Daily Archives: September 19, 2015

Gang member files rape case on 4 men to extort money and they run for bail !!!

A gang member (woman) files rape case on 4 men . Claims they gave her sedated drinks and rsped her !!! Luckily one of the accused is abroad on the date of allegation, proves it using his passport and gets bail !

This very Gang woman has filed MULTIPLE rape cases and EVEN 498a cases in various police stations across the state

Her so called husband isn’t a husband but another gang member !! Sordid tale of misuse of law and black mail if innocents, still public prosecutor opposes bail !!!

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

Gujarat High Court

Papubhai @ Narendrabhai … vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2015

R/CR.MA/16971/2015
ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 16971 of 2015

PAPUBHAI @ NARENDRABHAI ISHWARDAS JADWANI & 1….Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)

Appearance:

MR.HRIDAY BUCH with MR. M. M. MANSURI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s)

No. 1 – MR HS SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED

18/09/2015

Oral ORDER

1. This Application has been preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I- 129 of 2015 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Kheda for the offences punishable under Sections 376D, 328, 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 66(e) of the I.T.Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that;

As per the complaint filed by the complainant, the applicant No.1 tempted the complainant to give work in film and then called the complainant at the farm house of Pintubhai where all the four accused administered alcoholic substance in the Maza cold drink bottle and committed rape upon the complainant and did videography and made clipping of the same. Thereafter they were threatening the complainant to upload the clipping of rape on the internet social media and they were calling her at the farm house and bunglows frequently and committing rape. They also threatened her to kill.

2. Heard Mr.Hriday Buch, learned counsel with Mr.M.M.Mansuri, learned counsel for the applicants. He has contended that applicants have not committed the offence in question. He has contended that it transpires from the passport of the applicant No.1 that he was not present in India from 26.5.2015 to 2.6.2015. He has contended that the complainant is a headstrong lady and indulging in number of illegal activities to extort money from the innocent people by filing false and fabricated criminal complaints. He has contended that one Ketanbhai who is claimed by the complainant to be husband of the prosecutrix is in fact not her husband but he is part of gang of complainant and indulging in this sort of criminal activities of extorting money from people. He has contended that as per say of the complainant when her husband is a film producer then how she had approached present applicants for getting role in the film. He has contended that husband of the complainant is having checkered history and Criminal Case No.43 of 2006 was filed against him wherein he is convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand. He has contended that the complainant has filed different complaints relating to the offence in question i.e. (1) FIR bearing CR No.I­58 of 2013 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC as well as under Sections 3(1), 12, 3(2) and 5 of the Atrocity Act, (2) FIR bearing No.CR No.I­02 of 2010 registered with Saherkotda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 376,328 and 506(2) of the IPC, (3) Complaint with Nadiad Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 328, 323, 294A, 114, 506(2), 406, 420 of the IPC and under Section 3.9 of the Prevention of Dowry Act as well as under Section 3(1)(10), 3(1)11, 3(1)12 of the Atrocity Act. The complainant has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act being Family Suit No.499 of 2006 with the Family Court, Ahmedabad. The complainant has married nine times. The complainant has also filed complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against other person. He has contended that FIR is lodged after a long delay of 10 days.

He has contended that complainant has filed statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on oath before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class stating that some unknown persons threatened her on phone to lodge present FIR against the present applicants and, therefore, under pressure she has lodged the FIR in question. He has contended that applicants will be available for interrogation and will remain present during the trial before the trial Court. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence. He has prayed to grant bail to present applicants.

3. Heard Mr.H.S.Soni, learned APP for the respondent – State. He has vehemently opposed bail application. He has contended that it is case of gang rape. He has contended that offence in question is serious in nature. He has prayed to dismiss present application. He has further drawn attention of the Court to the charge­sheet papers and contended that in the present case so far as provisions of Evidence Act are concerned, it is a case of gang rape and presumption is required to be drawn against the present applicants. No corroborative piece of evidence is required to be considered at this stage. He has contended that first when incident is disclosed by the complainant that should be considered and statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code disclosed by the victim is not an issue to consider at the time of bail in favour of the present applicants.

4. I have gone through the complaint as well as charge­sheet papers. In view of arguments made by the learned counsel for the applicants it is true that as disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicants the complainant has filed so many complaints against other persons at various police stations relating to offence in question. I have also gone through the statement made by the complainant under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein she has disclosed that present complaint was lodged by her due to threat given by someone. I have minutely perused provisions of Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code. It is true that statement of the prosecutrix can be considered without any corroborative piece of evidence, but in the present case when complainant herself has disclosed before the learned Magistrate in her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code that on account of threat given to her to implicate the present applicants in the offence in question she has lodged the present complaint against them. So far as presence of applicant No.1 is concerned, it is prima facie not established at the time of offence. In view of above observations without entering into merits of the case, I am of the opinion that prima facie this is a fit case to consider present application in favour of the applicants.

5. Considering the above, this Application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with CR No. I- 129 of 2015 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Kheda for the offence alleged against them in this Application on each of them executing a Bond of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees twenty­ five thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that they shall­

a) not take undue advantage of their liberty or abuse their liberty;

b) not to try to tamper or pressurise the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner;

c) maintain law and order and should cooperate the Investigating Officer;

d) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

e) not leave the country without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Judge;

f) furnish the address of their residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

g) surrender their passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week.

