Daily Archives: May 8, 2016

498a 406 DV cocktail 27 years after marriage on scientist husband. UP HC quashes 498a, talks of misuse!

  • Marriage in November 1986
  • Two children aged approx 27 years and 20 years out of wedlock
  • Husband a doctorate and scientist. Couple have lived abraod and in India
  • After approx 25 years couple split and wife has filed 498A, DV, maintenance cocktail on husband
  • In addition to getting Rs 15000 p,m. and 170000 from husband, wife files 498a, 406, 323, 504 case in 2013 !! yes 27 years later
  • The learned Magistrate, passed summoning order in a mechanical manner !
  • Husband runs to HC for quash (after approaching apex court !!).
  • HC orders “…application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2013 along with entire proceedings of the complaint case are hereby quashed…”

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

RESERVED

Court No. – 22

Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 5246 of 2013

Applicant :- Dr. Bijoy Kundu
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi,Chandra Bhushan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Saurabh Mishra

Hon’ble Mahendra Dayal,J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 16.07.2013 passed in Criminal Case No.45/2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.35, Lucknow, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial. A prayer has also been made for quashing of the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The brief facts are that the applicant and the opposite party No.2 are husband and wife. The marriage between them was solemnized in the month of November, 1986. The applicant is working on the post of Chief Scientist in C.D.R.I., Lucknow. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. The first son is a Computer Engineer and is aged about 27 years, while the second son is aged about 20 years. It was in the year 1989-1991 that the applicant visited United States and stayed there for a considerable period. During his stay at United States, he pursued the opposite party No.2 to take admission in the M.B.A. Course. He also took her to several countries. However, despite all efforts from the side of the applicant, the opposite party No.2 neglected the applicant and some times abused him also by calling him illegitimate child of his parents. The applicant was ultimately forced to move out from his own house in the month of March, 2012 on account of cruelty from the side of the opposite party No.2 and since then both of them have been living separately. The opposite party No.2 also filed a suit for divorce in the year 2012 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She also filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act and also claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court fixed monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- as an interim measure and the applicant paid a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- to the opposite party No.2 towards maintenance allowance. In order to further harass the applicant, the opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint case. The learned Magistrate, after following the procedure of the complaint case, passed the impugned summoning order in a mechanical manner. There was absolutely no material to attract the offence of Section 406 IPC. There is also no material on record to attract the offence of Sections 498-A, 504 or 506 IPC. The impugned summoning order, passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, suffers from manifest error of law and is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has filed counter affidavit and has stated therein that the entire facts narrated in the complaint are true and on the basis of the allegations, the charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC are fully made out. The applicant after having acquired control over the movable or immovable properties belonging to the opposite party No.2, has misappropriated the property and has left her to face destitution. The opposite party No.2 has no source of income. It has further been averred that the opposite party No.2 has half share in a plot at Sector-H, Aliganj, Lucknow, which is measuring 2200 sq. ft., but in order to misappropriate the share of the opposite party No.2, the applicant sold the entire plot without the knowledge and consent of the opposite party No.2. Several other allegations have been made in the counter affidavit to show that the applicant had committed the offence of misappropriation of property. The submission on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is that on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and the statement, the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the summoning order and there is no sufficient ground for quashing of the summoning order.

A perusal of the record reveals that while entertaining this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court vide order dated 24.10.2013 directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant. Since the aforesaid order could not be extended from some reason, the applicant moved an application on 18.09.2014 making request that the interim order granted on 24.10.2013 be extended. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order on this application, provided that the applicant may apply for bail before the trial court within three weeks and the trial court shall decide his bail application on the same day considering that the applicant is a public servant. This order was passed considering the fact that merely by directing that no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant, would not amount to stay of the proceedings.

