Author Archives: vinayak

About vinayak

Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist

can I be arrested B4 the case goes to court ?

I’m really saddened by young Indian men asking me “… Can I be arrested by the police .., can my parents be arrested ..?” “..There has been NO DUE PROCESS , no opportunity for me to legally defend myself, and can I be arrested even at that preliminary stage? ”

Then I ask them are they “..married ? ”

Married men and their parents can be arrested anytime anywhere just on the words of the wife … right ?

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

Thanks for valuable comments on social media, I add the following caveat to the statement above

1. Wherever possible, go with SIF friends / trustworthy friends when going to police station or a CAW cell or for mediation centers in matrimonial disputes

2. Be polite. Both you and your companions have to be completely polite and respectful of the police. Do not raise ur voice even if opposite side raises their voice. Be calm. Nothing gets decided on that day, so stay calm even if opposite side tries to instigate you.

3. Tell them you are innocent & ready to fight. This is important. Your fear is the opponents weapon / strength. Your mental strength and calm attitude will make them retreat.

4. Keep CRPC 41a notifications and Arneesh Kumar judgements handy (search this blog for references to Arneesh Kumar case). This is to be used, just in case the fear of arrest is dangled. Even then be polite and courteous.

5. Network ….. Network …. Network with other married men hit with cases … Attend police stations with them to know the situations , to observe and help … That will help u greatly in your fight

6. Do not expect ANY mercy just because you are innocent or because you are a husband !!! Husbands are considered @$$holes unless proven otherwise

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

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

should we rejoice or should we mourn politicos hit by DV and dowry cases ??

Ex wife alleges a politico tried to kill her !! case is filed and the politico resigns his post. This is another chapter in the sad saga of careers lost, years of hard work lost in India, in the name of women’s appeasement

In this cacse the charges are NOT yet proven.

In many such cases it comes to light that the charges are false and motivated by anger or greed

Still men loose money, career and name. Society looses the support and services of honest men

While I write all this, I’m left with a quandy

I’m unable to decide for myself, IF I should mourn politicos caught in their own trap ??

The congress and communists have been in the forefront of women appeasement

they have enacted and supported every law possible to milk men, to bleed men, to arrest and defame men and thier families

Now one of them is caught in their own trap

What should our response be ??

Readers, brothers, YOU decide !

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news from the web>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Former wife accuses T Siddique of murder bid (and later he steps down from KPCC post!)

Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:41 hrs IST

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

T. Siddique

Kozhikode: KPCC general secretary T. Siddique’s former wife, Nazeema, has accused that he tried to murder her.

Nazeema filed a complaint with Kozhikode police commissioner against the Congress leader. In her complaint, she said that Siddique and his aides manhandled and threatened to kill her at a hospital here when she went there for treatment.

The Kozhikode First Class Judicial Magistrate court had the other day registered a complaint against Siddique on charges of domestic violence on a complaint filed by Nazeema.

Source


http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/kerala

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

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

Drug addict Abla dies of overdose and they want hubby to B hanged!!

Drug addict Abla habituated to marijuana injections and paracetamol overdoes eats a strip of pills and dies at a premier hospital even after best treatment

However the ablaas father wants the husband changed with murder

Who will save men from ( such ) men ??

>>>>>>> case from Indian kanoon site !! >>>>>>>>

Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Aggarwal vs Govt. Of Nct & Anr. on 18 May, 2015

Author: Sunil Gaur

I- 29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: May 18, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2076/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.7386/2015 ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. K. S. Negi, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT 

% (ORAL)

Petitioner had filed a criminal complaint for the offence of murder etc. regarding untimely death of his daughter- Priyanka Kumari, who was married to the accused just a year back prior to unfortunate death of petitioner’s daughter. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, petitioner’s complaint has been dismissed by the trial court by holding that there is no incriminating material on record to justify summoning of the accused. The aforesaid order of 2nd August, 2014 of the learned trial court has been affirmed by the learned Revisional Court vide impugned order of 17th November, 2014.

