Daily Archives: July 5, 2013

NRI hubby+all in 498a package. Inlaws arrstd+releasd. AB 4 Hubby. Hubby NO appear. Wife tries bail cancel. Fails @ HC. Wife contends that hubby got his passport promising return in two months, but never returned. HC ask wife to go to sessions court and try to cancel bail. This is an old case as of date, so fate of this husband who is supposedly working at Oman Airways is not known !!

NOTES
*************************

* NRI husband

* looks like wife filed 498a + package on the year of marriage – 2006

* in laws arrested and released

* husband gets anticipatory + passport release with condition to return in 2 months

* husband has not returned after many months

* wife tries bail cancellation

* HC asks wife to go to sessions court (the court that gave the bail) and seek bail cancellation saying husband violated sessions court’s directions

*****************************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NET SITE

DISCLAIMER :

This judgment was collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgement or the judgement itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

*****************************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.08.2009

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

Crl.O.P.No. 24063 of 2007

M. Elumalai .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gingee Sub-Division Gingee,
Villupuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Gingee, Villupuram District. .. Respondents

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, to cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to Elumalai in Cr.M.P.No. 7653 of 2006 dated 08.11.2006 in C.C.No. 379 of 2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent/Inspectress of Police, Gingee.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbazhagan

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj
Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to her husband Elumalai in Cr.M.P.No. 7653 of 2006 dated 08.11.2006 in C.C.No. 379 of 2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent/Inspectress of Police, Gingee.

2. The petitioner, in support of her case, has filed an affidavit stating that she married one Elumalai in the year 2006, at Gingee. After marriage, her husband treated her in a cruel manner and demanded dowry from her. She lodged a police complaint before the Inspectress of Police, All Women Wing Police Station, Gingee, Villupuram District. On her complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 4 of 2006 for an alleged offence under Sections 498-A, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners’ in-laws were arrested and released on bail. In the said case, charge sheet was also filed in C.C.No. 379 of 2006. The petitioner’s husband filed anticipatory bail in Cr.M.P.No. 7653 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Villupuram. The same was granted on 08.11.2006 on condition that he should surrender his passport before the Lower Court and not to leave India until further orders. The said Elumalai is working as a Technician in Oman Airways.

3. The petitioner’s husband, Elumalai moved Criminal M.P.No. 8960 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Villupuram for return of passport. He undertook to return to India within two months and return the passport and complete the trial of the case. The learned Sessions Judge accepted his undertaking and ordered return of the passport to the petitioner’s husband for a period of two months. He was further directed to return the passport after two months before the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. The petitioner’s husband Elumalai has not complied with the direction of the Sessions Court Judge and failed to return the passport before the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. He left Indian in the month of January 2007 and did not appear before the Trial Court on the said case and also has not surrendered the passport as per order of the Sessions Court.

4. Further the petitioner’s husband Elumalai filed a Criminal Original Petition No. 715 of 2007 before this Honourable Court for a direction, directing the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee to complete the Trial in C.C.No.379 of 2006 as expeditiously as possible. This Honourable Court directed the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee to expedite the trial in C.C.No.379 of 2006 within two months and further directed the said Elumalai to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail till the conclusion of the Trial.

5. As per the direction of this Honourable Court, the petitioner’s husband Elumalai never appeared before the Trial Court for any hearings and he has absconded from India and working at Oman Airways, by getting the passport from the Trial Court. Further, the said Elumalai has failed to comply with the direction of Sessions Court, Villupuram and failed to surrender the passport before the Trial Court till date.

6. It is alleged that the respondents 1 & 2 have not taken any steps to bring the said Elumalai to India and surrender his passport. The respondents did not even take steps to cancel the anticipatory bail of the said Elumalai. It is alleged that the respondents colluded with the said Elumalai. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to Elumalai. The petitioner in support of her case, has filed a copy of the order in Cr.M.P.No.7653 of 2006 and order in Cr.M.P.No. 8960 of 2006 and order in Crl.O.P.No. 715 of 2007.

