Tag Archives: fake cases

You can file fake #MeToo cases after 20 years. But Hon Court cannot reopen most important #BOFORS gun scam case Of national importance as it is 12 ~ 13 years old

Supreme Court dismisses CBI’s appeal in Bofors case

 

4C9DE9AC-0491-4B00-BD47-952B7424344C

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed CBI’s appeal against the Delhi High Court verdict discharging all the accused including Hinduja brothers in Rs 64 crore Bofors pay-off case. 

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it was not convinced with the grounds of the CBI on the delay in filing the appeal. 

The apex court, however, said that an appeal against the same HC verdict filed by advocate Ajay Agarwal is pending and the CBI can raise all grounds in it. 

The Rs 1,437-crore deal between India and Swedish arms manufacturer AB Bofors for the supply of 400 units of 155-mm Howitzer guns for the Indian Army was entered into on March 24, 1986.

— Read on m.timesofindia.com/india/supreme-court-dismisses-cbis-appeal-in-bofors-case/articleshow/66473036.cms

Advertisements

Accused cannot be prosecuted on diff section , #fresh material brought much after #ChargeSheet & #FramingCharge ! #Husband cannot be prosecuted for #ipc493

Accused cannot be prosecuted on basis of #fresh material brought in much after #FIR. Also, #Husband cannot be prosecuted for #ipc493. Story of a #liveIn !

 

Excerpts : “….Therefore, the question that arises is as to whether the petitioner could be convicted under Section 493, I.P.C., on the basis of the new materials introduced, for the first time in the Court, which were not available during investigation. The answer could be the emphatic ‘no’. The reason is that the evidence for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C. cannot be relied upon, since the witnesses have not given these materials at the earliest point of time, or at least before the charge sheet was filed…..”

Notes : A live in woman initially files #ipc420 on a male claiming that he has married another woman. Then she claims that a valid marriage took place on exchange of garlands at Temple, but tries to frame him (the same man) under sec #ipc493 . Lower courts convict him on #ipc493 – #Sex after deceitfully inducing belief of lawful marriage. But Honourable Madras HC sees thru her game and acquits the man, She looses on both #ipc420 and #ipc493 !! HC tells her to file for bigamy or go claim maintenance !!


Madras High Court

Murugaswamy vs State Represented By S.I. Of … on 15 March, 1996

Equivalent citations: 1996 (2) CTC 160

Author: M Karpagavinayagam

Bench: M Karpagavinayagam

ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

  1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated, 7.9.1993 in C.A. No. 102 of 1991, on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Originally, the petitioner Murugaswamy was convicted for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo R.I. for one month, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam in C.C. No. 624 of 1989, dated 8.7.1991. Against this judgment, the above said criminal appeal had been preferred by the petitioner herein, in which the learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court.
  2. The facts leading to the judgment of conviction are as follows:- P.W.1 Bhagawathiammal is a resident of Mudalipalayam. When she was staying at Melkathavukarai village, she had developed intimacy with the petitioner, who was the neighbour. Since the petitioner assured P.W. 1 that he would marry her, P.W.1 allowed him to have inter-course with her and at Melkathavukarai village they were living as husband and wife under one roof for one year. After shifting her residence to Mudalipalayam village, there also they lived together for about three years. But suddenly, the petitioner stopped coming to her house on the instigation of his parents. At that time she was pregnant of three months. Finding no other alternative, P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P1 to Annoor police station on 7.7.1987, which was registered in Cr. No. 172 of 1987 by P.W.7 Nandakumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, under Section 420, I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail subsequently.

  3. After coming out on bail, the petitioner took P.W.1 to Maruthamalai temple and married her by exchanging garlands and tying of thali. After the said marriage, they were living together for four or five months. Suddenly, the petitioner again stopped coming to the house of P.W.1. In the mean time, a child was born to her. Subsequently, she came to know that the petitioner married another woman.

  4. P.W.7, Sub-Inspector of Police during the course of investigation in this case, examined P.W.2 Marathal, P.W.3 Perumal Gounder, P.W.4 Ponnammal and P.W.5 Ramaswamy, the neighbour to speak about the fact that the petitioner and P.W.1 were living together as husband and wife under one roof and that P.W.1 consented to live with the petitioner, without any valid marriage since she was assured by him that he would marry her, in the near, future. After registration of the above complaint, P.W.6 Doctor Nirmala, examined P.W.1, at the request of police and issued Ex.P2 certificate to the effect that she was pregnant of 22 weeks. After completion of investigation, on 5.12.1987 P.W.7 Sub-Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C. However, P.W.7 has not conducted any investigation with reference to the marriage held between the petitioner and P.W.1 at Maruthamalai temple after the case was registered. On the basis of the F.I.R. and the statements in support of the accusation in the F.I.R., the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 420, I.P.C.

