Article 36: The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)

The gist of this treaty is that:

Under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (VCCR), local authorities must notify all detained foreigners “without delay” of their right to have their consulate informed of their detention. At the request of the national, the authorities must then notify the consulate without delay, facilitate unfettered consular communication and grant consular access to the detainee. Consuls are empowered to arrange for their nationals’ legal representation and to provide a wide range of humanitarian and other assistance, with the consent of the detainee. Local laws and regulations must give “full effect” to the rights enshrined in Article 36. The USA ratified the VCCR without reservations in 1969; so fundamental is the right to consular notification and access that the US Department of State considers it to be required under customary international law in all cases, even if the detainee’s home country has not signed the VCCR. As of 1 January 2000, at least 167 countries were parties to the VCCR.

More information can be had from here: http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/nationalsInstruments.cfm

A copy of the treaty can be downloaded from the UN:  The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

________________________________________________________

SC: Magistrate Is Not A Silent Spectator – 1997

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to   examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

Here is the judgment:    Pepsi Foods vs Special Judicial Magistrate Nov 1997

_______________________________________________

CrPC Section 4, 188 And Extradition From The CBI’s Site

The CBI, describes action to be taken under section 188 as:

In case the fugitive criminal is an Indian national, action can also be taken under Section 188 Cr.P.C., 1973 as if the offence has been committed at any place in India at which he may be found. The trial of such a fugitive criminal can only take place with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

They omitted the part about the inquiry of the offence which is contained in the CrPC as described below:

188.Offence committed outside India.- When an offence is committed outside India –

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,

he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Please understand Section 4 of the CrPC as well:

Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-

4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.-

The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by

(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

(2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

Explanation.In this section the word offence includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code.

Illustration: A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may he found.

The CBI explains extradition at its website. Here is the link:

http://cbi.nic.in/interpol/extradition.php#mea

_________________________________________________

Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
“4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.-
The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence
committed by–
(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond
India;
(2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India
wherever it may be.
Explanation.–In this section the word “offence” includes
every act committed outside India which, if committed in
India, would be punishable under this Code.
Illustration
A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in
Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any
place in India in which he may he found.”

SC: Hubby Can’t Be Usual Suspect In Dowry Death

From DNA India:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1262380

New Delhi: The needle of suspicion does not necessarily point to husband and in-laws if a woman dies within a year or so of marriage, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled. It cannot be treated as cruelty for dowry and the in-laws cannot be convicted of causing dowry death, the court said.

The judgment came on an appeal by Suresh Kumar Singh who was sentenced to seven years by an UP court under IPC section 304-B (dowry death) for causing the death of wife Asha Devi on December 8, 1993. The Allahabad high court confirmed the sentence.
Asha’s family alleged that Singh and his parents had harassed her demanding gold ornaments a year ago and as such, they were to blame for her death.

SC, however, said as the alleged demand for dowry was made over a year prior to Asha’s death, it could not be considered cruelty leading to death.

“Harassment a year prior to the death without something more, in our opinion, could not have been considered cruelty inflicted soon before the death of the wife. It does not satisfy the proximity test,” justices SB Sinha and Mukandakam Sharma held, negating the prosecution’s assertion that in case of death of a married woman within seven years of marriage, husband and in-laws were liable to face the dowry death charge.

To invite conviction under section 304-B, it is necessary that “soon before her death”, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty by husband or his relatives in connection with dowry, SC said.

_______________________________________________

Bride And Kin In Dock For Giving Dowry, Filing 498A

This is an article from the Times Of India. Pasting an excerpt.

“But Sunil also went to court, seeking registration of an FIR against the girl and her family for fulfilling his dowry demands.
Citing the dowry prohibition Act which has a provision for punishment for giving dowry, Sunil moved court in August 2008, seeking action against his wife and in-laws under Section 156(3) CrPC as the police was refusing to register the FIR against the girl’s family for giving dowry. ”

The article is here

You can also read about how Advocate Pradeep Nawani did the same here:

