Arrest 80 year old in laws as they are sarcastic !! I’ve lived 10 DAYS with in laws, so Ablaa already !!

Notes : A wife has filed criminal cases and tried to arrest her 80 year old father in law and 75 year old mother in law claiming that they spoke sarcastically to her and did NOT allow her to touch the fridge !!! She has also tried to rope in other case against the elder couple !!!!

This woman actually married her school friend (meaning known bakra) !! Husband lives / works in Dubai and gifted her ONLY 15 kg dry fruits !!!!

Thankfully court allowed anticipatory bail for parents but their BANK ACCOUNTS are frozen !!

News headline : Court: In-laws’ daily taunts part of married life |

Mumbai News – Times of India

Rebecca Samervel | TNN |

Updated: Dec 31, 2020, 10:15 IST

MUMBAI: Observing that “talking sarcastically and taunting by in-laws is part of the wear and tear of married life” that every family witnesses, a sessions court recently granted anticipatory bail to a Malabar Hill couple, aged 80 and 75, who were accused of ill treatment by their estranged daughter-in-law, reports Rebecca Samervel .

The court also refuted the woman’s arguments that their plea should be rejected on the grounds that her in-laws were on the list put together by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists of people who had offshore entities. The court said, “There may be a probe pending under ICIJ, which has no concern while deciding the application.”

Woman’s allegations against her in-laws ‘general in nature’: Court

Observing that that this was an independent crime, the court said, “It is not shown if any crime is registered against the applicants for alleged involvement. So at this juncture, there is no need to get impressed by the proceedings.”

The 30-year-old woman got married to her now Dubai-based school friend in 2018. She claimed that it was only a few days before the wedding, while she was preparing documents to get the marriage registered, that her family realised that her husband was actually the biological child of the domestic help and was adopted and raised by her purported in-laws.

The woman alleged, among other things, that while her inlaws did not gift her anything at the wedding, her parents gave her diamond and gold jewellery worth Rs 1.5 crore. She claimed that she was not allowed to touch the fridge, was given stale food and made to sleep in the living room. She added she was not allowed to go to her mother’s home. The woman said that every time she complained to her husband, he would sarcastically ask her to obey his parents. According to her, while returning from Dubai, her husband gave her dry fruits weighing 15 kg. The woman said that when she returned to her in-laws’ home to deliver the dry fruits, her mother-in-law weighed the package before accepting it. The prosecution added that the woman’s in-laws and husband were in custody of her jewellery.

However, the advocate for the in-laws submitted that the woman was aware of her husband’s adoption and that she had lived with her in-laws for only about 10 days after the wedding. The defence also said both families had borne the wedding expenses equally. The advocate also claimed that the accused were unaware of the FIR and only got to know of it after their accounts were frozen. They denied having the jewellery.

The court called the woman’s allegations “general in nature.” Special judge Madhuri A Baraliya said, “Talking sarcastically and taunting to the first informant (daughter-inlaw) by the in-laws is the wear and tear of the married life, which every family witnesses. For those allegations the custody of the applicants who are old aged 80 years and 75 years respectively, is not required with the police.” While granting the plea for pre-arrest bail, the court directed them to submit passports with police as the woman apprehended they would flee to Dubai. The court said as far as recovery of her ornaments went, the probe agency had already frozen their accounts.

Talking sarcastically to… and taunting the daughter-in-law by the in-laws is the wear and tear of married life, which every family witnesses – Spl judge Madhuri A Baraliya

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

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

JUDGMENT

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.

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 !!

Tweet

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.

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 case though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

Husband gets #Anticipatory #Bail #AB in #498a #ipc406 #ipc506 though #wife claims all #Jewels Not #Returned. #DelhiHC

//however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.

5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner.///

**

Delhi High Court

Lalit Singh Negi vs State on 17 April, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 17.04.2018

BAIL APPLN. 2478/2016

LALIT SINGH NEGI ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr Gurmehar Singh Sistani and Mr Samit Khosla
with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State.
SI Satish Kumar, PS Ambedkar Nagar.
Mr Vinod Dubey, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

17.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. 1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.445/2016 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, Police Station Ambedkar Nagar.
2. 2. Parties were referred to Mediation; however, no settlement could be arrived at. Petitioner was granted interim protection on 02.12.2016 subject to joining investigation.
3. 3. As per the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner did join investigation, as and when he was called upon to do so.
4. 4. On 06.09.2017, this Court had recorded the contention of the complainant that she has received part of jewellery from the petitioner in the Police Station on 15.07.2017 and also a demand draft of Rs.70,000/-, however, a plea was raised that the entire jewellery has not been received, to which the petitioner contends that entire jewellery has been returned to the respondent.
5. 5. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has made out a case for anticipatory bail. No case is made out for the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO, on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO.
6. 6. The petitioner shall not do anything, which shall either prejudice the investigation or any of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall join investigation, as and when so required by the Investigating Officer.
7. 7. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
8. 8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 17, 2018/’Sn’

#accused #Husband gets #anticipatory #bail even though he did #NOT #settle in #ipc498a #ipc406 case !! #DelhiHC

Delhi High Court

Amardeep Malhotra vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 1 May, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 01.05.2018

BAIL APPLN. 1438/2017

AMARDEEP MALHOTRA ….. Petitioner
versus

STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarthak Maggon, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Akshai Malik, Addl. PP for the
State with SI Manju
Mr. Anupam Dwivedi, Adv. for R-2
with R-2 in person.

CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

01.05.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. 1. Learned counsels for the petitioner as well as counsel for complainant inform that the settlement could not be arrived at before the mediator. The statement is taken on record.
2. 2. Learned Addl. PP informs that the #chargesheet has been #filed and on 12.04.2018 #cognizance has already been taken. Learned Addl. PP further informs that the petitioner did join the investigation as and when he was directed to do so.
3. 3. The petitioner #seeks #anticipatory #bail in case FIR No. 517/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC Police Station Janak Puri, New Delhi.
4. 4. In the event of arrest, the #petitioner shall be #released on #bail by the arresting officer/IO/SHO concerned subject to petitioner’s furnishing a bail #bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one #surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/IO/SHO concerned.
5. 5. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

MAY 01, 2018/’rs’