Daily Archives: August 6, 2013

Compilation continued : 75 interesting High court cases on Anticip Bail, Quash, DV, Perjury, Divorce etc

Dear Readers

As you know these blogs have been a repository of a large number of court cases and interesting articles

I have made a second , brief compilation of 75 cases posted the last three / four weeks !!

I plan to make more such compilations in the near future

Probably some one would be kind enough to send their cases to me so that I can blog and add them to this list ??

I’d be delighted to have your feedback and suggestions (as comments) to this blog

Since the formatting was becoming an issue , the same is uploaded to Gdocs and the link is given below

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5OGtMVWZId1dJLWM/edit?usp=sharing

short link : http://bit.ly/1567wbq

***************************
FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases ) FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

WHAAAT? just 2 lakhs for rape? how dare? Go PAY10 lakhs; Collect more taxes and castrate more rapists

Rs. 2 lakh for rape victims a mockery of system: SC

Warning: You Will Lose If – You Trade Angry, Scared or Need To Win. Click To Find The SolutionTradingPsychologyHelp.com
Ads by Google

J. VENKATESAN SHARE · COMMENT · PRINT · T+

TOPICS

India

Madhya Pradesh

crime

sexual assault & rape

Bench orders Rs. 10 lakh each for two girls, who were gang-raped in February last at Betma in Indore

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Madhya Pradesh government to pay as compensation Rs.10 lakh each to two girls, who were gang-raped in February last year at Betma in Indore district.

A Bench of Justices R.M. Lodha and Madan B. Lokur passed the order on an appeal filed by the 84-year-old social activist Satya Pal Anand against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which awarded Rs. 2 lakh in ad hoc compensation. Noting that Rs. 2 lakh had already been paid, the Bench directed the State to pay Rs. 8 lakh within a month.

It wanted the Centre to take the lead in evolving a social security scheme and working out welfare measures for rape victims. It expressed concern at such incidents and said: “Trauma of rape victims continues throughout their life and such victims cannot be compensated by any amount.”

The Bench said: “As a matter of fact, no amount of money can restore the dignity and confidence of rape victims. However, certain measures such as adequate compensation, insurance, employment and social security scheme may help in the rehabilitation to some extent.”

The compensation, fixed by the High Court (Rs. 2 lakh), was “very deficient” and “inadequate” for the girls who belonged to poor families. “It’s a mockery of system, giving Rs. 2 lakh as compensation to victims. This is very serious infraction of human rights.”

The Bench took a serious note of an affidavit filed on behalf of the State by Additional Superintendent of Police, Indore, Arvind Tiwary, disclosing the names of the girls, an act prohibited under Section 228(A) of the IPC. It served a show-cause notice on him, asking him to explain why a criminal case could be not filed against him for disclosing the names of the victims.

Referring to the High Court’s order that said the 16 accused who raped the two girls were languishing in jail, the Bench said: “The High Court is more concerned about the accused. It says they are languishing in jail. They are not languishing in jail. They are serving sentence. The High Court is not concerned about compensation.”

On larger issues, Additional Solicitor-General Siddharth Luthra informed the Bench that another Bench was seized of a petition relating to payment of compensation to rape victims and their rehabilitation. The Bench said that since other aspects, including the social security scheme and rehabilitation for victims, were under consideration, it would leave the issues to be dealt with by the other Bench.

SOURCE

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rs-2-lakh-for-rape-victims-a-mockery-of-system-sc/article4993008.ece

*****************************************
FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Dictum from APEX court. Proof not necessary for bigamy FIR! I think men should start using this !!!

"……. In bigamy cases while lodging a criminal complaint it is not necessary for the aggrieved party to prove that marriage ceremonies were performed as it is for the trial court to decide the veracity of the allegations, the Supreme Court has held….."

There are LOTS of men who are hit with FALSE 498a and other cases by two timing women……. I think this HC verdict would be a boon to them IF they have limited proof but a strong belief of their wife’s two timing, bigamous relationship .

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

Proof not necessary for FIR in bigamy cases: Supreme Court

Press Trust of India | Updated: April 02, 2010 20:13 IST

Proof not necessary for FIR in bigamy cases: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In bigamy cases while lodging a criminal complaint it is not necessary for the aggrieved party to prove that marriage ceremonies were performed as it is for the trial court to decide the veracity of the allegations, the Supreme Court has held.

The apex court further said that in criminal cases, courts cannot quash the charge sheet on the mere plea of the accused that there is no truth in the allegations.

"It has to be borne in mind that while considering the application for quashing of the charge sheet, the allegations made in the first information report (FIR) and the materials collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered.

"Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of
trial. Essential ceremonies of the marriage were gone into or not is a matter of trial," a bench of Justices D K Jain and C K Prasad said in a judgement.

