Daily Archives: August 29, 2013

women are innocent ! : wife plots +murders husband’s lover, semi nude dead body thrown in canal… will killer gang get max sentence ?

women are innocent ! they do NO harm…. poor women need max liberty, max laws and max protection : News : wife plots +murders husband’s lover, semi nude dead body thrown in canal… will killer gang get max sentence ?

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

Before you read the story below, read the following aloud and IF possible tatoo them to your thoughts !! … I said thoughts

  • women do NO harm
  • All violent crime is done by men
  • Men who kill women should be first castrated and then killed

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

Wife plotted murder of husband’s lover

Soumittra S Bose, TNN | Aug 30, 2013, 01.59 AM IST

NAGPUR: Umred police and local crime branch (LCB) jointly cracked the case of murder of a 32-year-old beauty parlour owner whose body was found in semi-nude condition at a canal nearHewtiUdasa, around 40km away from city, on August 18. Four persons were arrested by Umred police on Wednesday.

Police said Neetu Kuthare’s murder likely took place over an illicit relationship with prime accused Aarti Kamble’s husband Sunil. It is learnt that Aarti, now arrested, was the mastermind. Apart from Aarti, domestic maid Rooplata and her husband Narayan Savsagde too have been arrested. Police have also arrested Aarti’s husband’s employee Milind Pimpalkar.

Initially, the cops were baffled when forensic experts claimed Neetu’s death had taken place due to drowning. Investigating team was further puzzled as Neetu was found to have defecated in her underwear that suggested violent asphyxia. It was learnt Neetu was separated from her husband in 2003. She had started a beauty parlour and business of bridal make-up at her place.

Cops first registered it as an accidental death. Rural police squads, that had started a probe under supervision of superintendent Manoj Sharma and additional SP Prakash Jadhav, searched Neetu’s place and salon for clues. Cops came across a photograph of Aarti’s husband Sunil who runs a cable business. The police also came across Sunil’s phone number.

Sunil, who is yet to be arrested, had argued with the cops that he was at a liquor bar on Hudkeshwar Road along with his friends and employees when the alleged murder took place. After scanning the closed circuit television (CCTV) footages, cops quizzed some of Sunil’s friends who were present with him. One of Sunil’s employees Milind was later rounded up. Milind, who was the first to spill the beans, is learnt to have been instrumental in strangulating Neetu in the car. It is learnt Milind participated in the conspiracy as he wanted to save the marriage of Sunil and Aarti for whom he had deep regard.

During parallel probes by LCB squad under PI Rajan Pali and police sub-inspector (PSI) Arvind Saraf and Umred police station teams, it came to fore that Sunil and deceased Neetu shared an illicit relationship for last one year. Sunil had taken Neetu at different resorts in rural areas.

Sunil’s wife Aarti came across her husband’s illicit affair after she picked up a call from Neetu at midnight and the deceased started speaking amorously without realizing Aarti had picked up the phone. There used to be regular bickering at house following the incident.

Police said though Aarti plotted the murder, Sunil too was involved in executing it. Aarti, along with maid Roopkala, posed as a client and called Neetu to come for a bridal make-up. Neetu accepted the assignment as she had never met her paramour’s wife. Neetu was taken in a car driven by Narayan. Aarti revealed her identity in the car confronting Neetu who clearly stated her intention to marry Sunil. This angered Milind who strangled Neetu and threw her body, without clothes, into a canal.

The case would be now transferred to Hudkeshwar police station under whose jurisdiction the crime actually took place.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Wife-plotted-murder-of-husbands-lover/articleshow/22151088.cms

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

you can stop payment of cheques IF wife / DIL does NOT quash cases. Wife can’t sue you for cheque bounce !!

you can stop payment of cheques IF wife / DIL does NOT quash cases. Wife can’t sue you for cheque bounce !!