Advocate Pradeep Nawani Nails The Wife, The In Laws And Corrupt Cops

_____________________________________________

Now, bride and kin in dock for dowry 7 Jun 2009, 0130 hrs IST, Smriti Singh, TNN

NEW DELHI: In the first such order in the capital, a trial court has asked the police to register an FIR against six members of a family, including the bride, for giving dowry to the groom’s family. There was trouble between Sunil and Latika (both names changed) just a year after they got married on January 31, 2004. Latika left for her maternal home on August 4, 2005 and filed a dowry harassment case against Sunil and his family with ACP, anti-dowry cell. She alleged that her family spent more than Rs 10 lakh on the marriage, and gave Rs 2 lakh in cash for a car and another Rs 1.15 lakh as dowry. A case was registered against Sunil and his family under Section 498(A), 406 and 34 of the IPC. But Sunil also went to court, seeking registration of an FIR against the girl and her family for fulfilling his dowry demands. Citing the dowry prohibition Act which has a provision for punishment for giving dowry, Sunil moved court in August 2008, seeking action against his wife and in-laws under Section 156(3) CrPC as the police was refusing to register the FIR against the girl’s family for giving dowry. In the petition filed through his counsel Pradeep Nawani, he asked that an FIR be registered against the girl and her family under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is punishable upto five years in jail with fine not less than Rs 15,000 or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Counsel Nawani also relied on a high court judgment which stated that the police should simultaneously register an FIR against the girl and her family for giving dowry. Metropolitan Magistrate Neeraj Gaur observed that giving dowry was a cognisable offence and directed the station house officer (SHO) of Model Town police station to register an FIR. The court also asked the SHO to set an investigation into motion against Latika and five other members of her family. // <![CDATA[ var zz=0;var sldsh=0; var bellyaddiv = ‘ ‘; var stindex=100; var stp=150; var taglen=0; var tmp; var tagcheck = new Array(“div”,”span”,”br”,”font”,”a”); var storycontent = document.getElementById(“storydiv”).innerHTML; var firstpara = storycontent.substring(0,storycontent.toLowerCase().indexOf(” “)).toLowerCase(); function findptt(cnt){ zz++; if(zz == 10)return; var xxx=-1,yyy=-1; var ccnt = cnt; for(ii=0; ii < tagcheck.length; ii++){ xxx = ccnt.indexOf(“<“+tagcheck[ii]); if(xxx != -1 && xxx < 150){ stp = stp; var tmp1 = ccnt.substring(ccnt.indexOf(“”); if(yyy != -1){ taglen += yyy; stp = stp + yyy; yyy+=1; } break; taglen = taglen + tagcheck[ii].length + 3; } } if(xxx == -1 || xxx >= 150){ return; }else{ var tmp2 = ccnt.substring(0,xxx); tmp2 += ccnt.substring((yyy+xxx),ccnt.length); findptt(tmp2); } }findptt(firstpara); if(firstpara.length <= taglen + 150){ stp = firstpara.length; } var tmpminus=0; var tmpcon = storycontent.substring(0,stp); if(tmpcon.lastIndexOf(“<“) “)){ }else{ tmpminus = tmpcon.length – tmpcon.lastIndexOf(“

Dowry Harassment (498A) Accused Raped In Lock Up

Here is the link to the story.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=c19091a0-e8db-4825-9f81-6f66a07ccf6c#

_______________________________

The Delhi Bar Association Issues A Fatwa: Opposes CrPC Amendments

Read this hilarious and  shameful fatwa.

The bar association is protesting the amendments to the CrPC.

You can read about that here as well as the real reasons for these protests:

CrPC Sec 41 Amendment Is The Law: Hopefully No More 498A Arrests

Here are the highlights of this fatwa that demonstrates the depths one can fall to. The main reason for the bar association to oppose the CrPC amendments is that it will lead to  a drastic drop in revenue  in the business of bails, especially those related to 498A bails.

Here is the pdf  of the original FATWA:

Delhi Bar Association Fatwa – Feb 09

________________________________________________

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:

• SC: Right to Speedy Trial Is a Fundamental Right

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.

_____________________________________________

The Supreme Court Whips The Indian Police Force-Lalita Kumari Orders-2008

Stating that officials in India understood only the “crack of a whip”, the apex court on Friday ordered that a policeman turning away a person without registering his complaint could face contempt of court charges and cool his heels in jail if he failed to justify non-registration of the FIR.

Here are the orders issued in the Lalita Kumari case. The scum, refused to help this lady whose daughter was missing. If this had been a 498A, they would have fallen over themselves to capture grandmothers sitting at home. The SC has provided the proper medicine.

The SC link is here, but I expect it to die soon.

You can find the orders here:

1. SC to DGPs and Chiefs Secys: SC Order To DGPs And State Chied Secys

2. Jail time for cops for not registering complaints: SC Order In Lalita Kumari Case-2008

As written before, the police are required to register and investigate a cognizable complaint.

