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

Wife arrested 4 murdering mother in law HAS RIGHT 2 enter husband’s house on bail! Fate of Indian Men ! Delhi District court case !!

Wife accused & arrested along with her accomplices for murdering her own mother in law (husband’s elderly mother) applies for bail. Husband is visually impaired and is scraed of his life and that of his kids, so runs for injunction, restricting her from entering house. But husband is still given good advise on maintaining wife and sent away !!

image

Facts : “…..    2.3. The defendant had been conspiring to eliminate the mother of the plaintiff with an ulterior motive to grab the entire property along with the persons with whom she had been in constant touch. The defendant killed the mother of the plaintiff along with Azad, Parvinder, Jai Bhagwan and Pradeep on 11.08.2011. FIR no. 241/2011 was registered with PS Okhla under Section 302/394/411/201/120B/34 IPC was registered against the defendant and Azad, Parvinder, Jai Bhagwan and Pradeep for committing murder of the mother of plaintiff. The police had filed the charge sheet in the said case against the defendant and the said accused persons and charges under Section 203/201/120B/34 IPC have been framed against the defendant and the said accused persons vide order dated 19.02.2013 by the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khanna, ld. ASJ, Saket Court finding a prima facie case against the defendant and other accused persons. The defendant was arrested on 20.08.2011 in the said FIR and had remained in custody so far. ….”

Further facts : “…. . However, the defendant’s bail application has been allowed by the Court of Sh. Lokesh Sharma, ld. ASJ, Saket Court, New Delhi vide order dated 29.09.2015. …”

Husband’s fear : The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant will now make attempts to forcibly enter the house of the plaintiff and tried to live in the house forcibly thereby endangering the peace, security and life of the plaintiff and other family members including minor children. The plaintiff is filing petition for divorce separately. ….”

Decision : “….     11. Further, the plaintiff has sought the relief that defendant be restrained from claiming right of residence in any manner in the suit property which belongs to plaintiff. Clearly, the right of residence to a legally wedded wife has been provided under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is settled principle that there cannot be any injunction for restraining a person from claiming a legal or statutory right. Therefore, by way of injunction plaintiff cannot restrain his wife from claiming a legal right which has been provided under a special statute…..”

 

more at

 

Wife’s second 498a fails as courts dismiss her case !! Australian Husband and Indian #498a !

2nd dowry complaint filed after 1st compromised &acquitted. All courts incl HC dismiss 2nd complaint!

A woman files a 498a etc on her husband. Husband returns from Australia and at that trial she turns hostile (probably there is a compromise ) !! Then once again she files a second 498a on the same husband on same grounds. All courts dismisse the second case as the accused have already been tried and acquitted !! Wife goes on appeal upto P & H HC who also dismiss her application !!

==========================================

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-11357 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.7.2016

Davinder Kaur                                                                   ……Petitioner

Versus

Nishan Singh and others                                                    ….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:        Mr. B.S.Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner.


ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)

CRM-19880-2016

Heard.

Application is allowed and Annexures P-11 to P-15 are taken on record.

CRM-M-11357-2016

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 3.7.2014 passed by SDJM, Sardulgarh vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 498-A, 406, 34 IPC was dismissed. The order was maintained and the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved by both the orders, the complainant has filed this petition. She has also assailed the order dated 17.12.2015 vide which the application for additional evidence had been dismissed.

The backdrop of the case is necessary. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on 3.4.2005. A child was born to them.

Disputes arose between the couple. Allegations were levelled that the husband and his family were greedy and were not satisfied with the dowry and started making demands. It was urged that on 18.9.2007 demand of ` 5,00,000/- was made on the pretext that Nishan Singh was to go to Australia. When the complainant expressed her inability she was beaten up and an attempt was made to set her ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil. She immediately informed her father telephonically. FIR No. 129 dated 22.11.2009 was registered under Section 498-A, 406 IPC at P.S. Sardulgarh. During the pendency of the case Nishan Singh went to Australia. He returned to India in March 2009. Challan was presented and the trial commenced. The complainant did not support the prosecution story at the trial and turned hostile. The trial ended in acquittal.

