Monthly Archives: April 2015

One or two physical assaults, even if true, cannot make out a case of cruelty u/s 498a!

Delhi Sessions court "….One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand. The cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A IPC denotes to a continuous process…."

Looking at the allegations they are all from 2003 and so on , so this seems to be a 10 ..12 year OLD 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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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

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

Criminal Revision No. 122/14

IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Revision No. : 122/14

FIR No. : 25/04

Under Section : 498-A/406/34 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act

Police Station : Gokal Puri

Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0292662014

In the matter of :-

State …..Revisionist

V E R S U S

1. Ishtqar

S/o. Mohd. Islam,

R/o.F-312, Gali No.10,

Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.

2. Saira

W/o. Zahir,

R/o.F-312, Gali No.10,

Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.

3. Israr

S/o. Mohd. Islam,

R/o.E-302, Gali No.10,

Bhagirath Vihar, Delhi.

4. Rahis

S/o. Rafiq,

R/o. Gaon-Shikarpur, PS-Bhorkala,

District-Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. …. Respondents

Date of Institution : 24.09.2014

Date of receiving the case in this court : 25.09.2014

Date of reserving order: 24.03.2015

Date of pronouncement: 07.04.2015

Decision: Revision petition is dismissed

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

Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

Criminal Revision No. 122/14

O R D E R

1. This is a criminal revision petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2014, passed by the trial court, in the case titled as State v. Mohsina etc., bearing FIR No. 25/04, PS Gokal Puri, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Vide the impugned order, the trial court discharged accused/respondents herein namely Ishtqar, Saira, Israr and Rahis for offence under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The relationship of the complainant Shabnam with the accused persons is as follows :-

i. Mohsina – Sister-in-law (Jethani)

ii. Farida – Sister-in-law (Jethani)

iii. Ansar – Brother-in-law Devar

iv. Ishtikar – brother-in-law (Jeth)

v. Sayra – Sister-in-law (Nanad)

vi. Rehana – Sister-in-law (Devrani)

vii. Rahis – Brother-in-law (Nandoi)

viii.Jahira – Sister-in-law (Nanad)

ix. Mohammad Islam – Father-in-law (Sasur)

x. Mehboob – Husband (since PO)

xi. Israr – Brother-in-law (Jeth) and

xii. Hamiden – Mother-in-law (Saas)

3. Briefly stated, the case set up by prosecution is that accused Mohsina, Farida, Ansar, Ishtikar, Sayra, Rehana, Rahis, Jahira, Mohammad Islam, Mehboob, Israr and Hamiden had subjected complainant Shabnam with cruelty by their willful conduct and by making unlawful demands of dowry in furtherance of their common intention, during subsistence of marriage of complainant.

4. The revisionist/State has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds :-

i. That impugned order is illegal, improper, unjustified and against the established principle of law as settled by hon’ble Apex Court of India and is liable to be modified.

ii. That the trial court has grossly erred in the basic law on the point of framing of charges as laid down by hon’ble Supreme Court of India “that roving enquiry is not required at this stage and further held that charge can be framed even on strong suspicion” and reliance was placed on the judgment pronounced by hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) (9) SCC368. Another case law was cited i.e. State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) (4) SCC 6559, passed by Supreme Court, to submit that “at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.”

iii. The trial court failed to appreciate the complaint/statement of the complainant, wherein accused/respondents herein have been named, which reflects that a prima facie case under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against them and the same has been ignored by ld. MM.

iv. That the serious miscarriage of justice will be occasioned in the present case, if the present revision petition is not allowed. 5. The respondents challenged the revision petition on the grounds that the case was falsely lodged against them. They relied upon the judgment passed by High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 7262/2006 decided on 23.02.2007 in the case titled as Smt. Neera Singh v. State, wherein it was observed that “vague allegation as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of the husband cannot be accepted by any Court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charges.” They also referred to the judgment passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sarita v. R. Ram Chandra (I) (2003) DMC 37. They supported the impugned order, vide which the respondents were discharged by the trial court.

6. I have given due attention to the rival contentions and to the case laws cited before me as well as the materials placed on the trial court record. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Analysis of evidence:-

7. From the chargesheet filed by IO, I find that the case of prosecution is based only on the complaint made by the complainant namely Ms. Sabnam. In her complaint given to ld. ACP, CAW Seelampur, the complainant made allegations that after her marriage with Sh. Mehboob, she was used to be beaten by her husband at the instance of her in-laws. She further alleged that on 15.05.2002, she was beaten by Sayra, Jahira, Mehboob, Israr and Mohsina due to which she went back to her parental house and after about 5 months she was brought back at her matrimonial house. In the Panchaayat, Israr, Ishtikar, Mehboob, Islam, Jahira and Rahis had promised that she would not be physically assaulted. She further alleged that there was no change in the behaviour of her in-laws and they always used to make demand for money and dowry. She further alleged that her brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws had got the dowry articles broken through their children and themselves. She also alleged about another instance of 28.04.2003 stating that that night her father-in-law, husband, Jahira, Rahis, Ishtikar, Ansar, Hamiden, Sayra, Mohsina and Farida had beaten her and they had thrown her out of the house. She further alleged that her in-laws used to torture her to bring the dowry and they did not allow her to live in the matrimonial house.

FINDINGS:-

8. From the aforesaid allegations made by the complainant, I do find that she had made very vague and general kind of allegations involving name of all family members of her husband, to allege that they used to harass her to bring more dowry. There are apparently no specific allegations against the respondents, which could prima facie show that the respondents used to torture and harass her for the purpose of bringing dowry or to satisfy any other unlawful demand. One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand. The cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A IPC denotes to a continuous process.

