Daily Archives: May 3, 2016

How a 17 year old (Virgin ? ) was RAPED for 1 YEAR! OMG is India a country of rapists? Allahabad HC bail

A woman claims she was raped by a man for almost 1 year. The man contends that she was a willing live-in and has suddenly changed her view as he did NOT marry her ( he was already married !! ) Finally the guy gets bail from the Hon HC ! Such cases will continue further for ages before the woman (takes money ? ) and compromises.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. – 22

Case :- BAIL No. – 10443 of 2015

Applicant :- Rajeev Shukla
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Shanker Shukla,Illegible
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Mahendra Dayal,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

The applicant Rajeev Shukla has sought bail in Case Crime No. 602 of 2015, under Section 376 IPC, relating to Police Station Ghzipur, District Lucknow.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix lived with the applicant as his wife for more than a year and also established physical relation with him.? The only allegation against him is that since the applicant had assured the prosecutrix to marry her, as such she surrendered herself before him.? However, when she came to know that the applicant? was already married and he refused to marry her, she lodged an FIR. The statement of the mother of the victim as well as the victim herself, clearly indicates that she was a consenting? party and lived with the applicant for considerable period of time and established physical relations.?? It is not disputed that for a period of one year no complaint was made by the prosecutrix? to any one and the physical relations were established to the knowledge of the family member of the prosecutrix. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement before the Magistrate has stated that she was? 17 years of age when the applicant? firstly established physical relation with the prosecutrix? and he had assured her? to marry but after the period of one year, he refused to perform the marriage.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submission made on their behalf but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant named above involved in the above noted case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 2.5.2016

Muk

source : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

*****************************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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Dowry case wife files case after case. husband goes & marries again! She is still running around courts !!!

Dowry case , DV case filing wife files case after case against husband …. However husband goes & marries again! She is still running around courts !!!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.04.2016

CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

Crl.O.P.No.7740 of 2016

K.Senthil Vadivu ……Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery
Chennai.

2.The Superintendent of Police,
Rural, Coimbatore.

3.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
W18, All Women Police Station,
M.K.B. Nagar, Chennai.

4.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Perur AWPS…….Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent police to register the complaint dated 09.03.2016 and to take action against the above said persons.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Rajaram

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the respondent police to register a case pertaining to the petitioner’s complaint dated 09.03.2016.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a complaint on 11.10.2010, in which, a case has been registered in Crime No.1726 of 2010 for man missing. Again on 26.05.2011, she has given another complaint, in which, a case has been registered in Crime No.4 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC stating that she was subjected to dowry harassment and the petitioner had also filed a petition before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.4963 of 2012 under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is also pending. Now, the petitioner has given a complaint on 09.03.2016 stating that her husband got second marriage on 02.02.2015. But the respondent police has not shown any interest to enquire the matter and register a case. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.

3.Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that for the offence under Section 494 of IPC, no separate FIR can be registered and the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate jurisdictional Magistrate for preferring a private complaint. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4.Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

5.The marriage between the petitioner and the counter petitioner has been solemnized on 01.02.2009. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner on 11.10.2010, a case in Crime No.1726 of 2010 has been registered for man missing . Subsequently, the petitioner gave another complaint that her husband has caused mental cruelty by demanding dowry and he has also taken away her jewels. Hence, a case in Crime No.4 of 2011 has been registered on 26.05.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC and the same is under investigation. Now, on 09.03.2016, the present complaint has been given stating that her husband got second marriage with one Suguna Somaraju on 02.02.2015 and in the complaint, she has narrated all the aspects in respect of registration of two FIRs and in respect of the petition filed before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.4963 of 2012 claiming benefits under the Domestic Violence Act. But as per Section 494 of IPC, the petitioner has to give a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate and the respondent police has no authority to register a case.

Recording the same, the Criminal original Petition is disposed of.

13.04.2016

cse

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No To

1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery Chennai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Rural, Coimbatore.

3.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, W18, All Women Police Station, M.K.B. Nagar, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perur AWPS.

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

R.MALA,J.

cse