Daily Archives: June 6, 2014

Husband arrested, 5 on the run as POOR LADY wife complains of dowry !! Coimbatore, TN, June 5 2014

Ablaa Naari Amutha has complained that her husband of two years, Asaiyan of RR Nagar, Narashimha Nayakan Palayam, near KavuNdanpalayam, Coimbatore, TN was torturing for dowry. She also added the names of father in law, mother in law and three more relatives !! Police promptly arrested the husband and others are said to have absconded !!

*********

registration of false FIRs profitable business 4 police officials!! Justice DHINGRA tears false 498a to shreds!

Hon Shri Dhingra "…I consider that registration of this FIR is a sordid story of working culture of Delhi police. It is this police which refuses to regi ster FIR s in case of robberies, thefts and other heinous offences which take place on the roads of Delhi and when the complainant dare comes to police station for registration of FIR, he is made to run from one police station to another on th e issue of ju risdiction itself, while the FIRs are registered when nothing happened in India and no investigation can be done by the police in India. Why such FIRs are registered is obvious. It seems registration of FIRs has been made a profitable business by some police officials. The police, in the present case, not only registered the FIR but also got lookout circulars for the petitioners issued….."

*****************************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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo .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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve : 28th July, 2010
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Date of Order: August 06, 20 10

+ Crl. M.C. 722 of 20 0 9 % 06. 0 8.20 10

Amit Sharma… Petitioner

Through: Mr. R.S. Kela, Advoc ate

Versus

State & Ors…. Respondent s

Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, A PP for State

Mr. R.K. Pandhi, Advocate for R

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner f or quashing of FIR No.170 dated 15 th August, 2008 registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, West Delhi District, New Delhi.

2. The present FIR was registered at the behest of Smt. Kavita Gupta who a resident of USA and had come to Delhi perhaps only for registration of this FIR. A perusal of FIR reveals that Smt. Kavita Gupta was living in USA since 1993. She obtained Master Degree in Electrical Engineering from Arizona State, USA in 1995 and subsequently got employed in USA and started working there and living there.She came to India at Panchkula, Haryana for the purpose of marriage and was married to Shri Amit Sharma on 10 th January 2000 at Panchkula. After this marriage, her version of events, as given in FIR reads as under :

“ After marriage, I and my husband went to USA and all the document s and money for the visa and other arranged by me as per assurance and promise of the husband that when we will reach at USA, I already arranged a job at there through my friends and sister immediately I will joint there and payback to all the money spent by yo u for my visa and other expense s in presence of my father in law and mother in law. Accordingly, my husband and I arrived at USA in the month end of January, 2000 and I shocked after four months pass away when my husband at home without any job neither he tries for the same nor a n y tension in his mind, totally depends upon me as well as enjoy with my hard earning money congregate since 1993 and the present salary earned by me. In continuation, my husband wants to persuade a professional course for the same course I burdened the shelter, education and day to day expenses of my husband, texts books, fees, etc. Till 2003 I provided well professional education my husband and accordingly he got the join in the year, 2004 as per the hardship, sacrifice and financial and monetary help and encouragement of mine. I have, sponsored him H -4 spouse visa to USA. Thus facilitating immigration to USA and sponsored his Green Card application. As such I have not been able to enj oy my matrimonial life and married life normally and I totally sacrificed her obligations and enjoyments only for the career and goodwill of my husband. Further, I have provided a car to him for h is personal use totally financed by me just to maintain the respondent’s social status in the University as well as his friends circle. The year wise events of sacrifice and financial help provided by me annexed as Annexure -B. My nightmare started after my husband got a full time job. As soon as he was settled into his job, his parents (father in law and mother in law) sponsored by his sister for green cards and they come to stay on a permanent basis at my place now in addition to supporting my husband, I was forced to pay for his parents expenditure as well. It is to be noted that I was not even informed about the development that they were planning to immigrate permanently and would be staying with the complainant. His sister Anita Trehan sponsored and signed the financial support documents agreeing to support his parents. However, she has not contributed singly penny towards their support nor offer to keep them at her home. This information has been reported to USA immigration authorities as well. His parents in compliance with his sister and my husband therefore forced their way into the house in Houston and started to threatened me and harass me if I questioned them on this step. Further, I submit that they treated me like a slave and prisoner in my own house each time of which has been bought with my own hard earned money. I was subjected to mental abuse, and criticized the complainant constantly and made her lose of her self -esteem. It is to be noted that I was undergoing infertility (intrusive inventor fertilization procedure) chiefly because of my husband’s ab use the complainant (push her against the wall, twist her arms, catch her neck) and in summer 2006, he slapped her in front of his parents as well as admitted to doing other physical harms and also threatened to me to evict me from my life and made pieces of her dead body and the same can be disposed of in such a manner without be able to identifying at any point to time. It is further pertinent to mention here that on August 2nd 2006, my husband and h is parents assaulted me and forced me out of my own house in Friendswood, Texas, where each and everything were brought by myself including two cars. They also took all my wedding and other jewellary into their possession i.e. my “Istri Dhan” items and they also took possession of all the cheque books of joint accounts and without the knowledge of the petitioner, they transferred/ withdrew considerable amounts from the account. They have further gone into such a grave extent by removing and destroying all the documents relating to the education and bills etc pai d by me for my husband and even spent for the welfare of the parents of my husband. After completing their ill designs they had filed a divorce case against me in Harris County Court, USA on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and further claimed all the properties belonged to me which I got and bought out of my own hard earned money. Being harassed by my in -laws and my husband I with folded hands request / pray before your goodself to register a criminal case against my husband and my in -laws for the offence committed by them…….”