The apex court gave the verdict while upholding the appeal of a woman K Neelavani, challenging a Madras High Court order quashing the charge sheet filed against her husband S K Siva Kumar under IPC Sections 406 (breach of trust) and 494 (bigamy-second marriage).

According to Neelavani, despite subsistence of their marriage, Kumar had married another woman Bharathi and fathered her child.

Though police filed a charge sheet against the accused husband for the alleged offences, the High Court quashed the charge sheet even before the matter came up for trial on the ground that the allegations were not substantiated.

Allowing the wife’s appeal, the apex court observed, "We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in holding that the charge sheet does not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 494 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

"It is trite that the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the investigating agency in the police report
i.e. in the charge sheet and it is open to him after exercise of judicial discretion to take the view that facts disclosed in the report do not constitute any offence for taking cognizance.

"Quashing of Sections 406 and 494 of IPC from the charge sheet even before the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is undesirable.

"In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, quashing of the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of IPC at this stage in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was absolutely uncalled for," the apex court observed while quashing the high court order.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/proof-not-necessary-for-fir-in-bigamy-cases-supreme-court-19034

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

FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Dictum from APEX court. Proof not necessary for bigamy FIR! I think men should start using this !!!

"……. In bigamy cases while lodging a criminal complaint it is not necessary for the aggrieved party to prove that marriage ceremonies were performed as it is for the trial court to decide the veracity of the allegations, the Supreme Court has held….."

There are LOTS of men who are hit with FALSE 498a and other cases by two timing women……. I think this HC verdict would be a boon to them IF they have limited proof but a strong belief of their wife’s two timing, bigamous relationship .

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

Proof not necessary for FIR in bigamy cases: Supreme Court

Press Trust of India | Updated: April 02, 2010 20:13 IST

Proof not necessary for FIR in bigamy cases: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In bigamy cases while lodging a criminal complaint it is not necessary for the aggrieved party to prove that marriage ceremonies were performed as it is for the trial court to decide the veracity of the allegations, the Supreme Court has held.

The apex court further said that in criminal cases, courts cannot quash the charge sheet on the mere plea of the accused that there is no truth in the allegations.

"It has to be borne in mind that while considering the application for quashing of the charge sheet, the allegations made in the first information report (FIR) and the materials collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered.

"Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of
trial. Essential ceremonies of the marriage were gone into or not is a matter of trial," a bench of Justices D K Jain and C K Prasad said in a judgement.

The apex court gave the verdict while upholding the appeal of a woman K Neelavani, challenging a Madras High Court order quashing the charge sheet filed against her husband S K Siva Kumar under IPC Sections 406 (breach of trust) and 494 (bigamy-second marriage).

According to Neelavani, despite subsistence of their marriage, Kumar had married another woman Bharathi and fathered her child.

Though police filed a charge sheet against the accused husband for the alleged offences, the High Court quashed the charge sheet even before the matter came up for trial on the ground that the allegations were not substantiated.

Allowing the wife’s appeal, the apex court observed, "We are of the opinion that the High Court erred in holding that the charge sheet does not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 494 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

"It is trite that the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the investigating agency in the police report
i.e. in the charge sheet and it is open to him after exercise of judicial discretion to take the view that facts disclosed in the report do not constitute any offence for taking cognizance.

"Quashing of Sections 406 and 494 of IPC from the charge sheet even before the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is undesirable.

"In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, quashing of the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of IPC at this stage in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was absolutely uncalled for," the apex court observed while quashing the high court order.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/proof-not-necessary-for-fir-in-bigamy-cases-supreme-court-19034

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

FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Intrm Maint: FamilyCourt ordr us24 Hindu Mar Act appealable us19(1) of Family Courts Act to High Court. However it seems these are appealeable only to a division bench. Does that make it MORE difficult for husbands ?? can some one elaborate ? Mds HC recent ruling !!

Intrm Maint: FamilyCourt ordr us24 Hindu Mar Act appealable us19(1) of Family Courts Act to High Court. However it seems these are appealeable only to a division bench. Does that make it MORE difficult for husbands ?? can some one elaborate ? Mds HC recent ruling !!

Learning / notes
****************************
* Whether remedy of revision is available on orders passed under sec 24 HMA (interim maintenance)
* Whether remedy of

******************************************************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were 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 judgment or the judgment 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.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIC DOT IN SITE
******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.04.2013

CORAM:-

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

C.R.P.(PD) No.1765 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
C.R.P.(PD) No.3246 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.801, 1180, 1463, 1558, 1588 and 1668 of 2013
& M.P.Nos.1 of 2013

P.T.Lakshman Kumar .. Petitioner in CRP PD No.1765 of 2010
-Versus-
Mrs.Bhavani .. Respondent in CRP PD No.1765 of 2010

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 28.01.2010 in I.A.No.1630 of 2007 in O.P.No.551 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.