9. From the allegations made by the complainant, even I am unable to find any case of continuous torture, if committed by any of the respondents for the purpose of making demand of dowry or any other unlawful demand. It is also to be established that the torture or harassment caused to the complainant was to such an extent so as to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to the complainant. All such ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not satisfied by the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, present

10.Trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back to the trial court.

File of revision be consigned to record room, as per rules.

Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 07.04.2015 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)

(This order contains 6 pages)

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

(Pulastya Pramachala)

Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

PDF File uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1aZeTwN

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

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

Advertisements

One or two instances of assault not cruelty, says court

One or two instances of assault not cruelty, says Delhi Sessions court; In laws acquitted

The News Minute | April 14, 2015 | 09:34 am IST

New Delhi: A court here has said that “one or two instances of physical assault”, even if proved, cannot make for a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand.

“One or two instances of physical assault, even if found to be true, cannot make out a case of cruelty for the purpose of satisfying unlawful demand,” Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala said while dismissing a woman’s revision plea challenging a magisterial court order that acquitted her in-laws.

The sessions court uphold a magisterial court order, acquitting the woman’s brothers-in-law and a sister-in-law of the offences of cruelty by husband or relative of husband of a woman, criminal breach of trust with common intention of the Indian Penal Code and under Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court observed that the cruelty or torture, as contemplated in Section 498-A of the IPC denotes a continuous process.

It noted that there are apparently no specific allegations against the woman’s in-laws, which could prima facie show that they used to torture and harass her for the purpose of bringing dowry or to satisfy any other unlawful demand.

“I do find that she had made very vague and general kind of allegations involving name of all family members of her husband to allege that they used to harass her to bring more dowry,” the judge said.

“From the allegations made by the complainant, even I am unable to find any case of continuous torture, if committed by any of the respondents for the purpose of making demand of dowry or any other unlawful demand.”

According to complainant, her husband used to beat her at the instance of her in-laws. She further alleged that her in-laws used to torture her to bring the dowry and they did not allow her to live in the matrimonial house.

The woman’s husband is on run.

The order was delivered last week but released on Monday.

With IANS

© 2014 www. thenewsminute.com Developed by Girish Swaminathan

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

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

 

a 498a hit husband commits suicide & Ablaa 498a wife gets bail

a 498a hit husband commits suicide (Manish Jain committed suicide). His Ablaa 498a wife gets bail (in husband’s side counter case ) …

Salient points

* It is reported that during the Pendancy of THIS bail application, the complainant Manoj Jain committed suicide

* The applicants IN THIS case are the wife of that 498a hit husband !! Husband has filed a counter case, and wife is seeking bail

* FINALLY …. wife gets bail !!!!

Smt Preyasha Vs State of chattisgargh – MCRC(A)1108_14(07.04.15) – SUICIDE husband of 498a woman.pdf

direction NOT to arrest absconding husband IF he cooperates with investigation State vs. Chanpreet Singh Sehmi

* applicant has not joined the investigation and is absconding.

* the applicant be not arrested subject to his not leaving the country and joining the investigation as and when required

*****************************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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . 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 COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

Bail App. No. 2301

State vs. Chanpreet Singh Sehmi

FIR No. 816/2014

U/s: 406/498A/34 IPC

PS: Tilak Nagar

01.04.2015

Present:

Ld. Addl. PP Ms. Sushma Badhwar for the State.

Ld. counsel Shri G. P. Thareja for the applicant.

IO / SI Rajpal in person.

Ld. counsel Shri Lalit Kumar for the complainant.

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

In reply to a specific Court query to the IO as to what is the status of investigation after the date 05.03.2015, when the previous application seeking anticipatory bail was rejected by the ld. ASJ (FTC) (West), it is informed by the IO and the counsel for the complainant that the applicant has not joined the investigation and is absconding.

Before proceeding further, the applicant is directed to present himself before the IO on the date 04.04.2015 at 2.00 PM at the PS Tilak Nagar and the IO is directed to submit a report in relation to the investigation conducted for the date 07.04.2015, till which date, the applicant be not arrested subject to his not leaving the country and joining the investigation as and when required and not tampering with the evidence in any manner.

(ANU MALHOTRA)

District & Sessions Judge (West)

Delhi/01.04.2015

PDF http://1drv.ms/1DT2G9x

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

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

How rape cases are settled every day while the world thinks ALL Indians are rapists !!

IN THE COURT OF Ms. ANU MALHOTRA DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

Bail App. No. 1901
State vs. Narender Sawardekar
FIR No. 1619/2014
U/s: 376/420 IPC
PS: Tilak Nagar

01.04.2015

Present:

Ld. Addl. PP Ms. Sushma Badhwar for the State.
Ld. counsel Shri Arvind Vashistha for the applicant.
IO / SI Anju Tyagi in person.

Complainant in person with ld. counsel Shri Saurabh Jain.

On behalf of the complainant and the applicant, at the outset, it is submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties.

An affidavit of the complainant Ms. Manju Singh has been submitted, submitting to the effect that she does not want to proceed against the applicant under Section 376/420 of the IPC.

As per the said affidavit, she was also living with the applicant and that the applicant has gone to Russia for work.

The complainant in reply to specific Court queries affirms on oath that she does not want to proceed against the applicant and the statement of the complainant to that effect has been recorded.

The IO has identified the complainant.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the State does not oppose the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, in view of the statement made on behalf of the complainant but submits that there are NBWs already issued against him, qua which, the applicant may seek redressal in accordance with law before the ld. Trial Court.

In view of the statement made by the complainant and there being nothing to disbelieve the same, the applicant is allowed to be released on bail on his filing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­ with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned, subject to the applicant joining the investigation as and when required and not leaving the country.

(ANU MALHOTRA)

District & Sessions Judge (West)

Delhi/01.04.2015

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

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