Notes
*******************
* Husband files divorce
* wife files 498a
* promptly gets father in law arrested
* father in law seems to be a well to do guy
* father in law agrees to pay Rs 2.5 crores as permanent alimony IF wife agrees to quash cases
* father in law also issues post dated cheques
* however wife does NOT even quash case, but tries to encash the cheque
* father in law stops payment of cheque (stop payment instruction)
* wife / DIL sues for cheque dishonour
* Honourable Delhi HC says DIL canno’t sue for cheque dishonour because compromise in a criminal case does NOT create a fresh debt (legallay enforceable debt or liability )

"……… respondent deposited this cheque for encashment in her account before approaching Crl.M.C. No.3869/2007 Page 8 of 10 the Court for quashing of the FIR and therefore, the petitioner was within his rights to stop the payment of the cheque as respondent/complainant had failed to fulfill her part of the obligation in terms of the settlement. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is manifestly clear that the settlement did not fully fructify between the parties and petitioner had no legal liability nor had any debt towards the complainant which could be legally enforced as a debt against the petitioner by the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act.

15. Hence, no offence can be said to have been made out against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act…….."

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
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 / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Delhi High Court

Harish Kapoor vs Akansha Gupta on 4 December, 2008

Author: Aruna Suresh

"REPORTABLE"

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ Crl.M.C. 3869/2007

Date of decision: 4.12.2008

# HARISH KAPOOR ….. PETITIONER ! Through : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Adv. with Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Shivkant Arora, Adv.

Versus

$ AKANSHA GUPTA …….RESPONDENT ^ Through : Mr. Kumar Sushobhan, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESHu

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

(3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes

ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)

1. Shashank Kapur was married to Akanksha Gupta/complainant on 27.6.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi. Shashank Kapur happens to be son of the petitioner. However, disputes and differences arose between the complainant and her husband which resulted into filing of divorce petition by Shashank Kapur, her husband.

2. Complainant lodged FIR No. 259/07 dated 12.4.2007 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Punjabi Bagh against her husband, Shashank, the present petitioner and other co- accused persons with allegations of cruelty for demand for dowry. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

3. Petitioner was arrested in the said case. He was produced before the learned MM on 4.5.2007 where petitioner made a proposal for settlement and agreed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores towards settlement of her claims regarding maintenance, alimony etc. with her husband Shashank Kapur and also that parties would seek mutual divorce by adopting proper forum for the same. Consequently petitioner handed over cheques No. 203022 dated 8.5.2007 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, 203021 dated 8.6.2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India and 203023 dated 8.8.2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India in terms of the settlement. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

4. Complainant/respondent presented cheque No. 203023 dated 8.8.2007 for Rs. 1,25,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India in her account for encashment which was dishonoured on 20.8.2007 with the remarks "Payment Stopped by the Drawer". Complainant thereafter issued legal demand notice dated 31.8.2007 under the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as NI Act) and when petitioner and other accused persons failed to make the payment on demand of the dishonoured cheque, complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the present petitioner and Girish Kapur, the other co-accused.

5. Vide order dated 5.11.2007 the learned trial court while dismissing the complaint being complaint No. 18112/2007 against accused Girish Kapur was Crl.M.C. No.3869/2007 Page 3 of 10 pleased to summon the petitioner.

6. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that alone said three cheques were given pursuant to the settlement which was entered into between the parties under duress and coercion and the said cheques were to be encashed by the respondent at different stages. It is argued that the cheque in question was not given for discharge of debt or any other liability nor does petitioner had any liability towards the respondent. The cheque in question was to be encashed at the time of quashing of FIR No. 259/2007 after respondent and her husband got divorced, however, they had not yet divorced each other and this made the settlement ineffective. Hence, since the settlement did not materialize and ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are not made out, the impugned complaint and summoning order deserve to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent states that petitioner had liability towards the respondent, since it was agreed in the settlement before the trial court that petitioner would pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores and only on this ground the petitioner was granted bail by the trial court on 4.5.2007. Since, petitioner had liability to pay the amount under the settlement therefore, he has been rightly summoned by the trial court for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