Feeling aggrieved by this order, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.10.2014 passed an order that the earlier order passed by this Court on 24.10.2013 shall stand restored. The special leave petition filed by the applicant was disposed of by Hon’ble the Apex Court on 11.01.2016 requesting this Court to dispose of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., within a period of six weeks, from the date of communication of the order. The said order of Hon’ble the Apex Court was placed on record on this Court on 01.02.2016.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon several decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court to show that no offence under Section 406 IPC or Section 498-A IPC is made out against the applicant. One of such case law relied upon by the applicant is reported in (2010) 68 ACC Page 246 – Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another vs. Monica. In this case, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that the essential ingredient to attract the offence of Section 498-A IPC is that the complainant must make allegations of harassment to meet unlawful demand of dowry or any unlawful conduct on the part of the accused which is likely to drive woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or health. The only allegation that the accused kicked the complainant with her leg and told her that her mother was a liar, does not make out an offence under Section 498-A IPC. For the offence of Section 406 IPC, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that the essential ingredients for establishing an offence, are entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property and the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriating on converting to his own use that property or willfully suffering any other persons so to do. Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that in the absence of essential ingredients, no offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC would be made out. Hon’ble the Apex Court on the basis of the aforesaid observations passed an order quashing the summoning order.

For invoking of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the summoning order or the proceedings of the complaint case, the applicant has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 6 SCC Page 736 – Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. In this case, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that if the allegations in the complaint, taken on their face value, disclose a criminal offence, the complaint cannot be quashed merely because it relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract for which civil remedy is available. However, if it is found that frivolous criminal complaint has been filed knowing well that remedy lies only in civil law, the person who filed such complaint should be made accountable, in accordance with law at the end of such proceedings.

Another case law relied upon by the applicant is reported in (2013) 3 SCC Page 330 – Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor. In this case, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that the discretion vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction himself and make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations leveled by the complainant against the accused. To invoke the inherent jurisdiction, the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his defence is based on sound and reasonable facts.

In the background of the aforesaid legal principles of law, this Court after examining the contents of the complaint, finds that the marriage between the applicant and the opposite party No.2 took place in the year 1986 and after the birth of two sons in the year 1987 and 1993 respectively, the differences arose between them. The opposite party No.2 started making serious allegations against her husband and simultaneously filed several cases, one for divorce, one under Domestic Violence Act and one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The fourth case is the present one, in which, the impugned summoning order has been passed. After such a long gap, making demand of dowry and harassment for demand of dowry, is not only highly improbable, but it is also not established from the allegations. It is not disputed between the parties that after differences between them, both of them started living separately. The applicant took a rented flat in Metro City, Lucknow. The allegations with regard to extending threats do not at all attract the offence of Section 498-A IPC. The allegations made by the opposite party No.2 in her complaint are inadequate to show that there was any demand of dowry on the part of the applicant. The object of enactment of Section 498-A IPC is to prevent the custom for demanding dowry. It has also been experienced by the courts that the provisions of Section 498-A IPC is misused in order to take revenge or exert pressure on the other side for some ulterior motive. The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the summoning order in such cases should be exercised where it appears that the provision is being misused. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

So far as the offence of Section 406 IPC is concerned, the only allegation against the applicant is that the opposite party No.2 was having half share in a plot of land which the applicant sold without her knowledge and consent. This averment made by the opposite party No.2 does not make out the offence of Section 406 IPC because the essential ingredients of entrustment is missing, which is necessary for attracting the offence of criminal misappropriation. Moreover, the opposite party No.2 has an alternative remedy before the civil court in case her right in the immovable property has been affected.

So far as the other offences under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to attract those offences also. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Magistrate in a technical manner and without considering as to whether any prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant, passed the impugned summoning order, which is erroneous for the reason that the learned Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction that the aforesaid offences are made out against the applicant. It is unfortunate on the part of the parties that even after twenty years of marriage and having two adult sons, they are litigating in such a manner making serious allegations against each other. Both the parties belong to a respected family and the applicant is holding a very high position and is facing several cases.

After having considered the contents of the complaint and the law on the subject as discussed above and the impugned summoning order, I am of the view that none of the offences, as indicated in the impugned summoning order, are made out against the applicant and as such the impugned order is manifestly erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed and the impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2013 along with entire proceedings of the complaint case are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 5th May, 2016

Rakesh/-

*****************************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 Allahabad HC site with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


In Bihar, husband’s bail can be cancelled for “violation of compromise” !! Tell me we need MORE judges !