7. Considering the above contents of the petition and other orders passed by the Learned District Sessions Judge and this Honourable Court, the Court is of the view that this Honourable Court has given direction in Cr.M.P.No. 715 of 2007 to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee to expedite the Trial in C.C.No. 379 of 2006 and more particularly within a period of two months. Further, this Court directed the petitioner/Elumalai to appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, without fail, till the conclusion of the Trial. Further, the District Sessions Judge passed an order in Cr.M.P.No.8960 of 2006 dated 18.12.2006, wherein the Court had directed the learned Magistrate, Gingee to return the passport to the petitioner’s husband, Elmalai, with the condition that the said Elumalai should surrender the passport after two months before the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee.

8. But the petitioner’s husband Elumalai has not complied with the conditional order of the Sessions Court. Further anticipatory bail was granted by the Honourable Sessions Court, Villupuram. So, the petitioner has to approach the Honourable Sessions Court, Villupuram for cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner’s husband Elumalai has grossly violated the Courts order.

9. With this observation, the Criminal Original Petition No.24063 of 2007 is disposed of.

mps/mra

To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gingee Sub-Division Gingee,
Villupuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Gingee, Villupuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras 104

*****************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************

6 LAKHS FOR 9 MONTHS. Wife leaves 9 months aftr marage. Files 498a WHILE divorce case ON! TAKES SIX LAKHS BOOTY. Then Quash. 498a has been filed while the civil case is on and filed against hubby, father, mother, Maternal uncle, Sister & sister’s husband. So this part of the GET BOOTY, “QUASH SERIES”. Such cases add to dowry case staistics. Then all can happily claim India is a country of dowry takers and women are harassed for dowry !!

Notes
***************************************
* Married on 02.06.2004
* Separated 28.03.2005 [approx 9 months]
* Hubby files divorce
* Wife files counter
* In the mean while, wife files 498 A, 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C. R/w 4 and 6 of DP act on 20.04.2008 against hubby, father, mother, Maternal uncle, Sister & sister’s husband
* Hubby accepts for 6 lakhs Ransom and wife gets the same
* All appear before HC
* HC happily quashes after quoting cantena of cases

*********************************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS WEB SITE…..

*********************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER : This judgment was collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgement or the judgement itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.06.2009

CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

CRL.O.P.No.25831 of 2006

R.Arun .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.State by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Teynampet,
Chennai- 600 018.

2.S.Radhika .. Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in crime No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A. Arulmozhi

For first Respondent : Mr.S.Senthil Murugan
For second Respondent : M/s.S.Arunachalam

ORDER

This petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in crime No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and they were married on 02.06.2004. Due to difference of opinion and temporamental incompatibility they were separated on 28.03.2005. The petitioner has moved the Family Court for divorce and the second respondent herein appeared before the court and filed her counter.

In the mean while, the second respondent lodged a criminal complaint on 20.04.2008 against the petitioner, his father, mother, Maternal uncle , Sister Amudha and sister’s husband for offences punishable under sections 498 A, 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C. R/w 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

In the faimly court, settlement was arrived at, whereby the second respondent has received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) towards permanent alimony before the family court.

She had agreed to withdraw the case initiated by her in crime no.3 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent. Mutual agreement for separation was filed before the family Court, which is as follows:

“WHEREAS during the pendency of both cases, the parties entered into mediation and decided to move the petition for divorce by mutual consent under the conditions mentioned hereunder:

The First Party Arun has agreed to pay Rupees 6,00,000/-(Six Lakhs only) towards one time settlement of permanent alimony and maintanance to the second party, Radhika. The said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) shall be given by way of demand draft at the time of enquiry in the mutual consent O.P. Demand Draft No.471597 dated 27.07.2006 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Alwarpet Branch, Chennai.

The Second party Radhika shall receive the demand draft at the time of recording evidence before the family Court.

The Second party Radhika has agreed to withdraw the police complaint and not to proceed with any other complaint against the first party or his family members.

The parties further undertake to restrain from interfering with each other life in any manner.

The parties shall abide by their undertaking without any deviation.”