8. Section 138 of the NI Act so far as the relevant for the purposes of the present case reads as follows:

"Sec. 138. Dishnour of
cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
funds in the accounts.–Where any
cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a
banker for payment of any amount
of money to another person from
out of that account for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability, is
returned by the bank unpaid,
either because of the amount of
money standing to the credit of
that account is insufficient to
honour the cheque or that it
exceeds the amount arranged to be
paid from that account by an
agreement made with that bank,
such person shall be deemed to
have committed an offence and
shall, without prejudice to any
other provision of this Act, be
punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two
year, or with fine which may
extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in
this section shall apply unless–
(a)….
(b)….
(c)….
Explanation.–For the purposes of
this section, "debt or other
liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability."

9. For enforcing her claim under Section 138 of the NI Act, complainant had to show that the cheque issued in her favour by the petitioner was against any legally enforceable debt or liability.

10. As per the mutual settlement between the parties, petitioner had issued three post-dated cheques of different amounts totalling to Rs. 2.5 crores. As per the settlement, the impugned cheque for Rs. 1.25 crores was to be got encashed by the respondent at the time of quashing of the FIR.

11. Admittedly, no petition for seeking quashing of the FIR has been filed by the respondent or by Shashank Kapur. It is also not disputed that this compromise was arrived at and the cheque was issued by the petitioner when he was in custody and was produced before the Court and had sought his release on bail. Court had granted bail in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent. Under these circumstances, the impugned cheque cannot be considered as a cheque issued for consideration or in discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability towards the complainant/respondent. Petitioner being father-in-law of the complainant was not under any obligation, legally or otherwise, to make arrangements and discharge the liability of Shashank Kapur, his son, towards the respondent for her permanent alimony or for return of istridhan or dowry articles. The post-dated cheque issued in a criminal case in a compromise between the parties cannot be considered as payment of any debt or other liability which is legally enforceable against petitioner. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

12. In Lalit Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – (2008) 5 SCC 638 wherein a second cheque was issued on compromise in a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, which on presentation was also dischonoured, it was observed that since second cheque was issued in terms of the compromise, it did not create a new liability and therefore, as the compromise did not fructify, the same could not be said to be issued towards the payment of debt.

13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, since a post-dated cheque was issued which was to be encashed at the time of quashing of the FIR and that too upon a settlement arrived at between the father-in-law and daughter-in-law, it cannot be said that this cheque was issued towards payment of a debt which could be legally enforced by the complainant/respondent against the petitioner. Legally she is entitled to enforce her claims for istridhan, dowry articles and maintenance against Shashank Kapur, her husband, however, respondent is not entitled to enforce such rights against the petitioner and the petitioner under no circumstance was legally liable to pay any amount for settlement of the marital dispute between his son and the respondent.

14. As stated above, respondent deposited this cheque for encashment in her account before approaching the Court for quashing of the FIR and therefore, the petitioner was within his rights to stop the payment of the cheque as respondent/complainant had failed to fulfill her part of the obligation in terms of the settlement. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is manifestly clear that the settlement did not fully fructify between the parties and petitioner had no legal liability nor had any debt towards the complainant which could be legally enforced as a debt against the petitioner by the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act.

15. Hence, no offence can be said to have been made out against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial court erred in summoning the petitioner on the basis of averments contained in the complaint as he failed to appreciate that the impugned cheque was not issued towards payment of any legally enforceable debt but was for purposes of settlement against the marital dispute between the petitioner’s son and the respondent. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

16. Hence, petition is allowed. The complaint case No. 18112/2007 and summoning order dated 5.11.2007 are hereby quashed.