Later a complaint on the same allegations was filed against Nishan Singh, his mother and Balwinder Singh. The allegations levelled in the FIR were reiterated. The trial Court recorded preliminary evidence and refused to summon the accused and dismissed the complaint on 3.7.2014. Aggrieved with the order a revision was filed. An application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was also filed for placing some additional material namely copy of the petition, copy of the judgment in the petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and the order passed in the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act.

Copy of the FIR No. 55 dated 1.4.2010 P.S. City Dhuri registered under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC is available on record. The Revisional Court dismissed the application as well as the revision. The Revisional Court elaborately dealt with the evidence in para 8 of its judgment. It was also noted that there were no details as to the dowry articles that were given and no proof regarding purchase of the articles had been given and once the accused had faced the trial and were acquitted they could not be summoned to face the trial on similar grounds.

Counsel for the petitioner counsel refers to ‘Smt. Rashmi Kumar vesus Mahesh Kumar Bhada 1999(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 43’ and urges that after the compromise same demands and harassment started and therefore the complaint had to be filed and at the preliminary stage the Court was only to see whether prima facie case was made out for proceeding further and there was ample material before the Court and they should have acted on the evidence that was led before it.

The petitioner had placed on record the FIR that was registered in 2007 as well as the statements made by the complainant.

A perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant had made the same allegations in the FIR in 2007 and the accused were acquitted as the complainant failed to support her own version. Both the Courts below had noted that there was no details to support her contention that any dowry was given.

I find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Petition is dismissed.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE

July 08, 2016

Gurpreet

Shave or I’ll kill myself: Wife to cleric

Pankul Sharma | TNN | Jul 18, 2016, 06.11 AM IST

Highlights

  • A cleric is in a fix after his wife demanded that he should shave or else she would commit suicide
  • Arshad has asked the DM to arrange for counselling for his wife
  • He fears that he would be blamed if his wife takes the extreme step

Meerut: Thirty-six-year old Arshad Badruddin, a cleric here, is in a fix after his wife demanded that he should shave or else she would commit suicide. He even claimed that his wife was using a smartphone to chat with ‘gair mard’ (other men) against his wishes. Arshad has also asked the DM to arrange for counselling for his wife. He fears that he would be blamed if his wife takes the extreme step.

argue
In his complaint to DM Pankaj Yadav, the cleric stated: “I am a ‘pesh imam’ (who leads prayers at a mosque) and I am a true follower of Islam. I got married to Sahana of Pilkhuwa town in Hapur district in 2001. Soon after our marriage, my wife demanded that I should shave and not keep beard as she likes clean-shaven men like Bollywood actors Salman Khan and Shah Rukh Khan. She has also brought a smartphone and chats with gair mard all day and night.”

Arshad said he tried to convince his wife (who is now 33 years) often and that clerics like him should keep their beards but she is adamant. “We have four children, and yet she insists on her demand. I have also told her many times to curtail the use of mobile phone as I fear that our children will also pick the bad habit and it would become difficult to discipline them. I am irritated by her behaviour. When I scolded her recently, she started crying and threatened to commit suicide after poisoning our children,” the cleric wrote in his letter to the district magistrate.

Arshad also stated in the letter to the DM that recently, on the occasion of Eid, she wanted to buy western clothes for the children and herself. “When I refused to accompany her for Eid shopping, she quarrelled with me and again threatened to kill herself,” he added. “On the next day of Eid, she locked herself in a room. When I peeped inside, I found that she was trying to hang herself with a rope from the ceiling fan. I immediately called other family members and broke open the door. Luckily, we managed to save her. When we asked her why she was taking the extreme step, she kept mum and stopped talking to us,” Arshad wrote in his letter to the DM.

TOI spoke to additional district magistrate Dinesh Chandra, who said, “We have sent the copy of the complaint to the senior superintendent of police (SSP) for a probe into the matter.”

source

 

Fake bigamy after loosing 498a cocktail! No proof against husband or 2nd accused! Quashed, GujHC

Woman files a bigamy case on her husband and another woman some seven years after alleged second marriage. It’s Pertiment to note, that her bigamy case is filed SOON after she lost her earlier 498a cocktail!! Gujarat HC quashes her unproven Bigamy allegations after noticing the abuse of the process of law !!

