Daily Archives: July 13, 2013

married woman, mother of kid, runs away with loverboy. SEE how the heading is blaming the MAN and starts with “… the MAN ran away with his lover ….’

Man runs away with mother of two and half year old in a month of marriage in Valsad village

Yagnesh Mehta, TNN | Jul 8, 2013, 06.03 AM IST

SURAT: A youth ran away with his married girlfriend within a month of his marriage inAbrama village of Valsad.

The girlfriend is mother of two and half year old daughter. The family sought police help to locate the runaway couple.

Sanjay, 28, resident of Abrama, escaped with his girl friend living in neighbouring residence during early hours on Saturday. Sanjay got married a month ago but was not happy with his marriage. He was in love with Kamini, wife of his friend and neighbourhood resident Aakash. Both planned to escape around five days ago, their family members informed police.

Kamini took her two and half year old daughter along with her while escaping with Sanjay. The couple did not share their plan with anyone in family or friend, police investigation revealed. Aakash informed police and lodged a missing complaint.

Meanwhile, in-laws of Sanjay alleged that Sanjay kept them in dark about his plans and ruined life of their daughter. Police investigation revealed that Sanjay and Kamini used to meet each other regularly. Police are searching for the couple and checking possible locations where they can go. The issue created tension in Abrama village as the runaway act created disputes between two families.

(Names changed to protect identity)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/Man-runs-away-with-mother-of-two-and-half-year-old-in-a-month-of-marriage-in-Valsad-village/articleshow/20964765.cms?intenttarget=no

Jaipur : PIL questions immediate arrests in dowry harassment cases : “….The petition alleges that 70% matrimonial disputes are being converted into criminal cases by misuse of the provisions of Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. It has been alleged that once such a false criminal case is filed against the husband and his relatives the police immediately arrest the accused resulting in vanishing of chances of reconciliation between the warring husband and wife…..”

PIL questions immediate arrests in dowry harassment cases

Abhinav Sharma, TNN Jul 9, 2013, 05.08AM IST

JAIPUR: A division bench of the high court has asked state government to give its reply to a PIL filed by one Vinod Singhal who questioned immediate arrests in cases pertaining to Section 498A (dowry harassment) and Section 406 of IPC (criminal breach of trust) filed by aggrieved wives against husband and his relatives.

The petition alleges that 70% matrimonial disputes are being converted into criminal cases by misuse of the provisions of Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. It has been alleged that once such a false criminal case is filed against the husband and his relatives the police immediately arrest the accused resulting in vanishing of chances of reconciliation between the warring husband and wife.

The PIL raises a point that since the offences are non-bailable, some guidelines must be issued so as to see that no husband or his relatives are arrested on false complaints. The petitioner demands that instead of registering the FIR immediately, the police must first call the parties for conciliation and in case the dispute remains unresolved, then only action should be initiated against the guilty husband and his relatives.

It has also been highlighted in the petition that in the recent past the Supreme Court too had observed that the law made for protection of women is being misused and has asked the Law Commission of India to report as to whether the law can be made bailable. The division bench of Chief Justice Amitava Roy and Justice V S Siradhana directed that a copy of the PIL be supplied to the government advocate.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-09/jaipur/40468015_1_pil-questions-dowry-harassment-cases-division-bench

women seek apology frm women’s commission chief 4 saying women are impatient !! & responsible for rising DV cases !! suddenly other women are calling her a “petty politician” … now help me understand this story !!

Women’s group wants panel chief to apologise

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times CHANDIGARH , July 13, 2013

First Published: 20:09 IST(13/7/2013) | Last Updated: 20:11 IST(13/7/2013)

The Punjab Istri Sabha, a women’s rights body, on Saturday demanded a public apology from the state women’s commission chief, Paramjit Kaur Landran, for blaming "growing impatience" among women for the rising cases of domestic violence.

In a recent media interaction, Landran had said, "Marital disputes are taking place due to women’s impatience." She had also accused women of filing dowry complaints to take revenge from their husbands.

