India 2020 : Fake Rape filed Aug 2020, withdrawn compromised by Dec 2020 ! Delhi HC Quash Order

Notes : A Woman files a #Rape complaint which was converted to FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi. and accused booked under ipc376 etc. She appears in person at Delhi High court on December 4th 2020 and claims that was a FALSE complaint Filed after an altercation !!! Just as simple as that !!! Court accepts her unconditional apology and quashes case as it is COMPROMISED between parties !! Pertinent to note that the accused is a MBA and is trying to join Indian civil services !!!

Delhi High Court

Lalit Kumar Vats vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 4 December, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision :04.12.2020
CRL.M.C. 2384/2020
LALIT KUMAR VATS ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr. Roshan Santhalia and Mr. Sholab Arora, Advs.

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State

W/SI Chandra Kanta, PS Kapashera Prosecutrix in person

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

Crl. M.A. 16804/2020 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
3. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby for quashing of FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC registered at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Notice issued.
5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State and by the respondent no.2 and with the consent of counsel for parties, the present petition is taken up for final disposal.
6. The present petition is filed on the ground that matter has been compromised between petitioner and the prosecutrix.
7. The Prosecutrix is personally present in Court and has been identified by W/SI Chandra Kanta/IO of the case. She states that FIR was lodged out of anger reason being she and petitioner had an altercation on 09.08.2020. To this effect, she has not only filed affidavit but she also sought apology from this Court.
8. Since prosecutrix has made wrong statement which culminated into the present FIR, therefore, she is liable to be prosecuted under the law, however, she seeks unconditional apology and submits that she is a married woman having two children and her matrimonial life will be destroyed if the present case is sent for trial.
9. Her unconditional apology is accepted.
10. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parbat Bhai Aahir and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. (AIR 2017 SC 4843), the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is an heinous offence, but when the respondent No.2/complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and file affidavits before this Court, stating that she made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between the petitioner and respondent no.2, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted.
11. This Court is conscious about the dictum of the Supreme Court in terms of seriousness of the case, however, keeping in view the settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further. Moreover, petitioner is a well-educated person. He holds various educational degrees including MBA and CS-Executive, as evidenced by the documents annexed hereto as Annexure P-6 . The Petitioner is currently preparing for CS-Professional and UPSC examinations. Continuation of the proceedings will affect his prospects in clearing examinations.
12. For the reasons afore-recorded, quashing of FIR No. 381/2020 dated 10.08.2020, registered at Police Station – Kapashera, New Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
13. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J DECEMBER 04, 2020
ms

BAIL granted in spite of Wife blaming husband and in-laws for suicide. DELHI High Court

Wife committed suicide and left a note blaming the husband & in-laws. FIR is registered under sections 498A/306/34 IPC. State opposed the pre-arrest bail, but the Delhi High Court granted it. Just because wife says that the husband is responsible for her suicide, it is not proven that the husband abetted it, says HC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Bail Application No.3137/2005

Sanjay Dhillon …….. Petitioner through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Mr. Sumit Arora Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocates Vs State ……. Respondent through : Mr. Ranjit Kapoor, Advocate

Bail Application No.3201-06/2005
Krishana and Ors. …….. Petitioners through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Mr. Sumit Arora, Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advocates Vs State ……. Respondent through : Mr. Ranjit Kapoor, Advocate

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog.
DATE OF DECISION: 26.09.2007.

FIR No. 134/2005 dated 17.11.2005 U/S: 498A/306/34 IPC; PS: Jaffarpur Kalan.

