Daily Archives: October 2, 2013

Women waiting IRBM &big bounty delay divorce NOW!! divorce cases drop 23% as women tell lawyers to go slow !!

and a lawyer says :….“You hurt the person where it hurts him the most, and money plays an important role.”…….

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

Women put off divorce to benefit from Marriages Law (Amendment) Bill

Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013, 7:36 IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

Amrita Nayak Dutta

Marriages Law (Amendment) Bill proposal of up to 50% share in husband’s property, including inheritance, sees 23% drop in divorce cases as women direct their lawyers to go slow on proceedings.

– Ravi Jadhav/DNA

Women are playing the waiting game when it comes to getting divorced.

Between January and August this year, divorce cases in Mumbai fell by 23% compared to the corresponding period last year.

Women have directed their lawyers to slow down proceedings till the Marriages Law (Amendment) Bill is passed in the Lok Sabha in the winter session of Parliament. The bill proposes that a woman should get up to 50% share from her husband’s inheritance and properties.

According to the Bandra family court, there were 2,826 divorces in the first eight months of last year. The figure fell to 2,157 in the same period this year.

Lawyerspeak
Divorce lawyer Mrunalini Deshmukh s
ays a few of her female clients, especially those from affluent families, are adopting the wait-and-watch approach before rushing for a divorce. “They stand to gain a lot more from the husband’s property if the Bill in its current form becomes an Act,” she said. “You hurt the person where it hurts him the most, and money plays an important role.”

Shilpi Shamani, a divorce lawyer from Mumbai, said at least three of his female clients have requested him to go slow on the divorce process. “They want to see the fate of the Bill and act accordingly.”

The law says…
From 2009 to 2010, there was a 26.6% increase in divorces in the city. The numbers fell thereafter. There was a 14.9% decline in 2011 compared to 2010 and a further 4.5% drop in 2012 compared to 2011.

The trend coincides with a long drawn out debate on the Bill before it was passed by the Rajya Sabha on August 26. It’s scheduled to come up in the winter session of Lok Sabha.

The Bill has introduced a number of amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The property clause in the Bill lays down that the husband stands a chance of losing up to 50% of his property to his wife. This includes his inherited and inheritable property, apart from what he has acquired after marriage.

Moreover, it allows divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the spouses have lived separately for three years. It will speed up the divorce process, thus avoiding years of litigation.

It also says that while the husband cannot oppose the divorce, the wife can, claiming financial hardships.

Men in a fix
Men seeking divorce are finding themselves in a fix. Goregaon resident Rajiv Aggarwal, 32, (name changed), who filed for divorce two months ago, is wishing he had done it earlier.

“I am stuck. The intimidation from my wife’s family was getting out of control, so I had to file for divorce. If the Bill is passed, men like me, who belong to the salaried class, will be doomed,” said Aggarwal, who separated from his wife barely a year after his marriage.

“There are several other laws to protect women in our country like section 498 (a) of the IPC which deals with dowry. It was slapped on me the day I filed the petition.”

Men’s rights groups have termed the Bill ‘biased’ and ‘anti-men’.

Activist Amit Deshpande said the Bill would hardly empower women as it is ‘wife-friendly’, not ‘women-friendly’. He says the Bill takes care of the wife but not the husband’s mother or sister.

“Divorces have slowed down, specially after talks of inclusion of the property clause in the Bill surfaced around December 2012.

So, if this Bill is cleared in the Lok Sabha in its current form, it could offer more returns for the same thing,” said Deshpande.

New Bill, new fears
Men like Deshpande fear that just like the anti-dowry law, the proposed law may be misused by women. Deshmukh, too, believes many women might misuse this Bill for financial gains.

However, women’s rights groups across the country have welcomed the Bill.

Also, experts believe there could be a massive jump in divorces once the Bill becomes an Act. According to a Save India Family Foundation survey, divorce cases increased in countries such as Australia and China after similar laws were passed.

Deshpande said, “India can face the same situation if this Bill is cleared. Only the payer (husband) wouldn’t know how much he will have to pay since prenuptial agreements are not legal in our country.”

Geeta Luthra, a divorce lawyer in Delhi, said she receives many queries about the Bill every day, both from men and women. She said there will be further amendments to the Bill, as it is “discriminatory to men” and also contradicts the Hindu Succession Act.

‘It’s not about property’
Ashima Das (name changed), an IT professional from Mumbai whose divorce case is pending in the Bandra family court, refuses to buy that the ‘property’ argument can be reason for divorce cases going down.

“It might matter to some, which is reflecting in the statistics. For me, it’s more important to get out of a bad marriage as soon as possible, instead of waiting for a Bill to turn into an Act,” she said.

