Monthly Archives: November 2013

Dist court judge accused of demanding Rs 50-lakh bribe to sole RAPE CASE !!!! Accused says he has a video and audio recording of his conversation

Dist court judge accused of demanding Rs 50-lakh bribe . Accused says he has a video and audio recording of his conversation …. :

Industrialist Manjit Singh Arora, an accused in a four-year-old rape case, today filed an amended petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that two Panchkula residents had demanded a bribe of Rs 50 lakh from him on behalf of a district court judge for exonerating him from the case.

****

Dist court judge accused of demanding Rs 50-lakh bribe


Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 16

Industrialist Manjit Singh Arora, an accused in a four-year-old rape case, today filed an amended petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that two Panchkula residents had demanded a bribe of Rs 50 lakh from him on behalf of a district court judge for exonerating him from the case.

The case is pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Najar Singh and slated for hearing on November 18.

The industrialist has also filed a complaint with the District and Sessions Judge for transferring the case to another court. District and Session Judge SK Aggarwal confirmed that his office had received a copy of the complaint. Najar Singh was not available for comments at his Sector 16 residence. His son, Mohit Singh, said his father did not want to comment. However, in a section of the media, the judge has been quoted saying that the complainant was levelling the allegation to escape punishment.

Addressing a press conference here today, Manjit Singh said he has also filed a complaint with the CBI.

In his petition filed in the High Court, which will come up for hearing on November 25, he demanded a stay on the proceedings of the case in Najar Singh’s court, besides transferring of his case to the court of another judge.

He claimed that he had already paid Rs 25 lakh as part of the bribe money to one Dr Naresh Mittal — Rs 15 lakh on October 16 and Rs 10 lakh to his wife on October 29. He also named one Balbir Chaudhary in his petition.

In his petition Manjit Singh Arora stated that he had video and audio recording of his conversation with Dr Naresh Mittal when he gave him the money. He said the case was adjourned in the district court to October 31 and then on November 7 and further to November 12, but even then he was continuously being threatened to pay the remaining amount. Under pressure, the petitioner moved the Punjab and Haryana on November 7.

The amended petition was filed today. On November 12 during the hearing of the case in the district court, he moved an application in the court of Najar Singh to adjourn the case on the ground that his petition was pending in the High Court. The case then adjourned to November 18.

The case

The UT police arrested Manjit Singh Arora on the charges of repeatedly raping his 14-year-old maidservant in Chandigarh and Mumbai in January 2010. In August 2010, the victim and her mother turned hostile. The final arguments of the case were fixed on August 26, 2013, in the court of Additional Session Judge RK Yadav, but he was replaced by Najar Singh before this.

source
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20131117/cth1.htm#3

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

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

Ablaa seeks 50000 pm, after 4 mnths THIRD marriage!! WHY DID 3rd guy marry her ?? because sex is urgent need ??

Ablaa who took good moolah from two earlier husbands seeks 50000 pm, aftr JUST 4 months long THIRD marriage!! My only question is WHY DID this (3rd) guy marry her?? Are men so much behind sex ? Is it because prostitution is NOT allowed in India ? what am I missing ???

AP – Hyderabad District Court decision – Salient points
***************************************************************

* Third marriage for abla
* first marriage divorced, second husband died (or probably killed), so ablaa starts all over again third time !!!
* ablaa is collecting all moola from second husband’s PF etc for which there is proof
* ablaa marries third guy and starts dowry complaint, Father in law mis behaved complaint, brother in law misbehaved complaint etc etc within just 4 months of marriage
* ablaa seeks ONLY Rs 50000 per month from third guy for self and daughter who is born from second husband !!!
* The Honorable court grants JUST 10000 per month and asks her to seek other remedy elsewhere !!!!

court order :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5eTNYQjhxVWJWeUU/edit?usp=sharing

alternate short link
http://bit.ly/1aVmwSj

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

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

Hope bargain, panchayat & moolah stops. FIR must in complaints about serious offences-Supreme Court

FIR must in complaints about serious offences: Supreme Court "..This order will help stamp out the chronic practice among police across the country to either refuse or delay registering FIRs with the object of keeping crime figures artificially low or, worse, favouring influential accused…."

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

FIR must in complaints about serious offences: Supreme Court

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Nov 13, 2013, 02.00 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it mandatory for police to register a first information report on receiving a complaint about a serious offence, freeing criminal investigation from the rampant abuse of discretionary powers by the local thana in-charge.

"If discretion, option or latitude is allowed to the police in the matter of filing of FIRs, it can have serious consequences on the public order situation and can adversely affect the rights of the victims, including violation of their fundamental right to equality," said a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices B S Chauhan, Ranjana P Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S A Bobde.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Sathasivam said, "It would be incongruous to suggest that though it is the duty of every citizen to inform about commission of an offence, but it is not obligatory on the officer-in-charge of a police station to register the report."

This order will help stamp out the chronic practice among police across the country to either refuse or delay registering FIRs with the object of keeping crime figures artificially low or, worse, favouring influential accused.

"Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such situations," the court said. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) categorizes those offences as cognizable which attract a minimum of three years imprisonment as punishment.