In this case The husband’s life is seems to be a mess because “….Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has been granted bail in the said complaint case on 18.05.2009 and thereafter on an application filed by the complainant (opposite party no. 2) being Cr. Misc. No. 25 of 2012, by the impugned order, bail has been cancelled. Learned counsel submits that once bail had been granted, the same could not be cancelled only on the ground of violation of compromise as it is not provided under Chapter XXXIII of the Code which deals with grant and cancellation of bail. …”

And we all know what happens when you bring back a 498a woman ?? “…..after being taken to her matrimonial home as per the terms of the order granting such anticipatory bail, she was assaulted by the petitioner and also sustained injuries and also driven out from the matrimonial home. ….”, i.e. more cases continue

after deliberations, the court decides “…Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the order impugned. The application thus stands dismissed…..”, meaning husband’s quash petition for quashing the cancellation of bail fails and his bail stands cancelled and he has to do more running around !!!

Now all you tell me that we should have more judges or should get married more

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forwarded Judgement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8089 of 2013

Ashok Prasad @ Ashok Kumar Chandrabanshi, son of Nagina Ram,
resident of Vill. Kenarkala, P.S. Chenari, Distt. Rohtas. At present residing
at Vill. Raipur Chor, P.S. Shiv Sagar, Distt. Rohtas.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sangeeta Devi wife of Ashok Prasad
, resident of Vill. Nad, P.S. Shiv
Sagar, Distt. Rohtas….. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Sufiyan, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

ORAL ORDER

5 16-09-2013

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeks quashing of the order dated 30.10.2012 by which the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

The petitioner, being the husband of the complainant, was granted anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 231 of 2008 filed for offence punishable under Sections 498A/ 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which cognizance had been taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has been granted bail in the said complaint case on 18.05.2009 and thereafter on an application filed by the complainant (opposite party no. 2) being Cr. Misc. No. 25 of 2012, by the impugned order, bail has been cancelled. Learned counsel submits that once bail had been granted, the same could not be cancelled only on the ground of violation of compromise as it is not provided under Chapter XXXIII of the Code which deals with grant and cancellation of bail. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee reported in 2004 (2) PLJR (SC) 201. Learned counsel submits that from the impugned order it is clear that the petitioner has been held to have violated the compromise and thus his bail was cancelled, which is impermissible in law.

Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the present case cannot be viewed as one in which a superior Court cancels bail granted by an inferior Court since the Court which had granted bail earlier, had cancelled the same taking into account the subsequent conduct of the petitioner. He submits that abuse of the concession granted to accused in any manner is a good ground for cancellation of bail. For such proposition, he relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349, the relevant being at paragraph-4. Learned counsel has further submitted that in an application for cancellation, the conduct subsequent to release on bail and the supervening circumstances are relevant. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal reported in (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 165 which has been followed in the case of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 21, the relevant being at paragraph-17.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submits that he also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolat Ram (supra) in which at paragraph-4 it has also been held that bail once granted should not been cancelled in a mechanical manner.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that present is a case where even though the language used by the Sessions Judge in the impugned order that because the petitioner had violated the terms of compromise the application for cancellation of bail was allowed, from the facts and circumstances it is apparent that even pursuant to petitioner having been granted anticipatory bail and after being taken to her matrimonial home as per the terms of the order granting such anticipatory bail, she was assaulted by the petitioner and also sustained injuries and also driven out from the matrimonial home. The Court had also considered the doctor’s certificate showing that she was treated for such injuries. It has also been discussed in the impugned order that the petitioner, after having obtained the order for anticipatory bail by making out a case that he was ever ready for compromise and would keep the complainant with full dignity and honour with him, was not only violated but in fact the same criminal acts which have been attributed initially, were again repeated by the petitioner towards the complainant. It is thus submitted that this Court can very well go into the overall merits and decide the question keeping in mind the fact that subsequent to the petitioner having been granted anticipatory bail, he had again committed the same offence which were initially alleged by the complainant. This, according to him, would not come in the way of this Court while deciding as to whether the impugned order, in which only at the end it is stated that because of violation of the terms and conditions of compromise the bail was cancelled, should not be tested in such a narrow compass without considering the overall discussions in the impugned order itself which clearly makes out a case of cancellation, especially on the ground of the petitioner having committed the same offence after the privilege of anticipatory bail was granted to him. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Considering the rival contentions, this Court finds substance in the submissions of learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

Their reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarmani Tripathi and Dolat Ram (supra) support their contentions and the grounds enumerated in the aforesaid decisions are relevant and apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case to sustain cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner on the ground of his conduct subsequent to have been released on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the order impugned. The application thus stands dismissed.