3.The receipt acknowledging the payment of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) to the second respondent is also enclosed in the type set dt.18.11.2008 along with this petition. The second respondent has also addressed a letter to the Inspector of Police, Teynampet Police Station expressing her willingness to withdraw the complaint on the ground that due to domestic feud, she had lodged the complaint.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S.Joshi V.State of Haryana, 2003(3) CTC 54:AIR 2003 SC 1386, has held that:

“The decision of Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye V.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47: 1978 Cri.L.J.165 does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or F.I.R. Or Complaint as vested in Section 482 or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice,quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power”

5. In the same decision , the Apex Court has held that in matrimonial matters, it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of disputes. It is also observed by the Apex Court in the very same decision that:

“14….the hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-Aof Indian penal Code.”

6.The Honourable Supreme Court of India ultimately quashed the First Information Report registered on the basis of the Complaint given by the wife against her husband and his relatives for the alleged offence under Section 498-A,I.P.C. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties.

7. In yet another decision in a similar state of facts and situation in Mohd.Shamin V.Nahid Begum, 2005 AIR SCW 332, the Apex Court has held that the proceedings initiated against the husband for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 498-A read with 34, I.P.C. Is liable to be quashed in view of the agreement of settlement arrived at between the parties.

8. In both the decisions cited supra, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings in spite of the fact that Section 498-A is not compoundable.

9. The facts of the above said two decisions of the Apex Court cited supra, squarely applicable to the facts of the case and in both the cases the accused were facing charge for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, I.P.C. And the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings considering the amicable settlement between the parties.”

10. In this case, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties to the matrimonial dispute in the Family Court to secure the ends of justice quashing of the F.I.R becomes necessary. Accordingly the FIR in Cr.No.31 of 2005 is quashed.

arr

To

1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Teynampet,
Chennai- 600 018.

2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai

*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************

file 498a, agree ransom, collect money @family court, quash 498a. Public money, police time total wasted. 498a stats up!

file 498a, agree ransom, collect money @family court, quash 498a. Public money, police time total wasted. 498a stats up!

***************************************************************************

Notes
***********************
* Wife files 498a
* Then wife and hubby agree for mutual divorce (will hubby have any choice when his mother, father are roped in)
* Wife collects money …something is mentioned here, but I do NOT know the final / total amount
* wife promptly appears and request quash !!
* WHY do police charge sheet such cases ?? – I do NOT know
* what about the public time and taxpayer money wasted ?
* What about police and court time wasted ?
* How many OTHER real culprits escaped when police were conducting this case ?

************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS WEB SITE FOR MADRAS HIGH COURT
************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 6-2-2009

CORAM

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI

Crl.R.C.No.82 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009
and
Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009

1.B. Lakshmanan
2.R. Bose
3.Mrs.B. Rajeswari …. Petitioners in both the
revision and the petition

vs

State rep by
The Women Inspector of Police
W-16, All Women Police Station
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081 … Respondent in both the
revision and the petitions

Revision Petition is filed under Sec.397 and 401 Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in CMP No.2322 of 2008 in CC No.5797 of 2005 dated 10.12.2008 and discharge the petitioners/accused form the charges in CC No.5797 of 2005 and petition is filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C to compound the offence.

For petitioners : Mr.K. Kannan
For respondent : Mr.R. Muniyapparaj
Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners have filed the present revision to set aside the order passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in CMP No.2322 of 2008 in CC No.5797 of 2005 dated 10.12.2008 and to discharge them from the charges in CC No.5797 of 2005. They also preferred the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009 to compound the offence. Inasmuch as both the matters are inter-connected, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the 1st petitioner, a case in C.C.No.5797of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sec.498(A) IPC, was taken up for trial and P.Ws.1 to 3 including the defacto-complainant/wife were examined. In the meantime, based on the petition submitted by the petitioner/wife and the accused/husband, mutually consenting for divorce, the Principal Family Court, Chennai granted decree of dissolution of marriage. The defacto-complainant agreed to receive Rs.30,000/- as permanent alimony with an undertaking to withdraw her case in CC No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate. Only under such circumstances, a petition under Sec.320 Cr.P.C was filed for compounding the offence. The learned Magistrate, by the order impugned, stating that it is a non-compoundable offence and jurisdiction is not vested with him, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against such order, the present revision has been filed along with a petition in Crl.O.P.No.2807 of 2009, filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C accompanied by the affidavits of the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner.