According to the complainant, the factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned order of 17th November, 2014 of the learned Crl. M.C.No.2076/2015 Page 1 Revisional Court is as under:-

„According to the complainant, his daughter was married to Ranjit Kumar Aggarwal (respondent) on 26.06.2009. She died on 29.09.2010. The respondent/accused demanded Rs.4 lacs at the time of said marriage, in addition to other house hold articles. Said amount was also paid to him. After marriage, couples started residing together. In May, 2010 respondent further demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs to purchase a car. He (complainant) did not take it seriously and ignored. Ranjit Kumar Aggarwal (respondent) joined Jindal Group of Companies, having office at Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. His daughter was thus went to Delhi. Although, the victim had some trivial complaints against her husband but same were ignored by him to save her matrimonial life. All of sudden on 25.09.2010, respondent/accused called his (complainant‟s) wife and asked them to come to Delhi. He came to Delhi. He was asked to reach Mohinder Hospital, Green Park, New Delhi.

After coming here, he (complainant) found his daughter semiconscious and unable to speak. It was disclosed to him that she (daughter of complainant) had some gastro problem and loose motion etc. Respondent/accused started requesting doctors to discharge the victim and due to his persistent requests, she was discharged from the hospital. When the victim was taken to her matrimonial house by respondent/accused, complainant was informed that she was serious and taken to Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. He was asked to wait outside the hospital. In this hospital, the victim Priyanka was declared dead on 29.09.2010 at 11.50 am.

The five circumstances, which weighed with the courts below in dismissing petitioner’s complaint at the summoning stage, are as under:-

„(i) There was no previous complaint lodged by the victim or her parents to the police or any other authority like CAW Cell etc. alleging demand of dowry or the domestic violence committed on her.

(ii) There was evidence on record to verify that after falling ill the victim was given treatment in best hospitals including Mohinder Hospital, Green Park and Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj. She was given immediate treatment and there was no delay in taking her to hospital by the accused.

(iii) The deceased had history of taking poison twice. She was a case of drug abuse.

(iv) According to post mortem report, the victim died due to Panrieatitis. The patient was opined as having consumed strip of Paracetamol. She was admitted to Mohinder Hospital for diarrhea and later on shifted to Fortis Hospital. According to death summery, the deceased was habitual of intravenous drug abuse in marijuana and was patient of depression. She was also a chain smoker.

(v) A per forensic report given by Safdarjung Hospital, the death of the said victim was due to hemorrhagic Panrieatitis.

Immediately before death of his daughter i.e. victim, the complainant gave statement before the Executive magistrate mentioning that the relation of accused and his daughter were cordial. Both of them used to live happily and peacefully. His daughter died due to disease and no one should be made responsible for it. Maternal grandfather of deceased was also examined by the Executive magistrate. This witness also stated that they had no complaint against anybody and the victim died due to disease.‟ (underlined to supply emphasis) At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order erroneously proceeds on the ground that there is no incriminating material against the accused persons and the pre- summoning evidence of petitioner as well as grandfather of deceased clearly makes out an offence of murder against the accused persons and so, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and accused persons ought to be tried in accordance with the law.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that in the pre-summoning evidence of petitioner and the grandfather (nana) of the deceased, the fact of deceased earlier trying to take her life is no where questioned and nothing material has come in pre-summoning evidence regarding alleged cruelty being meted out to the deceased to come to a conclusion that grave doubt exists regarding the involvement of accused persons in causing the death of deceased.

The Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 has reiterated that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in exceptional cases. Pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Ujjal Kumar (supra) on this aspect are as under: –

"It is true that the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide. Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. This extraordinary power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and as far as possible, for extraordinary cases, where allegations in the complaint or the first information report, taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. It needs little emphasis that unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those in charge of investigation, the High Court should be loath to interfere at the early/premature stage of investigation."

In the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no palpable error in the impugned order to justify interference by this Court.

This petition and application are accordingly dismissed.

 (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 18, 2015 r Crl. M.C.No.2076/2015 

Mr. Gulam !, repeatedly appear in court again & again + wife should say you are OK !!

Mr. Gulam !, repeatedly appear in court again & again + wife should say you are OK !!

"…That the petitioner is husband and he is ready to keep his wife."
"… he shall take his wife/complainant with him to his house and keep her with all respect and dignity that a wife would deserve …"
"…That on completion of period of two months of the provisional bail of the petitioner, he again with his wife/complainant shall surrender before the court below and if, …"
"…That on completion of period of four months, the petitioner and the complainant shall again surrender before the court below and if this time, the court below also find that the complainant had no further complaint against the petitioner and/or his family member, …"
"…That both the bailors will be close family relatives of the petitioners, who will undertake an affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. …"

Still MEN WANT TO GET MARRIED !!!