After the order having being passed, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence and prays that the Court may observe that any subsequent bail application filed by the petitioner may be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the past developments.

This Court has no hesitation in observing that as and when the petitioner files any application for grant of bail, the same may be considered on its own merits, without being prejudiced by the fact that earlier the anticipatory bail granted to him stood cancelled. The Court shall also be free for incorporating safeguards which may facilitate amicable and lasting settlement between the parties.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anjani/-

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


We need a Marital Rape law NOW! This husband raped his wife with cameras & mobile tracking!

Techie traps cheating wife, gets divorce

Preethi Ravi | Bangalore Mirror Bureau | May 8, 2016, 09.37 AM IST

COUPLEBengaluru: A 31-year-old software engineer from the city was sure that his wife was having an affair. But every time he confronted her, she would deny it. He eventually put his skills to use and proved her infidelity. The couple was recently granted divorce.

In February 2015, the man first got suspicious when he saw a cigarette butt in the corner of his house. But when this and several such incidents were vehemently denied by his wife, he decided to track her activities and get solid evidence.

Towards the end of February, he placed a camera behind the clock in the living room. For the first few months, he didn’t find anything unusual. He then went on to attach two more cameras at different angles in the living room. He also synced his wife’s phone to his laptop by installing relevant applications and a remote server.

“By mid-July, he could track his wife’s conversations. He found a voice clip in which his wife had called her boyfriend over and asked him to carry contraceptives,” recalled a mediator from the Bangalore Mediation Centre (BMC). The hidden cameras also caught the two having sex: first in the kitchen and then in the bedroom, and all the while their three-year-old daughter was asleep in the bedroom next door. In August 2015, the husband filed for a divorce and the case was referred to the BMC.

The mediator said: “The couple had lost trust in each other since it was certain that the wife had committed adultery. As the wife was clearly guilty, she agreed to the divorce terms and also granted the child’s custody to the husband. The matter was resolved mutually.” According to the mediator, there is an increase in adultery cases: “While some couples choose to stay in the marriage despite the affair, some prefer to walk out.”

SOURCE

http:/ /timesofindia.indiati mes.com/city/bengaluru

 

Wife runs away in ’09. Elders forced 2 ‘accept her with diginity & honour’ in ’16 for bail! Mad Mad 498a

A woman has deserted matrimonial house in 2009 & has happily filed 498a cocktail (probably in 2015 / 2016). This 498a woman is NOT present in the current hearing as well. She doesn’t seem to be represented by any lawyer (only AP for the state on the opposite side) . However to get their bail and freedom, elderly parents of the husband are forced to say “That the petitioners are ready to kept the opposite party no.2 with full human dignity and honour. Even the husband (Suman Mishra) is ready to kept his wife (opposite party no.2) with full love and affection…..”

This is worse than being a slave… !! Don’t men have ANY dignity in this country ? why is there such a stipulation for a bail that too when there is NO evidence of physical violence the case is not properly tried  ? and no signs of her for so many years ?? why are men and their elders dragged to courts JUST on the words of a wife ? that too a deserter ? should such a stipulation be necessary at this stage BEFORE any evidence, inquiry or trial ?


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19892 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -448 Year- 2009 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SUPAUL


1.Lakhan Mishra, Son of Late Rajbanshi Mishra
2. Sumitra Devi @ Bibha Devi @ Sumitra Devi, Wife of Lakhan Mishra
….. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Meena Devi Daughter of Shobha Kant Jha, Resident of village- Bhim

Nagar, P.S. Birpur District- Supaul….. …. Opposite Party/s
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com


Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary(App)


CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

ORAL ORDER

2 04-05-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

The petitioners being parents of the husband of the complainant are apprehending arrest in a complaint case wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Basic accusation is of torture.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the complainant with son of the petitioners was performed in 2004 when the complainant deserted the matrimonial house in 2009. The petitioners and the husband of the complainant are ready to keep the complainant with full dignity and honour. A statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 9 of the petition which reads as follows :- “That the petitioners are ready to kept the opposite party no.2 with full human dignity and honour. Even the husband (Suman Mishra) is ready to kept his wife (opposite party no.2) with full love and affection…..”. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

It is further submitted that the thrust of accusation is against the husband of the complainant and accusation levelled against the petitioners are omnibus and general.

Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Saharsa in connection with Complaint Case No.448 C/2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/-

U T

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