Dr Kanwaljeet Dhillon, an activist of the Chandigarh unit of the Punjab Istri Sabha, said that women bore the brunt of domestic violence not because they were intolerant but because of the insensitive behaviour of men. She said Landran’s views reflected her feudal, patriarchal mindset.

Members of the women’s group said that Landran should immediately render a public apology for her remarks. They appealed to the government not to give such important posts to "petty politicians".

"These posts should be given to those who have struggled for the rights of women," Dhillon said.

source

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Chandigarh/Women-s-group-wants-panel-chief-to-apologise/SP-Article1-1092001.aspx

BIZARRE case of husband agd 15, older wife, 25 years dowry case & how juveniles should NOT be judged by criminal courts !!!! Here is a Bizarre case : Man got married at the age of 15. His wife was older. Unfortunately She dies of burns. As it happens, man is suspect. A Dowry case was filed on him. His father dies during the appeal and dragging process of running court to court. Now…, This unfortunate husband is 40 years old, having lost his entire youth in this case and stands before the Supreme court. The supreme court says …….

Here is a Bizarre case : Man got married at the age of 15. His wife was older. Unfortunately She dies of burns. As it happens, man is suspect. A Dowry case was filed on him. His father dies during the appeal and dragging process of running court to court. Now…, This unfortunate husband is 40 years old, having lost his entire youth in this case and stands before the Supreme court. The supreme court says …….

Don’t sentence juveniles in criminal cases: court

J. VENKATESAN

Refer accused to Juvenile Justice Board, Bench asks magistrates

Reported by THE HINDU …. India’s National Newspaper

In all criminal cases where the accused were above 16 but under 18 years on the date of the crime, proceedings pending in court will continue and should be taken to their logical end except that the court, upon finding the juvenile guilty, would not pass an order of sentence. The Supreme Court gave this direction, laying down guidelines for magistrates across the country.

A Bench of Justices T.S. Thakur and Madan B. Lokur said: “The accused shall be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.” The Board was empowered to award compensation to the victim’s family payable by the accused/appellant.

TWO-FOLD DIFFICULTY

The bench said: “It becomes obligatory for every magistrate to ascertain, in the first instance or as soon possible, whether the accused is an adult or a juvenile in conflict with law. The reason is to avoid a two-fold difficulty: first, to avoid a juvenile being subjected to procedures under the normal criminal law and dehors the act and the rules, and second, a resultant situation, where the “trial” is required to be set aside as having been conducted by a court not having the jurisdiction to do so or a juvenile, on being found guilty, going ‘unpunished’.”

If the magistrate had an iota of doubt about the juvenility of an accused, he/she might arrive at a prima facie conclusion on the basis of physical appearance. This should be recorded by the magistrate. Thereafter, if custodial remand was necessary, the accused might be sent to jail or a juvenile might be sent to an Observation Home, and the magistrate should simultaneously order an inquiry, if necessary, for determining the age of the accused. An inquiry at the earliest “would be in the best interests of the juvenile, since he would be kept away from adult undertrial prisoners and would not be subjected to a regimen in jail, which may not be conducive to his wellbeing.”

In the instant case, according to the prosecution, Jitendra Singh alias Babboo Singh was a juvenile, aged 17, on the date his wife Asha Devi was burnt to death. He was 15 at the time of marriage and Asha Devi was older than him. After the incident, a case of dowry death was registered and Babboo’s father was also cited as co-accused. The Allahabad High Court granted him bail, accepting his claim as a juvenile. A trial court in Uttar Pradesh awarded him seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 100. His father died during the hearing of the appeal. Babboo’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the High Court. Now, disposing of the appeal against this judgment, the Supreme Court said: “At present, the appellant is 40. The only possible and realistic sentence that can be awarded to him is imposition of a fine. The existing fine of Rs.100 is grossly inadequate. To this extent, the punishment awarded to the appellant is set aside. The issue of the quantum of fine is remitted to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board,” which is also enjoined to examine compensation to be awarded, if any, to Asha Devi’s family in terms of the decision of this court.