Apart from refusing to register FIRs on complaints by the poor and the marginal, the police develop cold feet in recording an FIR if the accused is an influential person. Refusal to register FIR in such cases would be punishable, the court warned. From now, police must register FIR and can close it if they find no evidence to substantiate the charges made in the complaint after investigation.

"The police cannot avoid their duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register an FIR if information received by them discloses a cognizable offence," the bench said.

A two-judge bench of the apex court had in 2008 ruled that registration of FIR was mandatory on complaints alleging commission of serious offences. But given the wide ramification of the issue, it was later referred to a five-judge constitution bench. The constitution bench, which agreed with the two-judge bench, said if the complaint or the information received "did not disclose a cognizable offence but indicated the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not".

"The scope of the preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence," the court said and fixed a seven-day limit for the police to complete the preliminary inquiry. If the preliminary inquiry leads to closure of the complaint, the police officer must inform the complainant about the decision and the reasons behind it, the court said while limiting the preliminary inquiry process to a select few categories of cases.

"As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The categories of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are—matrimonial and family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and those involving abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, an over three-month delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay," the bench said.

Importantly, the court ordered the police to enter in its daily diary all information received about cognizable offences prior to registration of FIR.

"Since the general diary/station diary/daily diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, to be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected," the bench said.

source

times of india

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

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

IF YOU WANT SECOND HONEYMOON, FILE FALSE DOWRY CASE ON HUSBAND AND CO !!

* The couple got married in 2003 and the wife left the husband in 2006. * In 2007, she filed a dowry case against him. * Now Karnataka HC says "……spend couple days together in a hotel in Bangalore……" !!!!! * So, if you want second honeymoon, file dowry case on husband and co …..and then go to court !!

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

Spend 2 days together: Karnataka HC to divorce seeking couple

Bangalore: In a very interesting order, the Karnataka High Court ordered a divorce seeking couple to spend couple days together in a hotel in Bangalore.

A divisional bench comprising Justices KL Manjunath and AV Chandrashekhar felt that communication gap between the two was leading to divorce and it could be prevented if they spend some time together. The quarrelling couple agreed to the High Court’s decision and informed the judges that they will check into a city hotel. The next hearing will take place on Friday.

The High Court also advised the lawyers to treat divorce cases on humanitarian grounds and not as a routine professional matter.

The couple got married in 2003 and the wife left the husband in 2006. In 2007, she filed a dowry case against him. She is working as a doctor in Bangalore.

Her husband’s application seeking a divorce was dismissed by a lower court. The wife told the court that her son could not afford to miss his school. The High Court ordered the school to grant him leave to enable the parents to spend sometime together.

Read more at: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/spend-2-days-together-karnataka-hc-to-divorce-seeking-couple/432737-62-129.html?utm_source=ref_article

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

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

maid dead, probably beaten to death by violent wife; MP dhananjay’s wife threatened suicide, exhibited un controlled rage;

MP dhananjay’s wife threatened suicide and had uncontrolled rage his DIVORCE petition claims !! his maid is dead, probably beaten to death by this violent wife !! long live ablaa naaris of India !!

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

Domestic help abuse: Problems began in 2010, Jagriti’s husband says

Raj Shekhar, TNN Nov 9, 2013, 01.43AM IST

NEW DELHI:

Was Jagriti Singh’s violent and abusive treatment of her domestic helps part of a long-running behavioural disorder? The divorce petition filed by her husband and Jaunpur MP, Dhananjay Singh, in June this year, says so. The petition, which TOI has seen, claims Jagriti’s behavioural problems started soon after their son’s birth in July 2010.

The two married on June 29, 2009 and lived together in Jaunpur, UP, where Dhananjay was an MLA. After a few months, he was elected to the Lok Sabha and they shifted to 175, South Avenue, where their son was born next July.

"The respondent (Jagriti) underwent a sudden behavioural change after this and often screamed at and misbehaved with the petitioner (Dhananjay)… She often fights with her husband and threatens to commit suicide and implicate his family," the petition states.

Further in the document, Dhananjay alleges that Jagriti used to assault three of their servants, Santosh, Nishaad and Ram. "None of the staff is able to continue to work at the house nor is the petitioner able to live with respondent, which is why he has shifted to another flat (number 126) in the vicinity." She allegedly assaulted Dhananjay’s personal assistant, Sanjay Sharma, and abused and beat up their drivers, Jitender Rathore and Rajesh Singh.

In July 2010, Dhananjay claims, his cousin, Radhika Singh, came to stay with them and help Jagriti look after their son. "She was also misbehaved with, abused and beaten up… She was eventually thrown out of the house in October 2012 by the respondent," reads the petition. In December 2011, Jagriti allegedly abused and turned Dhananjay’s 80-year-old father out of their house.

Dhananjay says in the petition that he took her to a doctor in May 2012. "The doctor prescribed her medicines and asked her to continue with the medication for a year to get well." However, Jagriti allegedly tore off the prescription on reaching home and threatened to commit suicide if she was taken to the doctor again.

source
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-11-09/delhi/43853925_1_jaunpur-mp-dhananjay-singh-petition

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

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