“….11. In the present case, no material is produced by the complainant in support of her allegations that the present applicant got married to accused no.1. It is also not stated when the marriage has taken place. Thus, in absence of any material, it cannot be said that the present applicant has, in any way, abetted accused no.1. Even assuming that such marriage has taken place in the year 2005, the impugned complaint has been filed on 13.6.2012 and that too when learned Magistrate has acquitted the original accused no.1 and in-laws in the complaint which was filed under Sections 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code by an order dated 12.5.2012.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant has abused the process of the Court and therefore in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to exercise the powers vested under Section 482 of the Code……”

#Abuse_of_process_of_Law #494Abuse #fake498 !! #fake_BigamyCase

===============================================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7198 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

DAKSHBEN MAFATLAL PATEL….Applicant(s)
Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR RAXIT J DHOLAKIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SHAILESH C SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MS RITA CHANDARANA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Date : 07/07/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT

 

  1. This application is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’), wherein the applicant has prayed that the complaint being Miscellaneous Application No.531 of 2012 registered with 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and the process issued thereunder be quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
  2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Raxit Dholakia for the applicant, learned APP Ms.Rita Chandarana for respondent no.1-State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr.Shailesh Sharma for respondent no.2- original complainant.
  3. Learned advocate Mr.Dholakia appearing for the applicant submitted that the complaint being Miscellaneous Application No.531 of 2012 is filed against the present applicant and four others under Sections 494, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code interalia alleging that the accused no.1-Mukeshbhai Patel and the original complainant had entered into a wed-lock on 7.3.1997 and in spite of that marriage being in existence, the accused no.1 got married to the present applicant-accused no.2 and thereby the applicant has committed offences punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate has passed the order of issuance of process against the present applicant and other accused.
  4. Learned advocate Mr.Dholakia mainly contended that the offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is not applicable qua the present applicant. The same is applicable to the accused no.1 even if it is believed that accused no.1 got married to the accused no.2-present applicant. He, thereafter, submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant that she has abused the complainant. He therefore submitted that no material is produced along with the complaint that the accused no.1 got married to accused no.2. It is further submitted that after the order of acquittal is passed by learned Magistrate on 1.5.2012 in Criminal Case which was filed under Sections 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code against the husband and in-laws of the complainant, on 13.6.2012 i.e. within a few days of the order of acquittal, the impugned complaint is filed. Therefore, it is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court wherein the present applicant is falsely implicated. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned complaint be quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
  5. Learned advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rupa & Others V/s State of U.P. & Another, reported in 2013 LawSuit(All)2139.
  6. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out in the impugned complaint and therefore this Court may not exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
  7. Learned APP Ms.Chandarana has supported the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate for respondent no.2.
  8. I have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates for the parties. I have gone through the material produced on record. Section 494 of Indian Penal Code provides as under: “494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife- Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Exception – This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.”
  9. From reading the aforesaid section, it is clear that the complaint under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code can be filed against the husband and not against the present applicant who is alleged to have got married with accused no.1. The complainant has not produced any material suggesting that the accused no.1 got married to the present applicant. Thus, ingredients of alleged offences are not made out against the applicant.
  10. In the case of Rupa & Others (supra), the Allahabad High Court has held in paragraphs 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45 as under:
    • “38. Now the question arises as to whether the applicants can be prosecuted for the offence under section 494 IPC or not. Section 494 IPC is as follows:-
    • xxxxxx
    • Section 494 IPC applies to a person who, having a husband or wife living, remarries. In the facts of the instant case, the allegation is that Rajesh Kumar Deorar remarried during subsistence of his first marriage with opposite party no.2. In these circumstances, only Rajesh Kumar Deorar can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 494 IPC. The person, with whom second marriage is performed in violation of section 494 IPC, has not been made liable for punishment in this Section.
    • The contention of learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is that even though the applicants cannot be prosecuted directly for the offence punishable under section 494 IPC, they can be prosecuted for having abetted Rajesh Kumar Deorar for committing an offence under section 494 IPC with the help of section 114 IPC.
    • Abetment is defined in section 107 as follows:- “107 IPC. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
    • 39. Explanation 1.- A person who, by wilful representation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
    • 40. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
    • 41. For abetment of an offence, it is necessary that the abettor must have either instigated any person to do such an offence or must have engaged in a conspiracy for doing such an illegal act. In the instant case, there is no allegation against the applicants that they instigated Rajesh Kumar Deorar to commit an offence punishable under section 494 IPC. There is no allegation that the applicants engaged themselves in any criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under section 494 IPC. It is the case of applicant no.1 that she did not know about any prior marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar with opposite party no.2. Her presence at the time of incident dated 7.12.2010 has been falsified as held earlier. In the absence of any knowledge of prior marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar, the applicants cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 494 IPC read with section 109 or 114 IPC.
    • Xxxxxx
    • 44. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that there was any intentional abetment on the part of the applicants to commit an offence under section 494 IPC. Mere presence of applicants no.2,3 & 4 at the time of marriage of applicant no.1 with Rajesh Kumar Deorar does not make them criminally liable without any criminal intent on their part.
    • 45. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Rajesh Kumar Deorar and his family members as well as Chhotey Singh and Ram Sajan, who were present at the house of Rajesh Kumar Deorar on 7.12.2010, may be presumed to have the knowledge of alleged earlier marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar with opposite party no.2 and may be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 494 IPC or its abetment, but as far as applicants are concerned, there is no material to suggest that they had any prior knowledge of the alleged marriage between the opposite party no.2 and Rajesh Kumar Deorar and, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted the offence under section 494 IPC read with section 109 or 114 IPC”.
  11. In the present case, no material is produced by the complainant in support of her allegations that the present applicant got married to accused no.1. It is also not stated when the marriage has taken place. Thus, in absence of any material, it cannot be said that the present applicant has, in any way, abetted accused no.1. Even assuming that such marriage has taken place in the year 2005, the impugned complaint has been filed on 13.6.2012 and that too when learned Magistrate has acquitted the original accused no.1 and in-laws in the complaint which was filed under Sections 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code by an order dated 12.5.2012.
  12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the complainant has abused the process of the Court and therefore in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to exercise the powers vested under Section 482 of the Code.
  13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application is allowed. The complaint being Miscellaneous Application No.531 of 2012 registered with 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat and the process issued thereunder are quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. Rule is made absolute.