1. Rajesh (Wife) was married to Sanjay Dhillon (Husband) on 11.2.1997. Unfortunately, she committed suicide on 17.11.2005.
2. Sanjay Dhillon and his parents, brothers, sisters and brother in law seek pre-arrest bail in aforenoted FIR.
3. Rajesh (Wife) was in the house of her parents when she committed suicide. A suicide note was purportedly recovered from the house of her parents after she died. The suicide note is scribed in Devanagari scriptt. Signatures of Rajesh are appended in English.
4. As per opinion of the handwriting expert, whereas writing on the suicide note has been opined to be that of Rajesh (Wife), signatures in English of Rajesh have been opined as not tallying with the admitted writing of Rajesh (Wife) in English language.
5. In the Suicide Note, Rajesh (wife) has penned her thoughts as under:- “I do not want to live. Life has come to an end for me because of compulsions of some persons. I have tried my level best to find a home. But my in-laws which include my sisters-in-law, a husband of my sister-in-law namely Surender Kapur and my husband Sanjay have compelled me to embrace death. My world has ended. I went with hope to the women cell but even nothing happened there. I was compelled to abandon my child. In front of my eyes my world has collapsed. I have lost the will to live. Father please forgive me. Mother please forgive me. I just don’t want to live.”
6. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that sine qua non for the applicability of Section 306 IPC is abetment in the commission of suicide. Referring to Section 107 IPC learned counsel urges that abetment is complete when one or more of 3 acts envisaged by Section 107 IPC are committed. Firstly, if the person is instigated or a person engages in any conspiracy for the doing of a thing which results in commission of a offence and lastly when a person intentionally aids by an act or illegally omission the doing of an offence.
7. It is urged that assuming there is harassment and as a result of harassment the person harassed commits suicide, mere harassment by itself would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
8. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the language of the suicide note strongly opposes the grant of pre-arrest bail.
9. I need not note a catena of authorities on the point save and except a decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2002 (2) RCR Crl. 687 Sanju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. In paras 9 to 12 of the said decision, 3 judgments of the Supreme Court were noted and with reference to a suicide note, contents whereof as noted in para 14 of the judgment were as under:- (Fetch these details)
10. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:- “My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning”
11. This court, considering the defintion of ‘abetment’ under Section 107 IPC found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sutainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of the abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
12. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618: 2001 (4) RCR (Crl.) 537 (SC), this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go whereever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:
    “A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences, were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offences of suicide should be found guilty.
13. Thus, case is made out to grant benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners for the reason the suicide note does not establish abetment. It merely establishes harassment.
14. Petition stands disposed of directing that in the event of being arrested by the IO, petitioners would be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO.
15. Needless to state, petitioners would join investigation as and when required by the IO

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.

She can come back EVEN if you are DEAD !! A Decade After Man’s Death, Delhi HC Allows His Wife’s Appeal

A Decade After Man’s Death, Delhi HC Allows His Wife’s Appeal Against Divorce [Read Judgment] | Live Law

By: ashok kini

Ten years after the death of her husband, a lady’s appeal against divorce decree granted by the family court has been allowed by the Delhi High Court.

In 2007, the family court had dissolved their marriage observing that they had reached to a point of no return and their marriage had broken down irretrievably. The wife filed an appeal against this and in 2008, the husband expired. He was represented in the proceedings by his father.

In her appeal, the wife’s contention was that the family court did not take into account the factum that he had withdrawn her consent to the grant of the decree of mutual consent and that she, having refused to participate in the same, cannot now be compelled to accept a divorce through mutual consent in as much as the mutuality to the consent does not exist.

Perusing the records of this case, Justice Anu Malhotra observed that the element of mutual consent have not continued at the stage of proceedings under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when the decree of divorce was granted, no such decree of divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended, as granted vide the impugned order, could have been granted.

The court said: “In the absence of the continued mutual consent a decree of divorce under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended cannot be granted as laid down in Smruti Pahariya Vs. Sanjay Pahariya and from the absence of one of the parties before the Trial Court, the presumption of consent for divorce cannot be attributed to that party as consent needs to continue till the date of the decree of divorce under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended and the Court has the statutory obligation to hear the parties to ascertain their consent which was clearly not done in the instant case, the appellant not even being present on the date 06.10.2007 i.e. the date of the decree of divorce granted through mutual consent.”

Read judgement here : Courtesy Live law :

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qd4qxSrIZ5PrfC3V6NWfPlelxbgHbj71/view

 

 

---

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

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’