Similarly, in Bangalore, getting out of a bad marriage supersedes the ‘property’ factor for most women, say lawyers.

Activists slam ‘one-sided’ Bill
Men’s rights groups have termed the Bill ‘biased’ and ‘anti-men’. Men’s rights activist Amit Deshpande said the Bill would hardly empower women as it is ‘wife-friendly’, not ‘women-friendly’. He says the Bill takes care of the wife, but not the mother or sister of the husband

Men fear that just like the anti-dowry law, the proposed law might also be misused by women. Lawyers, too, believe many women might misuse this Bill for financial gains.

http:// www.dnaindia.com / mumbai / 1896919 / report-women-put-off- divorce-to-benefit-from-marriages-law-amendment-bill

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

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

State tries bail cancel. Court refuses EVEN if accused termed murderer, criminal, goon etc. For husbands to read & understand. court also blasts investigation agencies for slow action / callousness

State tries bail cancel. Court refuses EVEN if accused termed murderer, criminal, goon etc. For husbands to read & understand

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

Excerpts
************************
"…….……If scrutiny is strict at the time of grant of bail, looking at the allegations, the materials available, the like hood of conviction, the societal interest concerned, the scrutiny has to be far more strict at the stage of cancellation. The circumstances and materials relevant at the stage for grant of bail are undoubtedly different from that at the stage of cancellation. When bail is granted curtailed liberty is given to a citizen. When bail is cancelled the curtailed liberty is also sought to be annulled which has far more serious implication. The Court is therefore satisfied that it shall apply a stricter standard of scrutiny in this application………."

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

Patna High Court – Orders

The State Of Bihar vs Mantun Yadav on 3 July, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27243 of 2012

Husband says Talaq, wife files RAPE case on Bro in law!! Riajul Mondal@Goro vs State of W.Bengal !! Rape filed 1 MONTH later !!!!

Husband says Talaq, wife files RAPE case on Bro in law!! Riajul Mondal@Goro vs State of W.Bengal !! Rape filed 1 MONTH later !!!!

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

Excerpts below (we leave your to take your own conclusions )
***************************************

"……The petitioner brothers-in-law of girl on whose complaint …. FIR. …."
"……Her husband talaqed her on December 17, 2012 (p.12). …."
"……The petitioner allegedly attempted to rape her on December 31, 2012. The complaint was filed one month thereafter….."

The honourable court says "….. On the facts, it is difficult to believe the prosecution case……"

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

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

Goro – vs The State Of West Bengal Mr. Deep … on 10 July, 2013

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

In The High Court At Calcutta

07-2013 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction b-9 Appellate Side

C.R.M. No.9762 of 2013

Riajul Mondal @ Goro
-vs-
The State of West Bengal

Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir Mr. Raju Mondal …for the petitioner
Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda Mr. S. Mahapatra … for the State

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

The petitioner accused of offences under ss.498A/376/511/34 IPC and in custody from June 3, 2013 is seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.

Mr Kabir appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows.

The petitioner is one of the brothers-in-law of the girl on whose complaint the order was passed under s.156(3) directing registration of the FIR. The girl’s parents-in-law have been granted bail, and husband and another brother-in-law have been granted anticipatory bail. Her husband talaqed her on December 17, 2012 (p.12). The petitioner allegedly attempted to rape her on December 31, 2012. The complaint was filed one month thereafter. On the facts, it is difficult to believe the prosecution case. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

Mr Panda appearing for the State has produced the case diary and has submitted that the s.164 statement clearly supports the prosecution case against the petitioner. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

After examining all aspects, we are of the view that it will be appropriate to grant the petitioner bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

For these reasons, we allow the CRM and direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on a `20,000 bond with two sureties (one local) of `10,000 each – all to the satisfaction of CJM, Nadia; and that if released, he shall report to the investigating officer, during investigation, once in a week. Certified xerox. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J)

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

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

1 more bail denied TILL dowry returned, husband cries NO dowry shows photos, still NO A.B !! So…. is it a rule that husbands should be arrested on every dowry FIR ????

1 more marriage, 1 more bail denied TILL dowry returned, husband cries NO dowry & husband says he was falsely accused, husband shows photos etc…, still NO Anti. Bail !!!!

excerpts
*********************
"………petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to the main accused (husband) and emanating from the record, …."
"…….The marriage was stated to have been solemnized with great pump & show. Her father gave sufficient customary dowry articles and gold ornaments by incurring expenditure beyond his capacity. …."
"………. As per the initial complaint (Annexure P3), it has been specifically claimed that petitioner and his other relatives used to taunt her for more money and demanded big car, ` 2 lacs and jewellery (duly described in the list (Annexure R2/3). When she refused to oblige them, then, they started beating her….."
"……….. At the very outset, placing on record the photographs, purporting to be of complainant and list of dowry articles, Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well…….."
"…..Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. …..