 

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

Srilatha

How a DV case on husband & SEVEN more is sent back by Allah.HC ! No DV against females & ppl NOT in dom. relation

Section 2(q) of DV Act : “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person..” .

“…Thus respondent, against whom proceeding should proceed, must be adult male person, who is or has been in domestic relationship with aggrieved person. In present matter, applicants 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (who are opposite parties no. 2 to 7 of original case) are ladies. ..”

“It is directed that trial court shall consider this point before proceeding before these ladies-applicants/accused. It was pointed out that applicant no. 8/OP No.- 8 Zahid resides in different district Moradabad and has never been in domestic relationship with applicants of the case. Before proceeding against him and other accused, the propriety of carrying out proceedings in light of above mentioned provisions will be considered by trial court……”

#DV_case #DVCase_on_eight_ppl !! #WhyNotOneDozen !! ?? #FakeDV #fakeDVisMoolah

======================================

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. – 48

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 19953 of 2016

Applicant :- Mohd. Alam @ Raja And 7 Ors

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the records.

The proceedings of Complaint Case No. 339/2014, Sections 18/12, 20, 21, 23 and 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act? has been challenged.

Under these provisions, aggrieved person may be women or child under the age of 18 years. Applicants of said complaint case is wife and his three years’ son. The proceeding under said Act can be carried out against the ‘respondent’. The definition of ‘respondent’ is given in Section 2 (q) of said Act is as under:- “Section 2(q)-, “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

Thus respondent, against whom proceeding should proceed, must be adult male person, who is or has been in domestic relationship with aggrieved person. In present matter, applicants 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (who are opposite parties no. 2 to 7 of original case) are ladies. It is directed that trial court shall consider this point before proceeding before these ladies-applicants/accused. It was pointed out that applicant no. 8/OP No.- 8 Zahid resides in different district Moradabad and has never been in domestic relationship with applicants of the case. Before proceeding against him and other accused, the propriety of carrying out proceedings in light of above mentioned provisions will be considered by trial court.

With these observations, this application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 11.7.2016

SR


============================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
==============================================================================