*****************************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 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47200 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -657 Year- 2013 Thana –
AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- AURANGABAD

******************************************************
Sujeet Kumar Mehta @ Sujit Kumar Mehta S/o Kameshwar resident of
village- Jogi Bigaha, P.S.- Jamhore, District- Aurangabad …. …. Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushma Devi W/o Sujeet Kumar Mehta D/o Jagdish Mehta Resident of

village- Salampur (Amauna), P.O.- Sudargani, P.S.- Risiup, District-
Auranagabad …. …. Opposite Party/s

******************************************************
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suman Kumari Singh (App)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
******************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA

ORAL ORDER

2

14-05-2015

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the nature of allegation against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323, 379 & 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the statement made in paragraph-8 reading as follows:

" That the petitioner is husband and he is ready to keep his wife."

has submitted that the petitioner has prepared to not only keep the complainant as wife with due respect and dignity but also this Court would find from the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 07.11.2014 that even the complainant was desirous of living with the petitioner by way of restoring of her conjugal life, this Court would direct that if the petitioner, namely, Sujeet Kumar Mehta @ Sujit Kumar Mehta surrenders on 08th June 2015 before the court below, the court below, on hearing the complainant as also her learned counsel, shall pass an order granting provisional bail to the petitioner for a period of two months, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Complaint Case No. 657 of 2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner immediately after being granted provisional bail for a period of two months, he shall take his wife/complainant with him to his house and keep her with all respect and dignity that a wife would deserve in the hands of the husband and his family members.

(ii) That on completion of period of two months of the provisional bail of the petitioner, he again with his wife/complainant shall surrender before the court below and if, on query being made from the complainant, it is found by the court below that the complainant was not given any sort of physical or mental torture by her husband/petitioner as well as his family members, such provisional bail of the petitioner shall be again extended for a period of four months.

(iii) That it goes without saying that if the court below, on the other hand, from the statement of the complainant, finds that in the period of two months, she was badly treated by the petitioner and his family members, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner shall be cancelled and he shall be taken into custody.

(iv) That on completion of period of four months, the petitioner and the complainant shall again surrender before the court below and if this time, the court below also find that the complainant had no further complaint against the petitioner and/or his family member, the provisional bail of the petitioner shall be confirmed. It is again made it clear that if at this stage also, the complainant makes out any allegation of torture or misbehaviour by the petitioner/husband and/or his family members, his provisional bail shall come to an end and he will be taken to custody. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(v) That both the bailors will be close family relatives of the petitioners, who will undertake an affidavit giving genealogy as to how they are related with the petitioner. The bailors will also undertake to inform the court if there is any change in the address of the petitioner.

(vi) That the affidavit shall clearly state that the petitioner is not accused in any other case and if he is, he shall not be released on bail.

(vii) That the bailors shall also state on affidavit that they will inform the court concerned, if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of his bail on the ground of misuse.

(viii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each and every date in course of trial and if his fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled on this ground alone.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

Sujit/-

U

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

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

They can take away your 16 year old son for 30 years !! Gummin passes Juvenile amendment in LS

16 to 18: LS passes bill redefining a juvenile’s age in serious crimes

Under the proposed law, any juvenile aged between 16 and 18 will stay in a borstal, till the age of 21.

"….Maneka Gandhi said she has tried to be “pro-child” and made efforts to strike “a fine balance” between justice to victims and rights of children. ….." !!!!

Over 40 amendments moved by the government were adopted while those moved by opposition MPs were kept out. (Source: PTI)

By: Press Trust of India | New Delhi | Updated: May 8, 2015 1:31 am

A bill providing for trial of juveniles aged between 16 and 18 for heinous crimes under laws governing adults was passed by the Lok Sabha Thursday. Over 40 amendments moved by the government were adopted while those moved by opposition MPs were kept out.

Trying to allay the concerns of the House, Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Gandhi said she has tried to be “pro-child” and made efforts to strike “a fine balance” between justice to victims and rights of children.

Maneka added the new law is intended to be “deterrent” to ensure juveniles refrain from crime and avoid spoiling their lives. She justified the need for the new law quoting National Crime Records Bureau data that shows around 28,000 juveniles had committed various crimes in 2013 and of them, 3,887 had allegedly committed heinous crimes. “The new law is meant to apply to such 3,887 juveniles out of 47.2 crore juvenile population of the country.”

