Daily Archives: December 29, 2013

Yeah when the whole complaint is false why not add a line saying “….they also asked for dowry standing next to my (girl’s) house ????

It’s become common to drag all dowry cases to a police station nearest to the girls house !!!!

Yeah when the whole complaint is false why not add a line saying "….they also asked for dowry standing next to my (girl’s) house ????

High Court declines to quash dowry harassment case trial

In a major ruling, the Madras High Court has declined to quash a case against a person working in abroad for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty. The petitioner contended that the Centre’s prior sanction was required to conduct the trial against him as the offence was stated to have been committed in a foreign country.

Dismissing the plea, Justice P. Devadass said as the offence under Section 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) IPC was alleged to have been committed in India and also in the US, the Central government sanction to conduct the trial against the husband would not arise. The Judge directed the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate here to proceed with the trial against the petitioner and his parents.

The wedding of Muralikrishna of Chennai who was employed in the US, took place in April 2010. In her complaint to police, the petitioner’s wife alleged that from the day of marriage she was harassed for dowry.

The first part of her married life was in Chennai. The harassment continued in the US also. The criminal case was now pending against the petitioner and his parents.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged dowry demand was in the US. So, as per Section 188 Cr.P.C., sanction of the Central government was necessary to try the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Since no sanction had been obtained in the present case, the trial could not be conducted.

Counsel for the petitioner’s wife said she was harassed in India and in the US. So, the Central government’s sanction was not necessary to conduct the trial.

Mr.Justice Devadass said sanction was a condition precedent to conduct the trial with respect to offences committed outside India. In case if an offence was in India and it continued in a foreign country, Centre’s sanction was not necessary. The petitioner had committed the alleged offence in India and also in the US. In such circumstances, requiring Centre’s sanction to conduct the trial would not arise.

http://m.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/high-court-declines-to-quash-dowry-harassment-case-trial/article5498748.ece/?maneref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ae%2F

Inspite of specific directions by the madras high court that parents are NOT to be arrested in dowry cases , police are said to be ON THE LOOKOUT for these senior citizens

Inspite of specific directions by the madras high court that parents are NOT to be arrested in dowry cases , police are said to be ON THE LOOKOUT for these senior citizens

Obviously the husband and his parents have done what honest people have to do in india … Ie run for their lives !!!!

Hubby, In-laws Escape After Dowry Plaint

A dowry harassment case was filed against a mechanical engineer and his parents following a complaint from his wife at the All Women Police Station (AWPS) in Villianur on Friday.

According to the complaint filed by Komala (26),an MBA graduate, her husband Santosh Kumar (33),father-in-law Arumugham (62), and mother-in-law Malarkozhi (56) had beaten her up and thrown her out of the marital house demanding dowry. They had told her not to return unless she brings `5 lakh from her parents, who reside in Kottakuppam, adjoining Puducherry, for construction of a house.

Komala got married to Santhosh in 2011 and had given birth to twins eight months ago. Her parents had given 30 sovereigns of gold and `1.5 lakh cash to the groom’s family at the time of marriage.

Soon after the marriage, there had been persistent demands from her husband and in-laws to get money from her parents. She was subjected to continuous assault and in one such incident, she was hospitalised. After the incident, she had complained to the local fishermen panchayat and subsequently at the AWPS which led to police counselling the husband and in-laws and sorting out things.

However, after she gave birth to twins, the situation again came back to square one. She was asked to get `5 lakh from her home and thrown out of her house, with an ultimatum that she shouldn’t return unless she has the money.

After the incident, she filed a complaint with the All Women Police Station in Villianur. Police registered a case under Dowry Prohibition Act and under various sections of IPC for harassment and assault, said AWPS sub inspector Thilagrani. Police said they are on the lookout of the three.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Hubby-In-laws-Escape-After-Dowry-Plaint/2013/12/29/article1971077.ece

4 magistrates take cognizance of 24000+ cases!; mostly civil disputes converted to criminal cases !!!! Madras HC blasts them !!! see how our lower courts are functioning !!!

4 magistrates take cognizance of approx 24000+ cases!; mostly these are civil disputes converted to criminal cases !!!! They take cognizance even outside their jurisdiction !! Matter goes to Madras HC vigilance cell & Madras HC blasts these Magistrates !!! see how our own lower courts are functioning !!!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21/08/2008

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI

Crl.O.P. Nos.15451 and 15981 of 2008

Common Order

Sensing the derailment of procedure established by law at the bottom level of the subordinate judiciary, in that, some Judicial Magistrates, in collusion with complainant Bankers/Financial Institutions, are in the habit of entertaining complaints relating to matters purely of civil nature and thereby, in abuse of judicial discretion and power, superabundantly passing orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation of such matters by the police for the undue benefit of the financial institutions, and in some instances they are entertaining similar complaints by themselves under Section 200 Cr.P.C., vigilance enquiries were conducted and reports received and the complaints entertained by them came to be quashed by orders of this Court passed in a number of petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In spite of such reaction by this court and repeated directions to the Judicial Magistrates not to refer the complaints/matters of civil nature for police investigation, recently, while dealing with like matters, it has come to light that such illegal trend is still widely in vogue. Since it was deeply felt that the issue relates to the propriety of the subordinate judiciary, by order dated 11.07.2008, the Registrar (Vigilance Cell), High Court, was directed to collect the details with reference to pendency of such cases before the Judicial Magistrate Courts in the State. Shouldered with the arduous task entrusted by this Court, the Registrar continued the job, however, he could not get the requisite particulars within the time stipulated in view of the reason that some of the Magistrates were reluctant to furnish the full-fledged details. Ultimately, subsequent to the strict direction of this Court, statistics and particulars from the courts of Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrates throughout the State could be procured. This Court places on record its deep appreciation for the erstwhile Registrar, Vigilance, and the present Registrar, Vigilance, High Court, Madras, and the Staff of the Vigilance Cell in accomplishing the task entrusted to them by putting in hard labour and almost working round the clock.

2. Annexure-A, B and C available in the vigilance report gives the particulars about the pending cases with regard to credit card transactions, personal loans, Hire Purchase Loans, cheque bouncing cases with IPC. offences etc., and the details of the Magistrates who have taken on file huge number of cases is furnished below:-

" ANNEXURE-A

Chennai

III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai : 10293

X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai : 10738

XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court , Saidapet, Chennai : 3159

XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai : 171