………… so …..BAIL DENIED TO THE HUSBAND !!!!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No. M-26997 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision:-9.4.2013

Ashish Mehta …Petitioner Versus

The State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.Gagan Pardeep Singh Bal, Advocate for respondent No.2
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for deciding the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail to the main accused (husband) and emanating from the record, are that the marriage of complainant Shelly Mehta (respondent No.2) (for brevity "the complainant"), daughter of Suresh Kochhar, was solemnized with petitioner Ashish Mehta on 23.9.2007 at Faridabad, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies. The marriage was stated to have been solemnized with great pump & show. Her father gave sufficient customary dowry articles and gold ornaments by incurring expenditure beyond his capacity. According to the complainant that after solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner and his other relatives started demanding more dowry articles. On her refusal, they gave beatings and turned her out of the matrimonial home. She lodged a complaint against her husband and his other relatives, but during the pendency of inquiry, they gave assurance that in case, she would withdraw her complaint, then, they would rehabilitate her in the matrimonial house gracefully. Consequently, she withdrew the complaint on their assurance. The complainant started attending her duty while residing in a rented flat at Faridabad and waited for her husband to take in her matrimonial home, but in vain. The assurance given by the accused was subsequently found to be false. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

2. As per the initial complaint (Annexure P3), it has been specifically claimed that petitioner and his other relatives used to taunt her for more money and demanded big car, ` 2 lacs and jewellery (duly described in the list (Annexure R2/3). When she refused to oblige them, then, they started beating her. On 17.9.2011, when she went to her matrimonial home, then, she was beaten and dragged in the street from the room. The petitioner repeatedly dragged, gave kicks, slaps and fist blows in her stomach. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the initial complaint (Annexure P3), in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-accused taunted, harassed, abused, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, by way of FIR No.94 dated 6.5.2012 (Annexure P1/T), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, in the manner described here-in-above. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

4. Having exercised and lost his right before the Addl. Sessions Judge, now petitioner Ashish Mehta (husband) has preferred the instant petition in this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

5. Notice of the petition was given to the State.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

7. At the very outset, placing on record the photographs, purporting to be of complainant and list of dowry articles, Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

8. As is evident from the record that, inter-alia direct and very serious allegations are assigned to petitioner-husband, who is main accused in the original complaint that he repeatedly taunted, abused, harassed, tortured, demanded a big car, ` 2 lacs in cash and jewellery from the complainant. It was claimed that although the father of the complainant gave sufficient dowry articles and incurred expenditure beyond his capacity, but still, the accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles and demanded a big car, ` 2 lacs in cash and jewellery. On her refusal, she was tortured and treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles by her husband. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

9. The next cosmetic contention of learned counsel that as there is no reliable material on record to prove the misappropriation of, and specific demand of dowry articles, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, sans merit as well. That stage of proving the misappropriation and demand of dowry articles by the husband, has not yet reached. At the time of consideration of the grant of anticipatory bail or otherwise, only allegations and relatable material have to be kept in focus at this initial stage. As depicted here-in-above, very serious and direct allegations of torture and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles are assigned to the petitioner-husband, who is main accused. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

10. Sequelly, the mere fact that the parents-in-law of complainant (who were residing separately at Faridabad, whereas the petitioner and complainant were residing at Banglore) were granted the concession of anticipatory bail, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner-husband, who is main accused in the case, as urged on his behalf. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

11. Not only that, the interim bail/protection was granted by this Court to enable the petitioner to hand over the dowry articles. Although he is stated to have joined the investigation, but he has refused to hand over the dowry articles. The Investigating Officer has submitted the list of dowry articles, which are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. To me, if he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of dowry articles and case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution.

12. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of dowry articles/case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Likewise, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Therefore, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of pointed offences and the fact that the recovery of dowry articles and case property is yet to be effected, to my mind, the petitioner (main accused husband) is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner-husband is hereby dismissed as such.

14. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail.