Keywords: #juveniles_crimes, #Supreme_Court_directive, #juvenile_punishment

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dont-sentence-juveniles-in-criminal-cases-court/article4912758.ece

QUASH 498A CASE AGAINST 10 OF HUBBY FAMLY – wife tries to rope in everyone – files 498a against 12 of husbands family. HC quashes case against 10 of those accused except the husband and one more accused.. HCc refers to Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhan case where the SCc has given a stern order against wives trying to rope in all and sundry into false 498a cases !!

QUASH 498A CASE AGAINST 10 OF HUBBY FAMLY – wife tries to rope in everyone – files 498a against 12 of husbands family. HC quashes case against 10 of those accused except the husband and one more accused.. HCc refers to Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhan case where the SCc has given a stern order against wives trying to rope in all and sundry into false 498a cases !!

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

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIC SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

Criminal Petition No.4277 of 2009

01-10-2010

Shaik Kaleemullah & 9 others.

The State AP, rep. by its P.P.
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,
Through P.S. Town IV, Nizamabad and another.

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan
Counsel for respondent No.1: Additional Public Prosecutor
Counsel for respondent No.2: D. Bhaskar Reddy

:ORDER:

The petitioners 1 to 10/A-2, A-3 and A-5 to A-12 are accused of offences punishable under Section 498 (A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. A-2 is brother, A-3, A-5 to A-9 are sisters of A-1 who is husband of the second respondent/de facto complainant. A-10 to A-12 are brother-in-law of A-1, they being husbands of sisters of A-1. There is no dispute about marriage between the second respondent and A-1. A-1 is not figuring as one of the petitioners herein. A-4 who is another brother of A-1 is stated to be no more even by the time of giving report by the second respondent to the police, which report was registered as FIR No.108 of 2009 of Nizamabad IV Town Police Station. All the sisters of A-1 are married and are living with their respective husbands, except A-8.

3. It is alleged that parents of the second respondent gave dowry of Rs.70,000/- in cash, 11 tolas of gold, 20 tolas of silver, Hero Honda motorcycle and other household utensils at the time of marriage. The alleged dowry and articles might have been given to A-1 and not to any of A-1’s brothers, sisters or brothers-in-law who are the petitioners herein. It is further alleged that A-1 was always beating the second respondent and abusing her and subjecting her to mental as well as physical harassment demanding her to get further dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh and that all the other accused were instigating A-1 to demand further dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh and to harass the second respondent and that finally all the accused necked the second respondent out of her family house demanding to bring Rs.1.00 lakh. Thus, main allegation of demanding additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh and putting the second respondent to physical and mental harassment is on A-1. It is only A-2 to A-12 are stated to have instigated A-1 to do the same. There are no specific allegations of any of the petitioners herein subjecting the second respondent to harassment by way of beating or abusing her, much less demanding to bring Rs.1.00 lakh towards additional dowry. If the alleged additional dowry is brought, then none of brothers, sisters and brothers-in-law would be beneficiaries and they would not get any share in that additional dowry.

4. The Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1 took note of the fact on some unscrupulous wives putting all family members of the husband to harassment by way of giving report alleging offence under Section 498 (A) IPC. The Supreme Court pointed out role of the courts as follows:

"At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion."

5. The Supreme Court also pointed out role of advocates and also need for change of legislation on this aspect. If allegations in the report given by the second respondent are scrutinized with pragmatic approach contemplated by the Supreme Court, it is evident that general and omnibus allegations are made against all the petitioners who are residents of different places and different localities including a brother who is no more even by the date of giving report by the second respondent to the police. Such indiscriminate activity on the part of the second respondent, cannot be supported by this Court. Registration of case on report of the second respondent by the police against the petitioners herein is nothing short of abuse of process of criminal law.

6. Hence, the criminal petition is allowed quashing FIR in crime No.108 of 2009 of Nizamabad IV Police Station in so far as the petitioners 1 to 10/A-2, A- 3 and A-5 to A-12 are concerned.

?1 2010 (8) Scale 131