17. Attested copy of the order be sent to the trial court immediately.

(ARUNA SURESH)

JUDGE

December 04, 2008

jk

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

Adopted kids get property rights in new divorce law; so, wife, adopted kid, dalaLs, system everyone has a share !!

Adopted kids get property rights in new divorce law

Nagendar Sharma, Hindustan Times New Delhi, August 29, 2013

First Published: 00:08 IST(29/8/2013) | Last Updated: 13:09 IST(29/8/2013)

Adopted children will enjoy the same rights as biological ones in getting a share in property or financial compensation from their fathers in the event of the marriage breaking down, once Lok Sabha passes a bill for making divorce woman-friendly.

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, passed by Rajya Sabha on Monday, seeks to put an end to long legal battles and other difficulties faced by women after their marriages are over, and includes the specific clause that there would be no distinction between adopted and biological children.

It will be applicable in cases where marriages have been solemnised under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriages Act.

The proposed law clearly states that the definition of children will include “minor and adopted children, unmarried or widowed daughters who do not have the financial resources, and children who, because of special conditions of physical or mental health, need looking after and do not have the financial resources to support themselves.”

It also says courts will have the power to reject divorce petitions in cases where they are convinced the woman and her children will “face grave financial hardships” on termination of the marriage.

“The court shall not pass a decree of divorce unless it is satisfied that adequate provision for the maintenance of children born out of the marriage has been made consistently with the financial capacity of the parties to the marriage,” the bill states.

This will be the second law in the country after The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act of 2000 to give equal rights to adopted and biological children. The need to remove this distinction was felt since the oldest law on adoptions, the Guardian and Wards Act of 1890, states that a parent who adopts is a ‘guardian’ and the child a ‘ward’, which means the latter does not have the same rights as a biological child.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Adopted-kids-get-property-rights-in-new-divorce-law/Article1-1114355.aspx

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

Married? your INDIAN wife can sit @USA & “attach” ur Indian assets! worse, your lawyer will ditch you !! ALL this is BEFORE irbm …. then think what will happen AFTER IRBM !! ???

  • US based NRI comes all the way to India and gets married
  • Soon, Wife says US husband is harassing for dowry….. !!!!
  • Then wife’s parents file a petition @ an Andhra Pradesh matrimonial (family ) court seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs 1 lakh, per month !!!! saying she was staying alone in the US without any source of income !!!!.
  • The court awarded only Rs 25,000 PER MONTH plus Rs 10,000 towards legal expenses … the word ONLY is interesting !!!
  • Wife challenges interim order at HC , looses, HC tells husband to pay as per lower court order
  • Then hubby challenges the interim order @ SC
  • Now this is where he has been told, either pay up or patch up or your property would be attached
  • All NRI with property in India, and an INDIAN WIFE think 10 times now !!

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

Property notice to truant husband in US

R. BALAJI
New Delhi, Aug. 28: The Supreme Court has asked a truant US-based husband to show cause why his properties in India should not be attached after he went back on his word to pay his estranged wife an interim maintenance of Rs 25,000 a month.

The move of the top court, which also asked why contempt proceedings should not be started against Satish Kumar, is being seen as unprecedented.

Ranjan Mukherjee, counsel for Satish, has sought permission to withdraw from the case because of his client’s intransigence. His wife, Anuradha, is doing an MS at the International Technological University in Sunnyvale, US. The couple are fighting their legal battle through their parents who are in India.

The court yesterday issued notice to Satish after Mukherjee and Leela Sarveswar, Anuradha’s counsel, said he was sitting tight after assuring the court that he was seeking a rapprochement with his wife.

According to a petition filed by Anuradha in a matrimonial court, Satish was drawing a monthly salary of Rs 4 lakh. She had shifted to the US on an H-4 visa, which allowed her to stay in that country on condition that she would not take up a job.

“It is unprecedented in Supreme Court annals that it has decided to attach the property of the husband in a matrimonial case. There is no such recorded history,” Sarveshwar claimed to The Telegraph.