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. After lodging this FIR in Delhi, she again flew back to USA and is presently residing in USA. The case is being prosecuted by her father as her attorney. A perusal of this FIR would show that immediately after marriage, the parties moved to USA and thereafter all events as alleged by her are of USA. Even the allegations of her Istridhan being taken away by her father in law and mother in l aw is of USA and not of India. Allegations of cruelties and the attitude of her husband towards her are all of USA. It is not stated by her that she ever stayed with her in laws or husband from the time of marriage till filing of this complaint at Delhi. When the counsel for State was asked how this FIR was registered in Delhi, the response of the State counsel as given in the form of brief synopsis is that while in India, the complainant and accused cohabited at Delhi at Kirti Nagar, which is the matrimonial house of complainant and therefore there was jurisdiction of Delhi court. A perusal of FIR would show that nowhere the complainant had stated that cohabitation had ever taken place between the parties at Delhi or the parties ever lived at Delhi.

4. It is surprising that such FIRs are registered by the police when neither compl ainant lives in Delhi nor the accused persons live in Delhi nor any part of alleged offence had taken place in Delhi. The alleged offence admittedly had taken place in USA. All the accused persons, as mentioned by the complainant, are living in USA. The complainant herself is living in USA and the father of complainant perhaps is living in Delhi and pursuing this complaint. I consider that registration of this FIR is a sordid story of working culture of Delhi police. It is this police which refuses to regi ster FIR s in case of robberies, thefts and other heinous offences which take place on the roads of Delhi and when the complainant dare comes to police station for registration of FIR, he is made to run from one police station to another on th e issue of ju risdiction itself, while the FIRs are registered when nothing happened in India and no investigation can be done by the police in India. Why such FIRs are registered is obvious. It seems r egistration of FIRs has been made a profitable business by some police officials. The police, in the present case, not only registered the FIR but also got lookout circulars for the petitioners issued.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. Police is supposed to be professional in its working culture. The fall in standard of police has gone to such an extent that in genuine cases it is difficult to get a case registered and even if registered, it wont act with sincerity but you can get any false FIR registered with it, if you have right connections.

The Supreme Court has to say about registration of FI Rs in India in Lalita Kumari v Govt. of U.P. & Ors Writ Petition (Crl.) No.68 of 2008 decided on 14 th July, 2008 as under:

“It is a matter of experience of one of us (B.N. Agrawal, J) while acting as Judge of Patna High Court, Chief Justice of Orissa Hig h Court and Judge of this Court that in spite of law laid down by this Court, the concerned police authorities do not register FIRs unless some direction is given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the High Court or this Court. Further experience shows th at even after orders are passed by the concerned courts for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps and when matters are brought to the notice of the Inspecting Judges of the High Court during the course of inspection of Cour ts and Superintendents of Police are taken to task, then only FIRs are registered. In large number of cases investigations do not commence even after registration of FIRs and in case like the present one, steps are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped p erson of apprehending the accused person with reasonable desptach. At times it has been found that when harsh orders are passed by the Members of the Judiciary in a State, the police becomes hostile to them for instance in Bihar when a bail petition filed by a police personnel, who was accused was rejected by a member of Bihar Superior Judicial Service, he was assaulted in the Court room for which contempt proceedings was initiated by Patna High and the erring police officials were convicted and sentenced t o suffer imprisonment. On the other hand, there are innumerable cases that where the complainant is a practical person, FIRs are registered immediately, copies thereof are made over to the complainant on the same day, investigation proceeds with superson ic jet speed, immediate steps are taken for apprehending the accused and recovery of the kidnapped persons and the properties which were subject matter of theft or dacoity. In the case before us allegations have been made that the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Statio n is pressurizing the complainant to withdraw the complaint, which, if true, is a very disturbing state of affairs. We do not know there may be innumerable such instance.”

