure conviction in a very short period, Ms. Banerjee said, pointing out that in the latest incident at Bamangola in Malda district conviction was ensured within 27 days.

“This is called good governance,” Ms. Banerjee said. “If there is any incident of atrocity against women the State government will act,” she said.

Ms. Banerjee accused certain television channels of furthering the interests of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and said that they were regularly indulging in false propaganda against her government.

“Has there been any conviction in cases of atrocities against women registered during the regime of the CPI(M) ?” she asked.

Stating that the Trinamool Congress government made provisions for reservation of 50 per cent seats in the rural bodies for women, Ms. Banerjee said that such an initiative had not been taken elsewhere in the country.


HC : False rape cases using children harassment & damages honour of children. What about honour of FALSE ACCUSED MEN ??? We pity the child, but let us ALSO pity the falsely accused male

Man accused of raping child let off

TNN Jun 21, 2013, 03.59AM IST

NEW DELHI: A trial court has acquitted a man accused of raping an eight-year-old girl, observing that elders are "misusing" minors for their own interest by lodging false cases.

Additional sessions judge, Ramesh Kumar, said, "people should not be allowed to lodge false cases. It causes harassment and damages the honour of children".

The judge acquitted northeast Delhi resident, Sabir, by giving him "benefit of doubt". It cannot be ruled out that the minor was tutored, the court said.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on August 15, 2010, "when the minor was flying a kite on her roof. The accused had asked her to bring tobacco packet for him. He then misbehaved with her and raped her in a room." The accused had threatened the victim not to disclose the incident to anyone.The girl escaped from his clutches by biting his hand, the court said. The girl narrated the incident to her mother who told her husband. They lodged a case against Sabir, the lawyer said.

Sabir, however, told the court that he was implicated in the case because the family wanted to evict his sister from the tenanted premises owned by the girl’s father. A false rape case was registered against him because of enmity between the two families, he said. The court said since Sabir’s sister had admitted to illegal possession of the shop of the victim’s father, false acquisition against Sabir cannot be ruled out.


Delhi HC acquits man of false rape case by maid, says regulate maids. How about punishing FALSE rapes HC ?? We request the Honourable HC to punish false rape case filing woman with the same punishment afforded to the rapist man !!!

Delhi court acquits man in false rape case

PTI New Delhi, June 21, 2013
First Published: 23:55 IST(21/6/2013) | Last Updated: 23:56 IST(21/6/2013)

A man has been acquitted of the charge of raping his maid by a Delhi court, which said the government should frame a policy or law to regulate placement agencies supplying domestic helps to curb such false cases.

Additional sessions judge Nivedita Anil Sharma acquitted Delhi resident Narender Singh observing that the case appears to be a "living example" of placement agency maid levelling false allegations of rape "out of vengeance" as a theft case was lodged against her by the accused, the son-in law of her employer.

"There are no laws, policies or rules to regulate placement agencies which supply maids and servants for working in houses. It is required that some regulatory law or policy is made by the government and police so that there can be a check on placement agencies and it is made compulsory that police verification of maids and servants is done before they take up employment," the court said.

The court also directed that a copy of the judgement be sent to secretaries of Ministry of Law and Justice of the Centre and Delhi Government, chairpersons of National Commission for Women and Delhi Commission for Women and Commissioner and additional commissioner (West) of Delhi Police for information purpose.

The 19-year-old maid, who was hired through a placement agency, had alleged that she was raped by Singh in the house of his father-in-law on May 12, 2009 and was threatened by him not to disclose it to anyone.

During the trial, Singh said he was falsely implicated in the matter as a case was lodged against the maid that she had committed theft of the articles belonging to his wife.

The court acquitted Singh saying that there was no incriminating evidence against him.



USe quash to buy time.. husband tries quash using ‘complaint time barred’ reason. HC refuses quash and fines husband. HC states case includes Sec 420 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and not time barred. HC also fines husband Rs 10000 for delaying case with a quash . pertinent to note that a year 2001 FIR being debated in 2006 quash judgement and probably the trial will take for ever !!




Crl.M.C.1950/04 & Crl.M.A.6384/2004

Judgment delivered on: March 31, 2006

K.M.ANEES-UL-HAQ & ORS. Petitioners.

Through Mr.G.D.Gandhi, Advocate.


STATE & ANR. Respondents

Through Mr.Ravinder Chadha &

Mr.Jagdish Prasad, Advocates, for State.Mr.Abdul Rehman, R-2, in person. Mr.Anees Ahmad for respondent No.3.

Manju Goel, J.

1. In this petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the petitioners who are accused in FIR No.260/2001 P.S. Mayur Vihar under sections 406/420/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC’) and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act seeks quashment of the FIR and consequent proceedings. Although several grounds have been mentioned in the petition, at the time of hearing the only ground pressed is that of limitation and accordingly the petition will be disposed of only on the question of limitation.