She rejected the opposition’s contention that the government had disregarded the recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee, saying 11 out of 13 recommendations had been accepted.

“We do not want to be mean to children…. This Act is a deterrent,” the minister added, also rejecting allegations that while she loved animals she was not favourable to juveniles.

Under the proposed law, any juvenile aged between 16 and 18 will stay in a borstal, an institution for housing adolescent offenders, till the age of 21 whatever the sentence. Also, there will be no provision for death sentence or life imprisonment. Once an offender turns 21, his behaviour will be assessed and if he has reformed, his sentence may be reduced, Maneka said.

She added that the cases will be tried by a Juvenile Justice Board, which will include a sociologist and a child rights activist and that she had prepared the bill after exhaustive consultation, including with judges who tried the Delhi bus gangrape case.

Source : http: //indianexpress.com/ article/india/juvenile-justice-bill- passed-in-lok-sabha/

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

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

Victim of a false Dowry or Rape Law? Want Justice for Men? You have a DATE on 5.5.2015

Attention Gents, Gentlewomen and all concerned populi!…

Victim of a false Dowry or Rape Law? Want Justice for Men? You have a DATE on 5.5.2015

As the country debates bringing a law on Marital Rape, a Delhi Court recently acquitted a husband and his family charged under various sections of IPC including rape. The woman admitted to have filed a false rape case in order to get a divorce and compensation. The court acquitted the woman’s husband, parents-in-law, three brothers-in-law, two sisters-in-law of the offences under sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 354 (molestation) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC – in all 5 Men and 3 Women of which husband was sent behind bars on false charges.

THIS IS NOT THE ONLY CASE. About a month ago two young boys incarcerated for one year for an alleged “gang rape” were acquitted by a Delhi Court. In December last year, three young boys who spent 9 months in jail in a gang rape case were acquitted after they produced a CD where complainant was seen demanding 5 crores in exchange for the false case. In February this year, a young boy hanged himself in Jhansi as his wife implicated him and his family in a false dowry and molestation case. Barely few days after this, a young doctor injected himself to death in Asansol implicated in a false 498A by his wife.

These cases are a drop in the ocean of false cases that are filling our police stations and courts today in the name of stringent laws protection women from violence. Every single case of atrocity on a woman makes it to the front pages of newspapers but these cases are barely reported and rarely discussed in the main stream media.

Pain of men falsely accused and tears of families undergoing extreme humiliation due to soul shattering allegations has been conveniently ignored by all – lawmakers, media and the society.

Latest media reports suggest, government is now serious on controlling misuse of the widely abused act – IPC 498A. And how? By making it compoundable! Ask anyone who has suffered a false 498A and he would tell you what a joke this is. As per National Crime Records Bureau out of about 11 Lac cases filed between 1998 and 2013, more than 91000 cases were compounded when the law apparently is “non compoundable.” Statistical evidence proves abuse of this provision has not abated in the state of Andra Pradesh where the law is already compoundable.

What is interesting to note is, several organizations that have been working for a decade on abuse of this provision, have not even been called for a discussion by the lawmakers before an amendment is made to the law. So who has advised the changes? Ones who have turn a blind eye to the misuse or ones who perhaps don’t even recognize there is a misuse? I don’t know the answer. But I have a proposition for those who have suffered silently – it’s time to speak up. And this is the only time!!

Half the population of this country has NO GOVERNMENT BODY to represent their woes or even a ‘helpline’ where they could call for help if abused, ridiculed or in distress. SIFONE – 08882498498 – a volunteer run helpline by Save Indian Family – receives about 130 calls every day by abused men.

On May 5, 2015 men, women, families from all over India are gathering at Jantar Mantar to raise voice against gross abuse of IPC 498A and demand creation of a Men’s Commission to allow men of this country also to live a life of dignity. The protest also marks culmination of 2500KM Journey of Dr. Santosh Potdar and his wife Geeta , who have travelled all the way from Karnataka to New Delhi on a tricycle, demanding creation of a Men’s Welfare Ministry and scrapping of 498A – a law that’s been abused much more than used. If you don’t speak up and raise your voice against INJUSTICE – no one would. So keep yourself free on May 5, 2015. You have a date with your own self, where you speak up for justice to you and your family too.

EVERYONE IS INVITED!

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