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. In the result, I allow this petition and the FIR N o.170 dated 15 th August, 2008 registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, West Delhi District, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The lookout circulars of petitioners are also quashed.

7. The petition stands allowed.

August 06, 2010

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

rd

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

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

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

my father in law RAPED ME and ALSO sought DOWRY !! delhi builder arrested on Ablaa’s complaint !!

New Delhi: A 54-year-old builder was arrested on Thursday after his his daughter-in-law accused him of raping her, police said.

The 22-year-old woman, married to Amit, son of Sathish Sharma, owner Ashiana builders, alleged that Sathish had taken her to a flat in a village on the pretext of showing the flat and raped her there, police said.

She also accused her in-laws of harassing her for dowry.

Set up a new house, throw aged parents out, ELSE 498A! Family runs allover 4 bail aftr false 498a

Set up a new house, throw aged parents out, ELSE 498A! Family runs allover 4 bail aftr false 498a

"..Prior to the marriage, the petitioner and the complainant were loving each other and with the consent of both the sides, they got married !! .."

"… The records clearly disclose that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 04-02-2010. They led a happy marital life. However, the complainant was not willing to stay with her in-laws. Hence, she demanded to set up a separate house. However, the petitioner refused to do so, on the ground that he is the only son to look after his age old parents and he cannot leave his parents during their old age. In view of that, difference of opinion arose between the husband and wife and ended in filing of the complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. …"

*****************************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 KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2808 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

SRI.JAYAVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O.SRI.GOVARDHAN,
RESIDING AT NO.4, JAYAVARDHAN NILAYA, 2ND FLOOR, R.R.LAYOUT, AYYAPPANAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 036.
… PETITIONER
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR.C.R., ADV.,)

AND

STATE BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE – 01.
… RESPONDENT
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.176/2014 OF K.R.PURAM P.S., BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner – accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.176/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the K.R.Puram Police Station on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner – Smt.Roopa.M alleging ill-treatment and demand of dowry by the petitioner and his parents. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

2. In the complaint, the complainant specifically contended that herself and the petitioner got married on 04-02-2010 at Mangala Kalyana Mantapa, Koramangala, Bangalore. At the time of marriage, a cash of Rs.50,000/-, gold ornaments and clothes were given to the petitioner. Inspite of the same, petitioner and his parents were demanding dowry and ill-treating her. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. Initially, the petitioner and his parents obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.25237/2014. After registration of the case, the petitioner and his parents once again filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.Nos.25424/2014 and 25463/2014. The said petitions were allowed by the FTC-III, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore and granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., father and mother of the petitioner. However, rejected the bail insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on the ground that he is husband of the complainant and that he has harassed his wife and hence, he is not entitled for bail. In view of that, petitioner has filed the present petitioner seeking for bail.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the marriage of the petitioner, the wife demanded to set up a separate house for their stay and she was not willing to stay with her in-laws. Since the petitioner being the only son to his parents, he refused to set up a separate house. In view of that, the wife has filed a complaint alleging demand of dowry. Infact, the petitioner and his parents had not demanded dowry at any point of time. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner and the complainant were loving each other and with the consent of both the sides, they got married. It is further contended that to set up a separate house, the complainant used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner for trivial issues and the same was ended with the petition under Section 498-A of IPC. The petitioner is a permanent resident of K.R.Puram, Bangalore. He is working in a private company and at no point of time, he has ill- treated the complainant. Hence, the counsel for the petitioner seeks for grant of anticipatory bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has opposed for grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the wife made a complaint against the petitioner and her in-laws under Section 498-A of IPC with regard to ill-treatment and demand of dowry. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any bail and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the FTC-III, Bangalore and also relevant records.