2. The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the offence made out against the petitioners is only under section 406 IPC as well as under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and that on the date the FIR was filed or cognizance taken both the offences were time barred. Therefore, the real question is what offence is made out in the FIR. The complainant in the FIR is Shri Abdul Rehman. The gist of the FIR is as under:

The complainant/respondent No.2 met petitioner No.1 in 1997 and the two became good friends within a short span of time. In September, 1999 the complainant and his wife attended a marriage in the family of petitioner No.1 at Bangalore where petitioner No.1 and his wife Nusrat Fatima (petitioner No.2) proposed that their nephew (Furkhan-Ul-Haque @ Muneeb) who had earned a Degree in Electronics Engineering would be a good match for Aalya, daughter of the complainant/respondent No.2. The complainant was persuaded to agree to the proposal. Petitioner No.1 and his wife asked for an engagement ceremony in a grand scale. An engagement ceremony was

accordingly held at Asia House on 16.1.2000 and the expenditure incurred by the petitioner on that account accounted to approximately Rs.5 lakhs. Both sides mutually agreed to perform the marriage within the next 6-7 months. In a later visit to Bangalore, the complainant was shown an abandoned factory shed and it was represented to him that the proposed bridegroom was trying to secure a loan to start a business of plywood manufacturing. It was also represented to him that the proposed bridegroom was facing financial crunch. A sum of Rs.3.25 lakhs was paid to petitioner No.2 in this regard. In view of the proposal of the marriage to be held within 6-7 months of the engagement ceremony, relatives of the complainant started arriving in Delhi. On 2.10.2000, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 along with petitioner No.3 (father of Muneeb) visited the complainant and persuaded the complainant to hold the marriage ceremony at Bangalore and 4.11.2000 was fixed as the date of marriage. On 13.10.2000 the complainant went to Bangalore to make arrangements when he carried with him most of the bridal jewellery. The complainant booked a hotel for the purpose of marriage, accommodation for the baarat apart from cooks and other helps which would be required on the occasion. The complainant also booked the articles of furniture to be given as dowry. A sum of Rs.3 lakhs was given to petitioner No.2 for purchase of a car and subsequently another sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was added towards this fund. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was given to petitioner No.2 for flowers required for the occasion of marriage. On 27.10.2000, petitioner No.2 called the complainant to postpone the marriage due to a death in the family of the bridegroom and the complainant had to agree to the postponment on account of decency. In April, 2001, the complainant again got in touch with petitioner No.2 when petitioner No.2 told him that the bridegroom was finding it difficult to settle down and was facing certain problems in the business front. In the meantime, the boy had been in constant touch with the daughter of the complainant. The business plan of the boy changed from plywood manufacturing to agricultural farming and then to the petrol pump. Later petitioner No.2 told him that the attempt to secure a loan had not succeeded and hinted that complainant should come forward to help the boy financially so that the business can be set up and the marriage can follow. The complainant and his wife by now had become anxious as a lot of time had already been spent after the engagement ceremony. They, therefore, talked to the boy at length and learnt that the boy was in dire need of Rs.5 lakhs which would see him through all problems. On 16.10.2001, the boy called Muneeb came to Delhi when the sum of Rs.5 lakhs was given to him in the presence of petitioner No.1. The boy’s side assured the complainant that the marriage would be held sometime in December, 2001/January, 2002. No firm date was, however, communicated to the petitioner. In January, 2002 the boy came to Delhi and remained there for about three weeks and visited the residence of the complainant every morning and spent the day there. Petitioner No.1 agreed to persuade the father of the boy to perform the marriage immediately and assured the complainant that the problems of the boy would be over by March, 2002 and then his parents would be asked to fix a date for marriage. During all this period, petitioner No.2 ruled all the proceedings and everything happened exactly the way she had desired. Even in the month of March,2002 no proposal for a date of marriage came from the side of the boy and they kept on putting off fixing a date by telephoning the complainant every week that they were about to come to Delhi for the purpose. In April, 2002 the complainant had become sceptic about the intentions of the petitioners. By now the boy had developed a practice of telephoning the daughter of the complainant every night. On the night prior to the date of the complaint while the boy was on telephone talking to the daughter of the complainant, the complainant took the phone and asked the boy to have his parents talk to him. The father accordingly called after half an hour and in the conversation that followed it transpired that if the complainant was interested in an early marriage he should give a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in cash to the boy. The complainant then refused to pay any such amount and asked for return of all the articles of dowry and to reimburse him for all the expenses incurred. The complainant had thus been cheated by the fraud and misrepresentation of the petitioners including petitioner Nos.3 & 4 who are the parents of the boy as well as by the boy Muneeb (respondent No.3 herein) himself. The accused named above in the FIR were also accused of having committed breach of trust by retaining all the dowry articles particularly jewellery, clothes & cash and of extorting large sums of money. Further they were accused of wasting precious 2-1/2 years of the life of the complainant’s daughter. The complainant asked for strict possible action.

3. Admittedly, the FIR was initially registered only under sections 406/34 IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the only offences made out were under section 406 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to him, the date of cancellation of engagement being 5th August, 2000, the FIR could be made latest by 5.8.2001 and thus the FIR dated 25.6.2002 was clearly barred by time.

