Archive for August 16th, 2008

Judgments To Fight Accusations Under Domestic Violence Act

Here are a few citations that will allow you to win DV Act cases.

Before you get into that, read the FAQ compiled by the mother of the flawed DV Act, Indira Jaising and her crooked cohorts of the Lawyers Collective:

Lawyer’s Collective FAQ On PWDVA – 2007

The DV Act is touted as a civil law and a “second chance” by the likes of Indira Jaising. But the fine print says that the proceedings are to be conducted as in criminal cases.

In effect, like all the other things touted by these Feminazis, this is a pernicious law designed to bypass the higher requirements of proof needed for criminal cases like 498A. It is designed to be a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. If you don’t adhere to the orders of a magistrate who is required to pass protection orders for immediate relief, this civil case turns into a criminal case for contempt and then you are really screwed. What makes this law so pernicious is that unlike 498A, which hinges on the sheer terror unleashed by corrupt Indian Police officers to cow the victims, this case can deprive you of the sanctuary offered by your home and can have the entire family tossed out on the street.

I will compile all the judgment related to the DV act here.  If anyone has new judgments, please leave a comment or paste the judgment below in the comments section.

Please start by reading this judgment of Justice Dhingra given below. He interprets Batra Vs Batra and also explains the meaning and rights of shared household and matrimonial home:

Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household

If you face the false and fabricated Domestic Violence act, you must know the following:

Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held

“It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court”.

I finally got my hands on this judgment thanks to Aejaz_legal, a reader who posted this judgment:

To understand this principle, read this article:

Here is the judgment:

https://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/mp-hc-women-cant-be-respondents-in-dv-act-2007.pdf

Here is another judgment from the Chennai HC stating the same:

https://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/chennai-hc-dv-act-to-be-filed-only-against-male.pdf

Here is the Kapil Rastogi Judgment – Jan/2009, stating the same:

Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi: DV Case – 2009

  • 2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held “as there is no claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law”.  I am missing the judgment:
  • I (2007) DMC 1 (SC) = 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1(SC) delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where in it was held”claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband but not to the In-laws”.

Here is the judgment:  SC judgment, Batra Vs Batra, 2007.

  • Shaleen Kabra DV Act Judgment:  You can read about this story here: A Delhi additional sessions court has ruled that allegations of domestic violence need to be proved and victims need to face cross-examination and provide evidence in support of their charges to be liable for relief. This ruling was upheld by the Delhi High Court. This is marked in red as this blows a hole in the DV Act. The judgments are given below:

PMO Official Accused Of Domestic Violence By Wife

  • Suraj Prakash Vs Sushila. Can anyone translate this and post this as a comment? You’ll be doing the rest of the victims of this filthy act a huge favor.

Here is the judgment (Hindi): Suraj Prakash Vs Sushil DV Act – 2007

Here is the very interesting judgment: Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

  • Sonia Vs Vinod: “A CITY court has dismissed a petition of a woman against her family members on finding she was harassing them, misusing the Domestic Violence Act in the process. Dismissing the complaint, Metropolitan Magistrate Shahabuddin said, “I am prima facie of the considered opinion that the complainant is not cooperating with her in-laws. She prima facie appears to be harassing them on trivial matters”. Complainant Sonia had approached the court in August, alleging her husband Vinod and his mother and sisters used to physically harass her for bringing insufficient dowry The court, however, declined to allow her complaint, asking a number of relief s, including right to residence. “The woman failed to satisfy this court that her husband or any of his other family members had really committed any domestic violence against her”.

Here is the judgment:  Sonia Vs Vinod: Domestic Violence Case

Also, check out Vinayaks blog, link is given below. He has some tips to fight the DV Act:

General Suggestions for victims of DV act

________________________________________

Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases

Here are the orders of Justice Gambhir. You can read about him here and I very well consider him to be the next Justice Dhingra.

These guidelines follow the Commissioner YS Dadwal order prohibiting 498A arrests in Delhi.

Delhi Police: No 498A Arrests Without DCP’s Permission

There won’t be hordes of radical feminists attacking Justice Gambhir for these guidelines, as they risk being exposed and ridiculed by Indian bloggers affected by 498A.

More later. I’ve been working many hours in my new job and I have been sick since yesterday. Trying to wrap up as many pending posts as possible.