3. Both the defacto-complainant and her husband/1st petitioner appeared before the Court today.

4. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

5. With regard to the issue involved, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in B.S. Joshi vs State of Haryana (2003 Crl.L.J 2028), wherein it is categorically held that while exercising powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C, the High Court, in matrimonial matters can take into account the compromise entered into between the parties and permit them to compound the non-compoundable offence and also clarified that Sec.320 Cr.P.C would not be a bar in that regard.

6. In the case on hand, pending trial of the case before the learned Magistrate, proceedings were initiated before the Family Court for dissolution of marriage. **Both the parties, by mutual consent, dissolved their marriage. The defacto-complainant received Rs.30,000/- as permanent alimony and agreed to withdraw the case in C.C.No.5797 of 2005 pending before the learned Magistrate**. Only under such circumstances, a petition has been filed, however, it was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

7. **Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings**. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. CC No.5797 of 2005 pending on the file of learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is quashed and both the criminal revision and criminal original petition are ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.

sr

To

1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai

2. The Women Inspector of Police
W-16, All Women Police Station
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Chennai

***************************************************************************

If man has d1ck, he’s rapist or had ununatural sex!! Yukta Mukhi lodges Dowry & unnatural sex FIR agnst very rich husb

comments
****************************

Poor Yuktha mukhi lodged DV cases, NON cognizable FIR against husband etc etc

Nothing seems to have worked so far

Now she is on to a more serious FIR

Now she has claimed Dowry and Unnatural Sex

******************************************************************************

NEWS FROM THE NET
******************************************************************************

Yukta lodges FIR against husband on Dowry charges

Mumbai | Updated 7/5/2013 6:03:26 PM IST

752013yuktaf.jpg

ENI Bureau

Mumbai: Former Miss World and actress Yukta Mookhey has lodged an FIR against her husband Prince Tuli for alleged domestic violence, the police said on Friday.

She has also named her in-laws in the complaint lodged with the Mumbai Police.

"In her complaint, Mookhey alleged she had often been beaten up and troubled by her husband Prince Tuli. An FIR has been registered under Section 498A (cruelty and harassment) and Section 377 (unnatural sex) of Indian Penal Code after her complaint yesterday," an officer at Amboli police station said.

Tuli is a New York-based businessman and financial consultant. The actress was medically examined after her complaint, the police said.

No arrest has been made so far, the police said.

Earlier, a number of non-cognisable offences were registered against Tuli at the police station after repeated complaints by Mookhey.

A non-cognisable offence is one in which the police can neither register an FIR, investigate nor effect arrest without the express permission or direction from the court.

Mookhey was crowned Miss World in December 1999 at the Olympia Theatre in London at the age of 20. Later, she acted in a few Bollywood movies.

Tuli’s family owns a business empire in Central India with interests in logistics, hotels, malls, education and construction equipment.

In 2012, Mookhey filed a complaint of domestic violence against her husband at a police station in Mumbai. Mookhey had claimed that her husband had abused and beaten her. However, the case was soon scrapped.

******************************************************************************
http://bit.ly/12hCrjR

People have lost faith in Judiciary : Judges lament at Mega Lok Dalat : Cuddapah : Indian Judicial system is to protect democracy and freedoms of people : If people loose faith in Judiciary, recovering that faith would be almost imp ossible நீதித்துறை மீது மக்கள் நம்பிக்கை இழந்து விட்டனர்: சட்ட நிபுணர்கள் வேதனை

Brief NOTES in English followed by original News in Tamil
******************************************************************************

People have lost faith in the Judicial system / Judiciary : Judges lament at Mega Lok Dalat : Cuddapah : Andhra Pradesh

Judges speaking at the Mega Lok Adalat conducted at Cuddapah lamented that Indians are loosing faith in Indian Judiciary and Judicial system. They also felt that the respect for Judiciary is going down (/reducing) .