6. If the breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

7. Bail before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open to the trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for.

8. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)

KKS

Wife staying @ parents looses revision to make more rental ( moolah )

Wife staying @ parents looses revision 8.e looses chance to make more rental ( moolah ) from husband

Very useful for husbands fighting domestic violence cases

"….she is staying in her parental house
and as such, she cannot claim rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month for the period she remained in parents’ house for the entitlement of the rent. In the absence of any specific date, presumption under law would be that the rent has been awarded from the date of passing of the
order and not from the date of the application.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed…."

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ritu And Another vs Parveen And Ors on 17 September, 2015

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2459 of 2015 (O&M). Ritu and another Petitioners. Versus

 Parveen and others Respondents. 
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA. 
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes 
2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes 
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes 
 Argued by:- Ms. Savita Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners. 
 HARI PAL VERMA, J. 

CRM-21387 of 2015

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition.

For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and the delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Main Case The petitioners have filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated 5.3.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 6.3.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Briefly stated, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 6.3.2014 had partly allowed the application and observed in concluding paragraph No.12 of the judgment as under:

"Keeping in view of the above discussion, the application for the petitioners is allowed partly to the extent that the respondents No.1 to 3 shall allow the petitioners to reside in the shared household by providing them a separate accommodation of one room set in the shared house with all amenities thereto and shall not cause any domestic violence. In case, the accommodation cannot be provided in the shared household then the respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay the rent to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month for facilitating the petitioners to reside in a rental accommodation. It is ordered accordingly. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room after due compliance."

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 6.3.2014, the petitioners filed criminal appeal titled as "Ritu and another Versus Parveen and others" whereas the respondents had also filed the appeal titled as "Parveen and others Versus Ritu and another".

Vide judgment dated 6.3.2014, learned Magistrate had partly allowed the application filed the petitioners to the extent that the respondents No.1 to 3 shall allow the petitioners to reside in the shared household by providing them a separate accommodation of one room set with all amenities thereto and shall not cause any domestic violence. It was also made clear that in case the accommodation cannot be provided in the shared household then the respondents No.1 and 2 shall pay the rent to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month to facilitate the petitioners to reside in a rental accommodation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be modified by awarding the petitioners the amount of maintenance as well as compensation as per the status and income of respondent No.1 and also to award rent as per the market value along with litigation expenses.

But the learned Courts below have not considered this aspect. She has further submitted that the petitioners are also entitled for the grant of monetary relief from the date of filing of the application. She has further submitted that in the impugned judgment dated 6.3.2014, the trial Court had not specified the date from which the petitioners become entitled for the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month to reside in the rental accommodation.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as the marriage between the petitioner No.1, namely, Ritu and respondent No.1, namely, Parveen is concerned, the same is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner No.1 along with petitioner No.2 Gagan Deep, who is minor son has shared the joint residence with the respondents and the petitioners have filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act. The object of the new Act is to mitigate the sufferings of a woman. The use of domestic violence is essentially the issue of the personhood of woman, violation of her right to life and liberty.

Section 17 of the Act confers a right upon the women to reside in a shared household, which reads as under:

"17. Right to reside in a shared household – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law."

Section 17 of the Act, thus, confers a right upon every woman in a "domestic relationship" to reside in the "shared household" and the only requirement is that a woman has to establish that she is in domestic relationship and the right sought to be enforced is against the shared household.

The terms "domestic relationship" and "shared household" have also been further defined under Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the Act which read as under:

"(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, YAG DUTT 2015.09.17 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family."

"(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have an right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household."

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as the petitioner has been shunted out from the matrimonial home despite the fact that after her marriage with the respondent No.1, she resided with the respondents in a shared holding. The respondents created compelling circumstances for the petitioner No.1 to live with her parents. Since she had no other option nor shelter except to stay with her parents, she had filed the application under Section 12 of the Act before the trial Court. After the marriage, the petitioner had been staying with respondent No.1 in a shared household before she was ousted from the matrimonial home. A marriage which is valid and subsisting on the relevant date automatically confers a right upon a wife to live in a shared household as an equal partner in the joint venture of running a family. She is also entitled for a protection order under the relevant provisions of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that though the learned Magistrate had allowed the application of the petitioners to extent that respondents No.1 to 3 shall allow the petitioners to reside in one room set with all amenities and in case the accommodation cannot be provided, the petitioners are entitled rent to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month to facilitate the petitioner to reside in a rental accommodation, but the learned Magistrate has not specified the date from which the rent become payable to the petitioners. The petitioner-wife is entitled for the rent for the reason that she has not stayed in the shared accommodation, rather, shared at her parental house. Therefore, she becomes entitled for the rent. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Saraswati Versus Babu AIR 2014 Supreme Court 857.

However, the perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reveals that it has hardly any applicability in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, the husband had not allowed the wife to share matrimonial house even after passing of the order by the Subordinate Judge, which was considered to be a domestic violence committed by the husband against the wife. But in the case in hand, the petitioner-wife is not residing in the shared household at matrimonial house. Rather, she is staying in her parental house and as such, she cannot claim rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month for the period she remained in parents’ house for the entitlement of the rent. In the absence of any specific date, presumption under law would be that the rent has been awarded from the date of passing of the order and not from the date of the application.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (HARI PAL VERMA)
September 17, 2015 

JUDGE