Here are several judgments by Justice Dhingra since his return. He clearly defines the powers of the Crimes Against Women (CAW) cells and maintains that the proceeding before the CAW cell are reconciliatory and voluntary only. The CAW cells have no power to take coercive action. The proceedings of these cells are not judicial or quasi-judicial nor can they issue summons to appear before it. That power remains with the judiciary. With these judgments, Justice Dhingra has effectively ended the tyranny of these corrupt CAW cells.
Here is the news from the Tribune.
There is an earlier judgment about the CAW cells, again by the Delhi HC.
Here is the judgment on the Jasbir Kaur Vs State, Delhi HC - 2006.
I quote:
“Police Headquarter framed the procedure to be followed by the C.A.W. Cell with the intention of preventing abuse of the process of law. But in this case police committed abuse of the process established by its Commissioner. No attempt was made to resolve the difference between Manoj Kumar and respondent No.5 nor efforts were made to bring about amicable settlement for which purpose Crime Against Women Cell was created. This cell is meant to safeguard the marriage and not to ruin it by registering case immediately on the asking of the complainant. Once an FIR is registered it becomes difficult to solve matrimonial tangles and things reaches such a pass that it cannot be restored back”
Here are some articles about CAW:
- Cell for Crime Against Women
- Training Workshop for Police Personnel By Delhi Commission For Women. Please read the recommendations for the CAW cell. They are asking for the disbandment of the CAW cell.
- Confusion about the powers of the CAW cell
- Looks like the Chandigarh police have gotten it right
Finally, here are the short and concise judgments of Justice Dhingra on the Delhi CAW cells.
NOTE: I thank the volunteer from Delhi who has been helping me with gathering these judgments.
_________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
13.08.2007
Present: Mr. Vinay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
Crl. M. No.9052/2007 and W.P. (Crl.)1045/2007
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the conversation recorded by the petitioner between father of the petitioner and the father of the respondent should be heard by the CAW Cell and should be made part of the investigation. I consider that CAW Cell has no power to investigate the crime. It is not a police station where FIRs are registered. Investigation in any crime can be done only after registration of FIR. CAW Cell only makes reconciliatory efforts between the parties that also up to the stage of pre- registration of FIR. The investigation can also be done by CAW Cell if it is referred to it after registration of FIR. Since no FIR has been registered in this case, no directions can be given to CAW Cell for investigation. The petition is infructuous and is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
August 13, 2007
______________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
10.08.2007
Present: Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for State with
Ms. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. Akshai Malik, Adocates
W.P. (Crl.) No.1032/2007 and Crl.M.A.No. 8989/07
It is stated by the counsel for petitioner that CAW Cell was threatening the petitioner for appearance. It is made clear that CAW Cell has no authority to secure the presence of any person either by coercion or by threat. CAW Cell is only a conciliatory body where efforts are made for conciliation with the free will of the parties. If any person is not willing to go to CAW Cell, he cannot be compelled. It is also directed that CAW Cell, in future, instead of issuing summons to the parties shall send request letters asking them to appear for the purpose of conciliation and not for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is at liberty not to appear before CAW Cell. No threat or coercive steps shall be taken by the CAW Cell. No further direction can be given by the Court in respect of respondent No. 5, who according to the petitioner has refused to accompany him. It is alleged that she was living under the influence of her parents. Earlier when she appeared in this Court, she was living with the petitioner. She refused to meet her parents at that time. If the respondent is such an immature lady that when she comes under the influence of petitioner, she refuses to meet her parents and next time when she comes under the influence of her parents, she refuses to meet the petitioner, the Court cannot help the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in above terms.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
August 10, 2007
____________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
07.08.2007
Present: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for the state with
Mr. Ahshal Mehtra, Advocate
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1009/2007
Issue notice of the petition to the respondents returnable for 17th January, 2008. Notice is accepted by the Standing Counsel of the State. Crl.M. A. No. 8813/07 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1009/2007.
The parties were referred to CAW Cell where CAW Cell after making enquiries, came to the conclusion that it was not a case of cruelty or harassment on the part of the husband. The CAW Cell recommended a Closure Report saying that no case is made out against the husband or family of the husband. After this recommendation, respondent no. 2 made an application under Section 156(3) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate without giving any reason as to why he considered that a case was made out, ordered for registration of an FIR. I consider that it is a fit case where operation of the order can be stayed. The operation of the order dated 3rd August, 2007 wrongly mentioned as dated 30th July, 2007 is stayed. Trial Court record be called.
Dasti.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA. J.
August 07, 2007
_________________
Here is the second judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
07.08.2007
Present: Mr.R.P. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate for the State.
W.P. (Crl.) No.849/2007
Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner for dropping of proceedings pending before the CAW Cell, Amar Colony against the petitioner and his family members on the ground that the complainant wife has already made a complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. Her allegations made before the Metropolitan Magistrate and CAW Cell are ditto.
CAW Cell is an agency created to make efforts for reconciliation between the families before initiation of criminal proceedings on the complaint of the wife. The petitioner is at liberty not to appear before the CAW Cell. No coercive action can be taken by the CAW Cell, compelling an unwilling person to put in appearance before it. CAW Cell can conduct proceedings only where both the parties are ready and willing to join the proceedings voluntarily.
I consider that there is no reason for the Court to pass any order in respect of proceedings before the CAW Cell as these proceedings are not judicial or quasi-judicial nor proceedings in the investigation of the crime. They are only reconciliatory proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty not to join the proceedings before CAW Cell.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed as such.
Dasti.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA. J.
August 07, 2007
_________________________________________
One of the obvious question that comes out from these two judgements is that since “CAW cell’s power are for reconcilliationary purposes and they can not summon a paty to appear befoe them”, the question that judge considers while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of the husband “if husband and other family members are cooperating in the investigation?” doesn’t arise. Since its our own will that if we want to make reconcilliation efforts in CAW cell we can refuse to the IO’s call. Am i right in my interpretation?
In my case,if a petitioner is a daughter of police person,and caw cell IO’S pressurising the husband and his family to reconcile without any investigation and harrass the whole family to do whatever his staff person and her daughter saying.they made a false case of sec 17(151)in CAW cell and arrest the husband and his brother whole night without any reason and false complain made by them with help of IO.This is done to create problem at the time of applying for anticipatory bail and showing that conduct of husband and his family was bad.No one is helping the family and tourcher the whole family to kill and arresting in other false cases.she took her all goods and jewellery with her and now she is giving list of approx. 25 lakhs as a dowry items list and the CAW cell people pressuring to give that amount to her,otherwise they will make F.I.R and made a strong case and arrest the whole family and caught them in jail for long time.they are not doing investigation about list and comlpain,they only tourcher the innocent family because she is a daughter of their staff person.TELL ME WHAT TO DO?
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO CAN HELP US
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO CAN LISTEN OUR VOICE
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO SAVE OUR LIFE
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO GUIDE US AND GIVE US RELIEF.
What if the boy’s family is not ready to come or not intrested in any negotitaions??
I think the CAW at the behest of the girl, can file a FIR converting the complaint into a Court case, and fight on behalf of the complainant.
However, under NO circumstances, can either the CAW or any other body, FORCE a negotiation. That judgement or action - is the preview of the Honourable Courts only.