4 .For the purpose of examining the question of limitation, the only thing that can be seen at this point of time is the complaint itself. The complaint nowhere says that the engagement was called off on 5.8.2000. As per the complaint till the evening prior to the date of complaint, the complainant was contemplating the marriage to take place shortly although the complainant had become sceptic about the intentions of the boy’s side, viz., the petitioners. The complaint nowhere says that the marriage/ engagement was called off on 5.8.2000. Accordingly the period of limitation cannot start from 5.8.2000. So far as the offence under section 406 is concerned, the period of limitation can start only from the date the misappropriated articles were demanded back. Going by the complaint that date would be 24.6.2002. Therefore, for the offence under section 406 IPC the complaint made on 25.6.2002, on which summons was issued on 22.2.2003, will not be barred by time.

5. It has to be noticed that sufficient allegation about the fraud has also been made out in the complaint. The fraud complained of in the complaint is that the boy Muneeb and the petitioners defrauded the complainant into parting with large sums on the assurance that Muneeb would be married to complainant’s daughter but that the petitioners as well as boy Muneeb never had the intention of performing any such marriage. Thus, three offences have been made out, namely, under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under sections 406 & 420 of IPC. The offence under section 420 IPC is punishable with 7 years of imprisonment whereas the offence under section 406 IPC is punishable with 3 years of imprisonment. The offences under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years & six months respectively, except for adequate and special reasons. So far as the fraud punishable under section 420 IPC & offences under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, no limitation is prescribed under section 468 of Cr.P.C. So far as section 406 is concerned, the offence takes place only when the entrusted articles are called back and the accused fails to return. This situation arose, according to the complaint, only on 24.6.2002. Therefore, the complaint was made on the following day. Summons from the court was issued on 22.2.2003, i.e., within one year of the date of the offence. Further, section 468 (3) Cr.P.C. prescribes that when several offences are made out the limitation applicable will be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with more severe sentence. Since the complaint includes offences of fraud punishable under section 420 IPC and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, there can be no question of limitation barring the case.

6. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not only devoid of any merit but is totally frivolous. The filing of the petition has caused much delay in the disposal of the complaint case before the trial court. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs, assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 18th April, 2006.


March 31, 2006 MANJU GOEL,J

Delhi HC strikes down Husband’s FIR against wife for giving dowry. Sec 3 DP act precautions needed before filing FIR against wife – hy wife cannot be / MAY not be prosecuted … IS this a case of anti male bias in society still affecting honest law abiding citizens of this country

Delhi HC strikes down Husband’s FIR against wife for giving dowry. Sec 3 DP act precautions needed before filing FIR against wife – hy wife cannot be / MAY not be prosecuted … IS this a case of anti male bias in society still affecting honest law abiding citizens of this country

*** judgement ***

W.P.(Crl.) No.501/2010



Judgment reserved on: September 30, 2010

Judgment delivered on: October 20, 2010

+ W.P.(CRL.) NO. 501/2010 & CRL.M.A. 3921/2010(stay)


Through: Mr.V ijay Aggarwal with Mr.Rakesh Mukhija and Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate s.



Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State with Mr.Roshan Kumar, Advocate with I.O. S.I. Mr.Prabhanshu, P.S. Roop Nagar.

Mr.Abhishek Gupta, Advocate for R.2 /Sameer Saxena.



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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?


1. Pooja Saxena, the petitioner herein, vide instant writ petition under Article s 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking direction for quashing of the order of learned ACMM dated 10. 0 3.2010 as well as FIR No.59/2010 dated 22. 0 3.2010 registered at P.S. Roop Nagar pursu ant to the af oresaid order of learned ACMM.

2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner Pooja Saxena filed a complaint of dowry demand and harassment against her husband (respondent No.2) with CAW Cell and on t he basis of the said complaint, after preliminary inquiry and on the recommendation of the senior police off icer, an FIR No.232/2009 under Section s 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against respondent No.2 Sameer Saxena and others at P.S. Roo p Nagar.

3. Petitioner Pooja Saxena in her above referred complaint alleged that at the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient amount of cash and valuable articles including jewellery, Swift car, Sony TV, washing machine, double bed and gift items to r espondent No.2 and his relatives. It was also alleged in the complaint that at the time of her engagement ceremony on 20.08.2006, father of respondent No.2 raised a demand for a Sony TV besides cash /gifts for the relatives as also gold ornaments, diamond jewellery and clothes etc. for the sister -in -law of the respondent as also her two daughters. Father of the petitioner fulfilled the said demand s but the father -in -law of the petitioner was not satisfied and he raise d a demand for a car of a prestigious brand or in the alternative asked for a deposit of ` 5 lakhs as a corpus to enable them to purchase a car. He suggested that the car should be purchased in the name of the petitioner, failing which he would not go on with the marriage which may cause harassment to the parents of the petitioner and create difficulty in finding a match for the marriage of the younger sister of the petitioner

rest of the judgement enclosed as file in link below (please click on link below or cut and paste link on your browser )


SAME file is also enclosed as an attachment in case the attachment is easier to read / available on some blogs

Delhi HC strikes down Husband’s FIR against wife for giving dowry – precautions needed before filing FIR against wife – ABH 2010 20 10 CRL W5 01 2010.pdf