I hope to see a few goons and criminals dressed in a police uniform, jailed under this order.

________________________________________________________________

Terrorist Bombings And 498A

As all of you know, our country has been rocked by bombings again .

The cops have been clueless as to who is behind these bombings and here is something to think about.

These morons in uniform had a significant time since the last set of bombings in Mumbai trains, to try and anticipate and prepare for the next round of terrorist attacks.

I can safely bet that after the initial round of media coverage was over and the last set of bombings faded from the front page, the criminal organisation, also known as the Indian police force (In the words of Justice AN Mulla), went back to business as usual, which included capturing and jailing grand mothers and women in their homes to extort money under ponzi schemes and extortion rackets such as 498A.

We need the appointment of officers like Delhi Police Commissioner YS Dadwal around the country if the Indian Police are serious about combating this menace.

Will they police learn from their past mistakes? Will we ever know who was really behind these bombings ? Will the Indian police force ever learn to truly understand the purpose of their existence and hunt down these terrorists instead of grandmothers living in their homes ?

Shame of these grandmother capturing heroes!!

__________________________________

The 498A Final Report Of Filmstar Prashanth

Prashant 498a Final Report (pdf)

I wrote the 498A Survivor’s Guide as a means to help people defend themselves when caught up in this extortion racket known as Section 498A, IPC. Months after writing it, I was plagued by doubts about whether it was fulfilling its purpose.

In July of 2007 I heard about a 498A case being filed against film actor Prashanth and his family. I read that they had asked the media to spread the word about the survivor’s guide to 498a as it had inspired them to fight. The feedback I received from Prashanth’s case that led me to push on with my efforts.

A few weeks ago, I heard that a final report was submitted and Prashant’s 498A case closed by the Chennai Police as a case of “MISTAKE OF FACT”.

In effect, the Police force has demonstrated that they can investigation.

When a 498A case is registered, there is a rush by the police to shakedown the victims under the pretext of a compromise. If the victims can’t or won’t pay up, the FIR with its litany of lies is transformed into a chargesheet verbatim and filed in unregulated, overburdened and increasingly corrupt trial courts. I have heard of very few instances when the allegations in the FIR were investigated and a final report being filed — closing the case as one without merit. Click here for the flowchart that will give you an idea about how a final report is filed.

It is very likely that Prashanth’s 498A case was investigated into as he and his family chose to fight. It is also likely that the police investigated the allegations as the normal route of transforming an FIR into a chargesheet would have invited scrutiny and brickbats from SIF volunteers .

I had a few reasons for uploading Prashanth’s final report:

• To show ordinary folks that something called a final report exists.
• To show them what it looks like, in order to enable them to ask for the same and get the police to INVESTIGATE along the lines of Prashant’s 498A final report.
• To enable those already chargesheeted to have their cases re-investigated. This can be done by filing RTIs on the investigation conducted by the police. The RTI can be based on this final report. The results of the RTI can be used to petition the police higher ups.
• To enable ordinary citizens to demand that they be treated equally and that an investigation into a criminal case is not just meant for the famous, the well heeled or the well connected.
• To raise questions about the investigations, if any, conducted in 498A cases. There are over 60,000 498A cases filed per year, yet the rate of conviction, as per Ranjana Kumari’s organisation is just 2% (Click here for the CSR study on 498a).
• How did all these cases end up in trial courts? How many of them were truly investigated? How many final reports were filed? Why is there is such a discrepancy in this ratio?

In Prashanth’s case, the final report is 30 pages long, double spaced, and include the allegations.. I will upload the FIR as soon as I get my hands on it. I have read a few FIRs and they all seem to come from a single template. Here are some of the common allegations listed in these FIRs including mine:

• In-laws preventing the bride from contacting her family – invariably the phone is taken away.
• Demand for dowry before and after the marriage, and non fulfillment of the demand leading to physical and mental harassment.
• The bride being thrown out of the matrimonial home with just the clothes on her body.
• The in-laws locking up the bride in a room.

Here are a few excerpts from the final report. :

• She was subjected to dental check up and the dentist certified her teeth were in good condition.
• She further complained that soon after the marriage, when she went to her in-laws house, Mr.Prashanth’s bedroom was not ready and the toilet was very worse. She was forced to stay in the living room. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass her for not bringing enough jewellery, sarees and Dowry. Servants were not allowed to wash her clothes and to clean her toilet.
• Whenever her in-laws leave the house, she was locked inside the house and the watchman was informed not to open the door.
• She stated that since her passport was not returned to her, she could not take her ailing father abroad for best medical treatment, thereby she had lost her father and alleged that her father died only because of Mr.Prashanth. Hence she filed this complaint to punish her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law for the dowry demand, cruelty and harassment and also requested to return the valuable items left at her matrimonial house.