  5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, who took the case on file under Section 420, I.P.C., in C.C. No. 624 of 1989, after furnishing copies to the petitioner under Section 207, Cr.P.C., as well framed the charge under Section 420, I.P.C., alleging that he cheated the complainant P.W.1 by making a false assurance of marriage, to have inter-course with her and made her pregnant. He denied the said charge and claimed to be tried. P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined by the trial Court. During the course of examination of P.W. 1, since she stated that subsequent to the registration of her complaint, marriage between the petitioner and P.W.1 had taken place at Maruthamalai by exchanging garlands and tying of thali, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who appeared before the trial Court, filed a petition under Section 216, Cr.P.C., requesting the Court to alter the charge into one of Section 493, I.P.C., on the basis of available evidence. On that aspect the parties were heard. Thereafter, the charge in the present case was altered into one of Section 493, I.P.C.

  6. Fresh charge was again framed, and read over to the petitioner, to which he said that he was innocent. Subsequently, two more witnesses were examined, viz. P.W.6 Doctor and P.W.7 Sub-Inspector of Police.

  7. After the examination of witnesses, the petitioner was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., He denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. No defence witness was examined.

  8. After termination of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C. and sentenced him as referred above. Aggrieved over this, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A. No. 102 of 1991 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, which was dismissed on 7.9.1993, confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

  9. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

10. The above revision has to be allowed on the following simple ground. The First Information Report was registered by P.W.7 Sub-Inspector of Police, under Section 420, I.P.C. Charge sheet was also filed under the same Section, on the basis of materials constituting the offence of cheating collected during the course of investigation. The learned trial Magistrate also framed the charge, at first, for the offence under Section 420, I.P.C. against the revision petitioner. Only after examination of five witnesses on the side of prosecution, the charge was altered into one of Section 493, I.P.C. It is clearly apparent that the materials adduced before the Court constituting the offence under Section 493, I.P.C. during the examination of witnesses in Court were not available at the time of filing the charge sheet. Therefore, the question that arises is as to whether the petitioner could be convicted under Section 493, I.P.C., on the basis of the new materials introduced, for the first time in the Court, which were not available during investigation. The answer could be the emphatic ‘no’. The reason is that the evidence for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C. cannot be relied upon, since the witnesses have not given these materials at the earliest point of time, or at least before the charge sheet was filed. It is strange that the learned trial Magistrate as well as the lower appellate Judge have over-looked this aspect and have not considered even the semblance of the said legal position, while convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C.

  1. Yet another ground warranting interference of this Court, in the finding arrived at by both the Courts below is as follows:- At this stage, nevertheless, it has become relevant for me to quote Section 493, I.P.C., which relates to cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage: – “Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”. As per this section, the prosecution has to prove four ingredients. They are:- (1) that the accused cohabited with the prosecutrix. (2) That he is not legally married her. (3) That she had consented to the cohabitation, believing that she had been lawfully married to him. (4) That such belief in her was induced by deceit on the part of the accused. On perusal of the evidence available on record, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that these ingredients have not been fully proved by the prosecution.

  2. The evidence of P.W.1, though adduced belatedly before the Court, is that after the registration of her complaint, the petitioner/accused took her to Maruthamalai temple and married her by exchanging garlands and tying thali and then thereafter they lived together as husband and wife for four or five months. Of course in their evidence, the neighbours have not referred about this marriage and they merely speak about their living under one roof before the above said marriage. So, it is to be seen whether this piece of evidence as spelt out by P.W.1, relating to her marriage with the petitioner at Maruthamalai temple could be construed to be the material satisfying all the four ingredients of the offence under Section 493, I.P.C. The third ingredient, viz, that she had consented to the cohabitation, believing that she had been lawfully married to him, is totally, absent. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear to the factotum of their valid marriage performed at Maruthamalai temple. She had categorically stated in her evidence adduced on 11.10.1990, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam as hereunder:- The above piece of evidence clearly reveals that there is a lawful marriage existing in between the petitioner and P.W.1 and the cohabitation for four or five months as referred to by P.W. 1 in his examination could be only after this lawful marriage. Once the marriage was held to be valid and lawful, the charge for the offence under Section 420 ceases to exist. That was the reason why learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appeared before the trial Court must have filed an application for altering the charge into one under Section 493, I.P.C. However, both the Courts below have lost sight of an important aspect with regard to the materials as spelt out by P.W.1 relating to the valid marriage and subsequent cohabitation. From the above aspects, it is very clear, that the charge under Section 493, I.P.C. fails. There is no cross-examination on the part of the petitioner, who subsequently became her husband, with regard to the factum of marriage. The validity of the marriage has also not been questioned in any manner. On considering all the above materials, there is no difficulty in holding that there was a valid marriage held in Maruthamalai temple in between the petitioner and P.W.1 and thereby the petitioner was elevated to the status of husband of P.W.1. In view of the above conclusion, I cannot endorse the view of both the courts below, for conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C.

  3. In that view of the matter, the conviction and sentence imposed the petitioner for the offence under Section 493, I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted in respect of the above charge and the fine amount, if paid, by the petitioner is directed to be refunded to him. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. However it is open to P.W.1 Bhagawathiammal, the wife of the petitioner to proceed against the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. or to prosecute the petitioner under Section 494, I.P.C., if so advised.

UK based NRI arrested & old parents booked as his wife claimed “..beating for dowry..” 15 years after marriage :-( :-(

Married in 2003, with two kids aged 9 and 5, this NRI couple return to India for holidays. Wife files complaint to get entire in law’s family behind bars just “claiming” she was beaten for dowry , even though they are married for approx 15 years !!!

source : TIMES OF INDIA

NRI & parents held for beating wife over dowry | Rajkot News

rajkot

RAJKOT: A non-resident Indian (NRI) man, based in London was arrested on Tuesday after his wife lodged a complaint against him and his parents, accusing them of demanding dowry, as well as of mental and physical harassment.

Police arrested Rakshit Gandhi (40), booked his father Arvind Gandhi and mother Sarla Gandhi at Mahila police station in Rajkot following the complaint lodged by Rakshit’s wife Rushita (39) early this month. According to case details, Rushita and Rakshit had married in 2003 and have two children — a nine-year-old son and a daughter aged five.

Soon after marriage, Rushita left for London to live with Rakshit, who worked in a finance firm there. She too started working in a firm there. Her in-laws, Arvind and Sarla, used to frequently visit the couple in London. Rushita alleged in her complaint that initially her husband and in-laws used to mentally harass her by demanding dowry.
Later, they also started abusing her and even assaulting her physically. She alleged that her husband had even seized her passport so that she could not return to India. Police said that Rushita has also claimed that Rakshit took away her salary and gave her minimum amount for daily expenses. He did not even allow her to speak to her parents over phone. Rushita also mentioned one incident when she was beaten up after Rakshit caught her talking to her parents over phone.

About a month ago, the couple and their children came to Rajkot. Soon after arriving, Rushita left her husband and went to stay with her parents on Yagnik Road on July 28. She later lodged a complaint with the mahila police against her husband and in-laws. She alleged that her in-laws have also usurped the money and jewellery that her parents had given at the time of the marriage.

On hearing about the complaint, Rakshit and her parents threatened to kill her if she did not take back her complaint. Police sub-inspector N S Savaniya, who is investigating the case, said that they have arrested Rakshit and will be arresting the other accused soon.

Don’t rope in relatives in #Fake498a & other #Fake criminal cases! #498a & conspiracy 2 #kidnap kid filed on maternal uncles #quashed

//// 4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court.

..The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. ……////

SC_of_India_-_Retch

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1045 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016)

K. SUBBA RAO & ORS. …. Appellant(s)

Versus

THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ORS. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

  1. 1. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to the Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad on 20.12.2015 alleging harassment by her husband and his family members including the Appellants who are the maternal uncles of her husband. She also complained of the kidnapping of her son by the husband. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad on the same day. The Appellants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the crime registered pursuant to the complaint of Respondent No.2. The High Court dismissed the said petition by its judgment dated 22.01.2016. The Station House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad was directed not to arrest the Appellants till the completion of the investigation. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court by which the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by the Appellants was dismissed, they have filed the present appeal. https://bit.ly/2Mnll7H
  2. 2. A charge sheet was filed on 12.03.2017 under Sections 498A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC after completion of the investigation in Crime No.477 of 2015, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad. The Appellants are shown as A-4 to A- 6. As per the charge sheet, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 married on 08.12.2008 and were mostly residing in the United States of America. There was a marital discord between them. The allegations against the Appellants are that they were supporting the third Respondent/husband who was physically and mentally torturing the second Respondent. The Appellants also conspired with the third Respondent who kidnapped the child from the custody of the second Respondent and took him away to the U.S.A.
  3. 3. During the course of hearing, we enquired with the learned Counsel for the State of Telengana whether a supplementary charge sheet was being filed against the Appellants. He produced a copy of the supplementary charge sheet dated 20.12.2017.
  4. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court. https://bit.ly/2Mnll7H
  5. 5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 551.
  6. 6. The counsel for the second Respondent submitted that certain documents belonging to the second Respondent were seized from the Appellants which would show their active involvement in the kidnapping of her child. On an overall consideration of the contents of the charge sheet, supplementary charge sheet and the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made out against the Appellants for proceeding against them under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420 and 365 IPC.
  7. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015, dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC registered at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate.
  8. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

……………………………….J. [S.A. BOBDE]

……………………………….J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi,
August 21, 2018.