9.4.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

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

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

498a FIR in 1.5yrs of marriage, husband denied bail!! Getting married ?? BEWARE !! Police, Court & Jails are there to support your wife…. this is NOT a cakewalk

498a FIR in 1.5yrs of marriage, husband denied bail!! Getting married ?? BEWARE !! Police, Court & Jails are there to support your wife…. this is NOT a cakewalk

notes
**************************
* Marriage on 20.11.2011
* Wife’s father expired on 02.01.2012
* Wife alleges that dowry torture started soon after

* Wife also alleges that "…The father-in-law of complainant is alleged to have an evil eye on her…." !!!!!
* FIR No.16 dated 17.5.2013 u/Sections 498-A, 406 & 120-B IPC filed by Police Station Women Cell, City Amritsar !!
* Husband and co run for bail initially to the session’s court
* Then they run to HC
* HC also denies bail and sends them back !!
* Why ????
(a) As per the Hon. HC "…..Ex facie, the celebrated arguments of learned counsel that the complainant is at fault, no dowry articles were given at the time of her marriage and since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by her, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well….."
(b) and as per the Honourable HC "……. At the time of consideration of the grant of anticipatory bail or otherwise, only allegations and relatable material have to be kept in focus at this initial stage. In this manner, as very serious and direct allegations of torture and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles are assigned to petitioner, who is main accused (husband), therefore, his custodial interrogation is essential in this relevant connection.

….."
(b) alleged DOWRY ….DOWRY articles are yet to be recovered from the husband !!!!

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

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ajay Kumar Mehra vs State Of Punjab on 7 August, 2013

CRM No. M-25542 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM No. M-25542 of 2013

Date of Decision:-7.8.2013

Ajay Kumar Mehra …Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Darling Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

The compendium of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that the engagement ceremony of complainant Gori Mehra, daughter of late Pawan Kapoor (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with petitioner Ajay Kumar Mehra on 26.7.2011 at M.K.Hotel, Amritsar. Besides the other dowry articles, an amount of ` 51,000/- was stated to have been given to him at that time. The marriage between them was solemnized on 20.11.2011. Soon after the marriage, the accused have started demanding dowry articles and the father of complainant told them that he was going to Delhi for treatment and on return, he would fulfill their demands. As luck would have been, on 2.1.2012, her father had expired. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

2. According to the complainant, after the death of her father, the petitioner-husband and his other co-accused started taunting her on the ground that she had brought sub-standard and insufficient dowry, which were not according to their status and asked her to exchange the dowry articles with new one. One FD of Rs.2,50,000/- was given to the accused in this regard, but still, they were not satisfied and started demanding cash, gold ornaments and luxury car. The father-in-law of complainant is alleged to have an evil eye on her. All the accused started maltreating, taunting, abusing and beating her after the birth of her daughter. Ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioner-husband and his parents (other co-accused) have demanded the dowry articles, luxury car, taunted, harassed, abused, tortured and treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner and his parents, vide FIR No.16 dated 17.5.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 & 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Women Cell, City Amritsar, in the manner depicted here-in-above. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

4. As is evident from the record that 1st petition (CRM No. M- 19157 of 2013) for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, by virtue of order dated 9.7.2013. Having exercised his right and failed in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, now he has preferred the instant 2nd petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this Court in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

6. Ex facie, the celebrated arguments of learned counsel that the complainant is at fault, no dowry articles were given at the time of her marriage and since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by her, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

7. As indicated here-in-above, inter-alia direct and very serious allegations are assigned to petitioner, husband of complainant and main accused that he along with his parents has repeatedly tortured, abused and treated her with cruelty on account of insufficiency of dowry articles. Although sufficient pointed dowry articles, cash and one FD of ` 2½ lacs were given to them by the parents of complainant at the time of marriage, but still, they were not satisfied with the same. They demanded a luxury car and cash etc.. On her refusal, she was tortured and treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles and cash by the accused. Meaning thereby, since the direct allegations of cruelty are assigned, so, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

8. Sequelly, the next contention of learned counsel that as there is no reliable material/evidence on record to prove the misappropriation of, and specific demand of dowry articles, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit as well. That stage of proving the misappropriation and demand of dowry articles by the petitioner-husband by producing substantive evidence, has not yet reached. At the time of consideration of the grant of anticipatory bail or otherwise, only allegations and relatable material have to be kept in focus at this initial stage. In this manner, as very serious and direct allegations of torture and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles are assigned to petitioner, who is main accused (husband), therefore, his custodial interrogation is essential in this relevant connection.

9. Therefore, to me, if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of dowry articles, cash, FD and case property is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

10. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of dowry articles and case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. Thus, keeping CRM No. M-25542 of 2013 5 in view the seriousness of the allegations of commission of offences in question and the fact that the recovery of dowry articles, cash, indicated FD and case property is yet to be effected, to my mind, the petitioner (main accused husband) is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant 2nd petition filed by the petitioner (main accused-husband) is hereby dismissed as such. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/

12. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail, in this relevant connection.

7.8.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)

Judge

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

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