7. The records clearly disclose that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 04-02-2010. They led a happy marital life. However, the complainant was not willing to stay with her in-laws. Hence, she demanded to set up a separate house. However, the petitioner refused to do so, on the ground that he is the only son to look after his age old parents and he cannot leave his parents during their old age. In view of that, difference of opinion arose between the husband and wife and ended in filing of the complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Whether the petitioner had demanded the dowry and ill-treated the complainant, is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. The complaint has been made against the petitioner and also age old parents of the petitioner. They had approached the Court initially for anticipatory bail and obtained the same. Subsequently, after registration of the case, they got anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.25463/2014. The petitioner is similarly placed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the K.R.Puram Police Station in Crime No.176/2014, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a personal surety who has got ID proof and relevant records in their names; (iii) The petitioner shall not abscond, shall not give threat or inducement to the prosecution witnesses and complainant so as to tamper the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer within 15 days from the date of this order to get bail and to execute the bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VMB

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

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

husband & family can get bail EVEN if wife committed suicide, father in law saying DON’T talk on phones or spend time on phones is NOT cruelty and should NOT attract 498a

"..There is no allegation regarding the demand of dowry and other ill-treatment. Usually, elders in the family used to advice the members of the family how to behave and not to spend much time over the mobile, which itself does not constitute ill-treatment or abuse as defined under Section 498A of IPC. …."

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Karnataka High Court

Thotesh Gouda @ T C Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2014

Author: B.Manohar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2118 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

1. THOTESH GOUDA @ T.C.PATIL S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

2. CHANDRASHEKAR GOUDA, S/O. LATE NANDIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. CHANDRAMMA, W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SOGILU VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 001 ; … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI:CHANDRAMOULI H.S., ADVOCATE) AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE POLICE OF, NYAMATHI POLICE STATION, HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 001; … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.48/2014 OF HONNALI P.S., DAVANAGERE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking for release on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Cr.No.48/2014 registered by Nyamathi police, Honnali Taluk, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Nethra is the wife of Thotesh Gouda – petitioner No.1, after their marriage they lived at Sogilu Village and they lead a happy marital life. On 06.03.2014, she was brought to the hospital stating that she tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and lit fire herself and sustained grievous burnt injuries. In the hospital, her statement was recorded. On the basis of the said statement, the present case has been registered under Section 498A. After her death, Section 306 of IPC was added. On the basis of registration of the case, the police were intended to arrest the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners approached the II Additional Sessions Judge, Davanagere, seeking for anticipatory bail. The said application was rejected by the Court below on 02.04.2014. Hence, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking for anticipatory bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 is the husband of the deceased Nethra and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of accused No.1. The petitioners contended that they have not involved in any of the offences punishable under Section 498A. There is no allegation with regard to demand of dowry. Except the statement of the deceased, no other materials are available in the record. In her statement, she has not alleged about the ill-treatment or demand of dowry, which falls under Section 498A. Hence, invoking of Section 498A is contrary to law.

4. Further, in her dying declaration, the deceased herself admitted that after the marriage, she was living happily in the marital house. Due to the short tamper, she has committed suicide by pouring kerosene by litting fire by herself. In that background, the petitioners cannot be punished. Whereas, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of petitioner No.1. Hence, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, the Government Advocate appearing for the respondent opposed for grant of anticipatory bail and contended that in the dying declaration, the deceased Nethra made a statement that the father-in-law repeatedly abusing her for talking over the mobile phone and this statement falls under Section 498A. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for the anticipatory bail and sought for rejection of the petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Court below and other relevant record.

7. The deceased in her statement has admitted that she herself poured kerosene on her body and lit fire herself. The reason assigned is that her father-in-law was abusing her for talking over the mobile phone. There is no allegation regarding the demand of dowry and other ill-treatment. Usually, elders in the family used to advice the members of the family how to behave and not to spend much time over the mobile, which itself does not constitute ill-treatment or abuse as defined under Section 498A of IPC. There is no specific allegation with regard to the ill-treatment by the husband as well as the mother-in-law except alleging that father-in-law used to abuse her for spending much time in the mobile phone. Whether, the petitioners have instigated the deceased to commit suicide is to be examined during the course of trial. The petitioners are the permanent residents of Honnali Taluk. There is no question of tampering any prosecution witnesses or influence the prosecution witnesses. Hence I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.48/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Court regularly.

2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. The petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the Course of Investigation.

4. The petitioners shall not leave the limits of the Davanagere City without prior permission from the Jurisdictional Court. [

Sd/-

JUDGE

HJ*

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

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

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

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