Mukherjee said he had decided to withdraw as Satish was entirely uncooperative and seemed to have scant regard for Indian court orders. “If I do not withdraw from the case, my reputation is at stake. An advocate is also an officer of the court which he has to assist conscientiously,” he said.

Satish and Anuradha married on April 20, 2007, at Vizianagaram in Andhra Pradesh under the Hindu Marriages Act. They shifted to the US soon after but their relationship began to sour within two months.

In her petition before the Vizianagaram court, Anuradha claimed that Satish started harassing her for dowry. So, she came to India and filed for divorce in June 2009.

When she returned to the US, Satish allegedly threw her out of the house. She then sought support from TANA, an association of Telugu-speaking Indians, which prodded her to contact her parents.

Anuradha’s parents then filed a petition in the matrimonial court seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs 1 lakh, saying she was staying alone in the US without any source of income. But the court awarded only Rs 25,000 plus Rs 10,000 towards legal expenses.

When she challenged the order in Andhra Pradesh High Court in April 2010, it upheld the earlier order. Satish filed an appeal in the apex court challenging the directions for interim award.

In December 2010, Satish sought time from the apex court to sort out matters with his wife, claiming they were trying to patch up. So, the court granted them a few weeks to work on their relationship.

However, Satish repeatedly kept seeking more time. When the matter was listed for hearing on July 26, 2013, his counsel again sought four more weeks to pay the interim maintenance award.

But when the matter came up for hearing yesterday, an exasperated Mukherjee told the court that despite his best efforts Satish was neither willing to pay the interim award nor commit himself on any issue. “My repeated efforts to persuade him to pay the interim award has failed,” he said.

Irked by his open defiance, the bench then asked Satish to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him and why steps should not be taken for attachment of his properties.

The next hearing has been scheduled after four weeks.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130829/jsp/nation/story_17286053.jsp#.Uh8RHBtmgyo

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ 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

DRUNK police officer shoots doctor who refuses to make FALSE medical (injury) report !!! Captured on CCTV !! Is this How medico legal reports are generated !!

DRUNK police officer shoots doctor who refuses to make FALSE medical (injury) report !!! Captured on CCTV !! Is this How medico legal reports are generated !!

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

An assistant sub-inspector (ASI) of police allegedly shot at a doctor at the Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College and Hospital early on Wednesday.

An assistant sub-inspector (ASI) of police allegedly shot at a doctor at the Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College and Hospital.

The accused police official, Kashmira Singh, was allegedly in an inebriated condition.

Hindustan Times has a video recording captured in the hospital CCTV that clearly shows Singh opening fire from his service pistol at Dr Nipun Kalra.

Kalra, however, escaped unhurt.

According to Kalra, the burly police official, who was in his uniform, wanted the doctor to prepare a false medio-legal report to implicate someone.

According to the doctor, Singh reached his cabin at the trauma centre at 2.45 am and asked to prepare a false report.

“Singh was accompanied by his son and wanted me to prepare a false medical report of his relative which would help him (Singh) to nail someone in a case of attempt to murder. As I objected and told the ASI that there was no grave injury, Kashmira Singh got angry and shot at me,” said Kalra.

Kalra also alleged that the police failed to take immediate action on his complaint.

“After the incident, I immediately called the police emergency number (100) for help. But the police team took about 25 minutes to reach the spot. I and my subordinates were terrorised as the ASI was moving around the hospital with the weapon in his hand. Even the cops on duty at the hospital did not make any attempt to stop Singh,” the doctor said.

Later, deputy superintendent of police Joginder Rathee rushed to the spot and the accused was booked.

Rahtee said the police were investigating the matter and Kalra has been provided a police cover.

Agitated over the incident, hospital doctors demanded immediate arrest of the accused.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Punjab/Drunk-Punjab-cop-asks-doc-to-fake-report-shoots-at-him-on-video/Article1-1114016.aspx