Here is the final report of Prashanth’s 498A case.

Prashant 498a Final Report (pdf)

______________________________________________________

NCRB: Over 1,30,000 Women Arrested Under 498A Since 2004

Over 1,30,000 Women Have Been Arrested Under Section 498A Since 2004.

I pulled the data from the NCRB annual publications on Crime In India. You can find this data under the tables section, specifically, TABLE-12.2,  Persons Arrested Under IPC Crimes (Crime Head-Wise And Gender-Wise). Links to these tables are given below:

• Crime in India 2007
• Crime In India 2006
• Crime In India 2005
• Crime In India 2004

The NCRB compiled data from the above links is given below and highlighted in yellow:

• NCRB DATA On Women Arrested Under 498A-Since-2004

The next thing to look at are the number of Final Reports that were submitted. The data below gives you the true picture of what the police have been doing. The 498A cases are highlighted in yellow.

Disposal Of IPC Cases By Police (NCRB) 2004-2006

Why is there such a large discrepancy in the ratio of cases closed with a final report to those which were charge sheeted ? It is obvious that the police aren’t doing their work. And why would they, these women were easy pickings for these hyenas. All they had to do was swoop in and scoop up these women, ignoring their rights against arbitrary arrest. These women include young  girls to grandmothers.

To truly understand the scope of this egregious act by the Govt Of India, here is some data from the days of the British raj.

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.

The Govt of India, under the sway of the radical feminists of India, has been arresting over 27,000 women/year of all ages since 2004. In all these cases, these women, including nursing mothers, little girls and grandmothers, were arrested without an investigation into the veracity of the complaints filed.

The Indian police know about the abuse of this law as they are the primary beneficiaries of this extortion racket.

The Indian courts know this this too. The Higher judiciary is cleaner than the lower judiciary, which is nothing short of a sewer, that people entangled in this mess fall into.

Worse, officials and agencies of The Govt Of India know about it. I quote:

• The idea should be to see how the police system works, the concerned official out there should not lodge an FIR and arrest the groom and his side before investigating. These kind of shortcuts are mainly tainting the image of the prevailing law. The way uncles, aunts are also humiliated is not fair, we agree that they should not be booked until a full-proof investigation is carried out. Instead of amending the law we should try to improve our police system and investigating procedure. –Spokesperson Of The NCW, 14 /Jan /2007, TOI Article: “NRIs cry foul over IPC 498A, dowry law”
• I object to this exploitation of the law. It is wrong to misuse the law. The law is for those who need it. -Union Minister For WCD, Renuka Chaudhary, on the Arjun Singh 498A episode.

So why isn’t this law amended to at least introduce some checks and balances to prevent its abuse?

The answer lies in the fact that this whole thing is a profitable venture for all concerned, including internationally funded NGOs like CSR

Finally, take a look at total number of people arrested under this law.

Total Arrests Under 498A Since 2004 (NCRB)

There are more people arrested under this law than those accused of MURDER!

It is the families, especially women, who get caught up in this extortion racket who pay for the perfidy of this establishment !

Shame !!! Shame !! Shame !!

________________________________

SC Explains The Applicability Of Section 498A In A Judgment – 2007

Here is the SC judgment of Srinivasulu Vs State Of AP – 2007, which explains the applicability of 498A. The accused were finally acquitted of all charges by the SC after the HC and the morons in the lower court failed to see the reality.

An excerpt:

11. Section 498A reads as follows:

“498A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation For the purpose of this section ‘cruelty’ means

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

12. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the Explanation for the purpose of Section 498A.

Here is the judgment:  SC Explains The Applicability Of Section 498A In A Judgment

_____________________________________________________________________

Afaf Nassar Khalifa Vs Michael Shannon

This is for NRIs who had their kids taken away by their embittered spouses to their home countries.

Here is the pdf of the document: Afaf Nassar Khalifa Vs Michael Shannon

Here is the link to the news article from the Baltimore Sun

I sourced this from this blog: Parental Abduction is Child Abuse

_________________________________________________

Instructions On Filing Complaints With The NHRC

Here is the link with instructions on how to file complaints with the NHRC in the event that you are victims of highhanded behavior of govt agencies such as the corrupt Indian police force.

