Daily Archives: November 2, 2019

10 CRORES for AB ! Not judicial discretion ! Onerous condition of 10 crores set aside by Supreme court !!

Image result for supreme court of india images

Supreme Court of India

Avinash Arora And Ors. vs State Of U.T. Chandigarh And Anr. on 13 April, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2000 CriLJ 4674, JT 2000 (7) SC 501

Bench: G Pattanaik, U Banerjee


  1. Leave granted.
  2. The appellants have been alleged to have committed offence under Sections 420, 406, 468, 467, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. On an application being filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail, subject to deposit Rs. 10 crores. The appellants did avail of the order by issuing a cheque of Rs. 10 crores from the IFCI ‘No Lien Account’. The earlier order was, however, modified requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 crores from his own account. It is this order which is now being assailed before us. Mr. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contends that requiring to deposit Rs. 10 crores itself is an unjust order and cannot be held to be proper exercise of discretion by the Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438. Ms. Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the State as well as the learned Counsel appearing for IFCI contend that the Court ought not to have exercised his discretion under Section 438, in view of the nature of accusation. But the Court having done so by requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 10 crores, the same need not be interfered with. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Court committed error in passing the conditional order of depositing Rs. 10 crores for grant of anticipatory bail as in our view, this cannot be held to be an exercise of judicial discretion. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned direction and remit the matter to the High Court for re-disposal of the petition filed under Section 438 of the CrPC, in accordance with law.
  3. The appeals are disposed of.

TIMES OF INDIA : AP Police file dowry case on minors including 6 and 9 year old girl kids based on an Angry wife’s complaint !!

Andhra Pradesh: Six-year-old among four minors booked in dowry case by Guntur cops | Vijayawada News – Times of India

Srikanth Aluri | TNN | Updated: Oct 30, 2019, 8:28 IST 2-3 minutes


VIJAYAWADA: Guntur police have booked a dowry harassment case against four minor children, including a six-year-old girl. Two of the accused are 11-year- old boys, while the third accused is a 9-year- old girl. The police swung into action based on a complaint filed by Ponnekanti Bindu, 26, against her husband Adarana Kumar and other family members, including the four children.

Shocked over the police registering little children in a dowry harassment case, Adarana Kumar on Tuesday moved the Andhra Pradesh high court, pleading quashing of the criminal case. The police registered the case without verifying the facts and not following the procedure while booking juveniles. The high court is yet to hear the matter.
In her complaints, Bindu stated that she married Adarana Kumar on November 29, 2018.
She said her parents gave dowry in the form of Rs 3 lakh, 6 grams gold and Rs 44,663 for furniture. She alleged that her four sisters-in-law began harassing her from the 25th day of her marriage.
Bindu also alleged that the husbands of her first, second and third sisters-in-law also used to abuse her verbally. She also alleged that their children too used to harass her. She alleged that her mobile phone was taken away and she was not allowed to speak to her parents. She also alleged that her husband used to beat her up. She added that she faced threat to her life.

The cops at women police station, Guntur, registered a case and issued an FIR with number 249/2019 on September 26.

Adarana Kumar moved the high court with quash petition. He argued in his petition that the complaint did not establish prima facie case as there is no material evidence. . He said that the police did not follow the legal process while booking the case even against the minor children under dowry harassment sections.


498a, 406, 34 proceedings NOT to be become recovery proceedings !! BAIL GRANTED to Husband, Delhi HC

Pathetic case where an employed wife, earning almost as much as husband, living comfortably within the matrimonial home (meaning NO rent), NOT spending a dime on electricity or water and ALSO getting rs 4000 maintenance from husband, FILES 498A etc on husband and co and tries to get him arrested !!

If all of you are trying to blame this politician or that, please read the DATE OF THIS CASE !!!! and that is is from the DELHI HC !!!

Delhi High Court

Rajesh Chander Bhardwaj vs State on 19 July, 2005

Equivalent citations: 125 (2005) DLT 710, I (2006) DMC 60, 2005 (83) DRJ 295

Author: P Nandrajog

Bench: P Nandrajog

JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

  1. Petitioner No. 1 was married to Ms. Snehlata Bhardwaj. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1.
  2. The marriage was not too happy. FIR in question has been registered on the complaint made by the wife alleging dowry harassment at the hands of her husband.
  3. Two children have been born to the petitioner and the complainant. The children are with the complainant.
  4. It is not in dispute that the complainant is residing in the matrimonial house, but in a separate part thereof. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 is paying Rs. 4000 p.m. to the complainant towards maintenance for the two children. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is not spending any amount towards water and electricity consumed by her as also on the maintenance of the portion of the house in her possession.
  5. Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,500 p.m. Complainant is earning Rs. 9800 p.m.
  6. I have perused the FIR which is the usual story of an unhappy marriage. Usual allegations against torture and mental harassment are set out.
  7. Proceedings under Section 498A/406/34 IPC are not to be converted into recovery proceedings. However, it is the desire of a Court to try and ensure that matrimonial disputes are resolved. Attempts were made in the present case in this direction, but unfortunately have failed.
  8. Considering the fact that the complainant is still residing in the matrimonial house, but in a separate portion thereof and the fact that she and her children are otherwise being provided with maintenance by the petitioner No. 1, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail as prayed for. It has to be additionally noted that the petitioners have cooperated with the investigating officer during enquiry. Since 6.2.2004 petitioners are under interim protection.
  9. Petition stands disposed of with the direction that in the event of arrest, on petitioners furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, petitioner would be released on bail in FIR No. 39/2004 P.S. Narela.
  10. It would be a condition of the present order that the petitioners would join the investigation as and when required.
  11. Needless to state that the anticipatory bail granted would be coterminous with the decision on the application for regular bail, if any, required to be filed by the petitioners, should a challan be presented against them.