While speaking to media persons, Cuddapah Judge Honourable Justice C P Nagarjun Reddy said courts starting from the lower courts upto the Supreme court of India have lost their prestige and status before the people. He also said Judiciary in general is loosing its status before the people

High court Justice Honourable Shri Ramana also spoke during the function and mentioned that courts and governmental agencies have failed to deliver timely justice to people . He said Delayed justice was a cause for the loss of faith

Judges expressing their anguish openly has shocked members of the public / civil society

*******************************************************************

NEWS IN TAMIL from DINAMALAR WEB SITE

*******************************************************************

நீதித்துறை மீது மக்கள் நம்பிக்கை இழந்து விட்டனர்: சட்ட நிபுணர்கள் வேதனை

கடப்பா : இந்திய நீதித்துறை மீது மக்கள் நம்பிக்கை இழந்து விட்டதாக சட்ட நிபுணர்கள் வேதனை தெரிவித்துள்ளனர். மேலும் நீதித்துறை மீதான மதிப்பும் சரிந்து வருவதாக அவர்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர். ஆந்திராவில் சட்டத்துறை விழா ஒன்றில் கலந்து கொண்ட நீதிபதிகள் இவ்வாறு தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.

**நீதிபதிகள் கருத்து** :

ஆந்திர மாநிலம் கடப்பா மாவட்ட நீதிபதி சி.பி.நாகர்ஜூன ரெட்டி செய்தியாளர்களிடம் பேசுகையில், கீழ் கோர்ட் முதல் சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் வரையிலான அனைத்து நீதித்துறை அமைப்புக்களும் தங்களின் மதிப்பை இழந்து விட்டதாக தெரிவித்துள்ளார். மேலும் நீதித்துறை மீது மக்கள் நம்பிக்கை இழந்து விட்டதாகவும் அவர் தெரிவித்துள்ளார். நீதித்துறை குறித்து கருத்து தெரிவித்த ஆந்திர ஐகோர்ட் நீதிபதி என்.வி.ரமணாவும், இந்தியாவில் உள்ள அனைத்து மாநில அரசுகளும் தேவைப்படும் துறைகள் மூலம் மக்களுக்கு நீதி வழங்க தவறி விட்டதாகவும், விரைந்து நீதி வழங்கவும் அரசுகள் தவறி விட்டதாகவும் குற்றம்சாட்டி உள்ளார். இதனால் மக்கள் மத்தியில் இந்திய நீதித்துறை மீதான மதிப்பு குறைந்து வருவதாகவும் அவர் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

**நீதித்துறை குறித்து வேதனை** :

நீதி வழங்குவதில் தாமதம் ஏற்படுவதால், நீதித்துறை மீதான நம்பிக்கையை மக்கள் ஒருமுறை இழந்து விட்டால் அதன் பிறகு இந்திய நீதித்துறை திட்டமே சிதைவடைந்து போய்விடும் என நாகர்ஜூன ரெட்டி தெரிவித்துள்ளார். மக்கள் உரிமைகளையும், ஜனநாயகத்தையும் பாதுகாக்க வேண்டிய திட்டம் நீதித்துறை திட்டம் எனவும், அதன் தனது போக்கில் தளர்வு காட்டுவதால் மிகவம் மோசமான மதிப்பை மக்களிடம் பெற்றுள்ளது எனவும், நீதித்துறை இவ்வாறு இருந்தால் மக்களையும், ஜனநாயகத்தையும் யார் காப்பாற்றுவது எனவும் நீதிபதி ரமணா வேதனை தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

ராயசோட்டி பகுதியில் கடப்பா மாவட்ட நீதித்துறை அதிகாரிகள் ஏற்பாடு செய்திருந்த மெகா லோக் அதாலத் விழாவில் கலந்து கொண்ட மாவட்ட மற்றும் ஐகோர்ட் நீதிபதிகள், இந்திய நீதித்துறை குறித்த இந்த கருத்தை தெரிவித்துள்ளனர். நீதித்துறை குறித்து நீதிபதிகளே இவ்வாறு தெரிவித்துள்ளது அனைவரையும் அதிர்ச்சி அடைய வைத்துள்ளது.

http://www.dinamalar.com/news_detail.asp?id=678568