This link details: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Guidelines On Arrest

The NHRC is a toothless tiger and I consider filing a complaint with it to be a waste of time, but all the same, what does one have to lose?.

The document below is the complaint form and contains instructions on how to file the complaint:

http://nhrc.nic.in/Documents/Compformat.pdf

Guidelines on how to file complaint with the NHRC:
1. Complaint may be made to the Commission by the victim or any other person on his behalf.
2. Complaint should be in writing either in English or Hindi or in any other language included in the eighth schedule of the Constitution. Only one set of complaint needs to be submitted to the Commission.
3. Complaint may be sent either by Post or Faxed at Nos. 91-11-23382911/ 23382734 or through e-mail covdnhrc@nic.in
4. No fee is chargeable on such complaints.
5. The complaint shall disclose i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof or; (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violations, by a public servant.
6. The jurisdiction of the Commission is restricted to the violation of human rights alleged to have been committed within one year of the receipt of complaint by the Commission.
7. Documents, if any enclosed in support of the allegations in the complaint must be legible.
8. Name of the victim, his/ her age, sex, religion/ caste, State and District to which the incident relates, incident date etc. should invariably be mentioned in the complaint.
9. Please submit the complaint preferably in the enclosed format.
10. Following types of Complaint(s) are not ordinarily entertainable:
i. Illegible
ii. Vague, anonymous or pseudonymous;
iii. Trivial or frivolous in nature;
iv. The matters which are pending before a State Human Rights Commission or any other Commission;
v. Any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed;
vi. Allegation is not against any public servant;
vii. The issue raised relates to civil dispute, such property rights, contractual obligations, etc;
viii. The issue raised relates to service matters;
ix. The issue raised relates to labour/industrial disputes;
x. Allegations do not make out any specific violation of human rights;
xi. The matter is sub-judice before a Court/ Tribunal;
xii. The matter is covered by judicial verdict/decision of the Commission.
11. As far as possible complainants are encouraged to make use of the format given above to file their complaints. The guidelines indicate the kind of information, which would facilitate in processing a complaint.

_______________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Clarifies Issues Of Jurisdiction In An NRI 498A Case- Jan 2008

Here is another gem from Justice SN Dhingra of the Delhi HC, involving issues of jurisdiction in an NRI 498A case.

This judgment explains the law governing issues of jurisdiction in criminal cases.

The 498A wives or their parents have been filing cases in their home towns and hauling entire families to court in their backyard, where there is a lot of scope for manipulation and harassment. They do this to cause a lot of hardship and people have settled, unable to bear the harassment.

This judgment, will hopefully put an end to this practice by elaborating on the law governing jurisdiction. Womens groups have been trying to change this, so far unsuccessfully.

You can read about their nonsensical arguments and their refutation here:

Jurisdiction is where “she” says it is.

justice Dhingra, has yet again, delivered us from evil !

Here is an excerpt from this judgment:

12. Cr.P.C. specifically provides for the jurisdiction of Police Stations regarding registration of FIR and investigation of case. The FIR can be registered even if a part of the crime has taken place within the jurisdiction of that Police Station. If the crime is spread over the various Police Stations, then FIR can be registered at any of the Police Station within which the crime has taken place. Crime cannot be registered on the basis of residence of the complainant or the residence of the father of the complainant or the effect of the crime. If the murder is committed in Delhi and the effect is that the wife of the deceased living at Mumbai has become widow, the crime cannot be registered at Mumbai Neither if the alleged matrimonial atrocities have been committed in Delhi, the crime can be registered in Patna in respect of those atrocities because the parents of the wife were living in Patna. In the present case, the wife had either lived in Delhi or in USA. She had contested her divorce petition in USA and had made allegations of cruelties done on her in USA. Thus, place of crime was either Delhi or USA and FIR could have been registered either in Delhi or in USA.
11. In view of above discussion the petitions are allowed to the extent that FIR No. 0188/02, P.S. Digha, Patna, Bihar registered against the petitioners in respect of offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act be transferred by the Police of Patna to Commissioner of Police, Delhi, who shall mark it to the appropriate Police Station for further investigation and action. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

Here is news coverage in the Indian Express about this judgment: Justice Dhingra On Jurisdiction

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Settles Jurisdiction In NRI 498A – Jan 2008

Here is an earlier post about issues of jurisdiction:

Understanding Issues Of Jurisdiction In A 498A Case

____________________________________________________