Here is the judgment: Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases

The guidelines are given below:

Guidelines:
1. Social workers/NGO
There is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility the hapless children are the worst victims. Before a wife moves to file a complaint with the Women Cell, a lot of persuasion and conciliation is required.
(a) The Delhi Legal Service Authority, National Commission for Women, NGOs and social workers working for upliftment of women should set up a desk in crime against women cell to provide them with conciliation services, so that before the State machinery is set in motion, the matter is amicably settled at that very stage. But, if ultimately even after efforts put by the social workers reconciliation seems not possible then the matter should be undertaken by the police officials of Crime against Women cell and there also, serious efforts should be made to settle the matter amicably.
2. Police Authorities:
(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Standing Order No. 330/2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest in the dowry cases registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and the said guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police strictly and scrupulously.
(i) No case under Section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl. DCP.
(ii) Arrest of main accused should be made only after thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.
(iii) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law etc should only be made after prior approval of DCP on file.
(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well behaved staff in all the crime against women cells especially the lady officers, all well equipped with the abilities of perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance.
(c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine manner.
(d) The endeavor of the Police should be to scrutinize complaints very carefully and then register FIR.
(e) The FIR should be registered only against those persons against whom there are strong allegations of causing any kind of physical or mental cruelty as well as breach of trust.
(f) All possible efforts should be made, before recommending registration of any FIR, for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of settlement, then necessary steps in the first instance be taken to ensure return of stridhan and dowry articles etc. by the accused party to the complainant.
3. Lawyers:
Lawyers also have a great responsibility in this regard.
(a) While drafting pleadings/complaints, the lawyers should not unnecessarily suggest incorporation of wild allegations, or in character assassination of any of the parties or their family members whatever the case may be.
(b) Lawyers are also to endeavor to bring about amicable settlement between the parties as they are expected to discharge sacred duty as social engineers in such cases instead of making them target for monetary considerations by multiplying their cases.
4. Courts:
Subordinate courts, be it trying civil or criminal cases concerning bail, maintenance, custody, divorce or other related matters shall in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.
a) The first endeavor should be for possible reunion and restitution of the parties and as a last endeavor to bring about peaceful separation.
b) If possible extra time should be devoted to such matters to restore peace in the lives of rival parties be it by re-uniting them or even in case of their parting ways.
c) Conciliatory proceedings by the court should preferably be held in camera to avoid embarrassment.
d) Wherever, the courts are overburdened with the work, necessary assistance of Mediation and Conciliation cells should be sought.
Apart from above directions it would not be out of place to ask parties also to themselves adopt a conciliatory approach without intervention of any outside agency and unless there are very compelling reasons, steps for launching prosecution against any spouse or his/her in-laws be not initiated just in a huff, anger, desperation or frustration.

________________________________________________________________

Protected: Rajesh Motwani Shows Us How To Win A Maintenance Case

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

SC: Right To Speedy Trial Includes Lengthy Police Investigations

The SC had declared that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right. You can read about that here:

In this judgment from 2008, they brought lengthy police investigations under the purview of this right. This judgment assumes significance in 498A cases, including mine.

The gist of this judgment is that:

“It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time for conclusion of trial.”

Here is the judgment: SC: Right To Speedy Trials Includes Lengthy Police Investigations-2008

Click the link below for a judgment in a case that dragged on for 8 years until everyone involved became exhausted, compromised and wrapped it up. Here is the link: Subu Vs Jayanthi

Here is an excerpt of the news coverage:

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: In a significant enlargement of the scope of ‘right to speedy trial’, the Supreme Court has ruled that it applied not only to snail-paced trial court proceedings but also to lengthy police probes. This means if the police drag on an investigation without producing prima facie evidence, the accused would now have the right to move court for quashing the FIR. “It is well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigation as well,” a bench of Justices C K Thakker and D K Jain said in a recent judgment. This ruling would be applicable to cases pending before the police, CBI, DRI, income-tax and customs authorities as the court clarified that the right to speedy trial, now equally applicable to trial court proceedings as well as police investigations, extended to “all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases”. This clarification assumes significance as the higher courts have always treated lightly the complaints of harassment from those accused of petty offences while giving attention only to prominent cases or those involving heinous crimes.

Justice Jain, writing the judgment for the bench, said: “In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case.” And if the accused is able to prove that his right to speedy trial had been a casualty in the lengthy trial or long pending investigation, the higher courts could quash the case and even the conviction recorded by the lower courts, the bench said.

But, the ruling came with a rider saying that even if there was inordinate delay in the trial or police probe, the case might not be quashed if the court came to the conclusion that doing so would not be in public interest.

_____________________________________________


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,290,434

Cluster Map

Live Traffic

Archives

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
August 2008
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

%d bloggers like this: