Archive for the '498A News' Category

Supreme Court of India: No Automatic Arrests in 498A Cases


here is the judgment that made waves over the last few days. I’ll have more to say later, but for the moment, here is the judgment from the Supreme Court’s website:

Here are links to the judgement:

I hoped that Ranjana Kumari and the Indian commie dimwits will keep this peace, but I should have known better. They are back peddling their bullshit again, opposing this judgment. You can read about what they have to say here:

I will have a few things to say about the stand of these dimwits later.


Supreme Court of India
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose





(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)





Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine.

Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no.2 Sweta Kiran. The marriage between them was solemnized on 1st July, 2007. His attempt to secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence he has knocked the door of this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition.

Leave granted.

In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife against the appellant is that demand of Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellant’s notice, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court.

There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics. published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.

Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.

Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest. As the offence with which we are concerned in the present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine, Section 41(1)(b), Cr.PC which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:

“41. When police may arrest without warrant.-(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person –

(a)x x x x x x

(b)against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely :-

(i) x x x x x

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary “

to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

for proper investigation of the offence; or

to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or

to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or

as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured,

and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:

Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

X x x x x x

From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. In pith and core, the police office before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.

An accused arrested without warrant by the police has the constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey. During the course of investigation of a case, an accused can be kept in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only when it is authorised by the Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.PC. The power to authorise detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. Our experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner. Before a Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused. The Magistrate before authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducement etc., the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of which the police officer had reached its conclusion. Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorising the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused. In fine, when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny.

Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused requires to be vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as follows:

“41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.

Aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.

We are of the opinion that if the provisions of Section 41, Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest an accused without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will substantially reduce. We would like to emphasise that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.

Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

We direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.

By order dated 31st of October, 2013, this Court had granted provisional bail to the appellant on certain conditions. We make this order absolute.

In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order dated 31st October, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid.






July 2, 2014.

SC Explains Section 188 – Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P

Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. through Principal Secretary


1. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2008, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008 dismissing the Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 pending before the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki. This case raises certain interesting questions of law and to appreciate the same, some of the facts are required to be reproduced.

2. The Petitioner, Thota Venkateswarlu, was married to the Respondent No.2, Parvathareddy Suneetha, on 27th November, 2005, as per Hindu traditions and customs in the Sitharama Police Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. At the time of marriage 12 lakhs in cash, 45 sovereigns of gold and 50,000/- as Adapaduchu Katnam is alleged to have been given to the Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the husband, the mother-in-law and other relatives of the husband. According to the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner left India for Botswana in January 2006 without taking her along with him. However, in February, 2006, the Respondent No.2 went to Botswana to join the Petitioner. While in Botswana, the Respondent No.2 is alleged to have been severely ill-treated by the Petitioner and apart from the above, various demands were also made including a demand for additional dowry of 5 lakhs.

On account of such physical and mental torture not only by the Petitioner/husband, but also by his immediate relatives, who continued to demand additional dowry by way of phone calls from India, the Respondent No.2 addressed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, from Botswana and the same was registered as Case (Crl.) No.25 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 506 Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’ for short) together with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986, by the Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station, on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District. Upon investigation into the complaint filed by the Respondent No.2, the Inspector of Police, Medarametla, filed a charge-sheet in CC No.307 of 2007 in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki, Prakasam District, under Sections 498-A and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioner and his father, mother and sister, who were named as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid case and by his order dated 19th February, 2007, ordered issuance of summons against the accused.

3. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was questioned by the Petitioner and the other co-accused before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3629 and 2746 of 2008 respectively and a prayer was made for quashing of the same under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court by its order dated 27th August, 2008, allowed Criminal Petition No.2746 of 2008 filed by the Accused Nos.2 to 4 and quashed the proceedings against them. However, Criminal Petition No.3629 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed. The present Special Leave Petition is directed against the said order of the High Court rejecting the Petitioner’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and declining to quash Complaint Case No.307 of 2007 initiated against him.

4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner before this Court have raised certain important questions which warrant the attention of this Court.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that as will appear from the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh on 22nd March, 2007, no grounds had been made out therein to continue with the proceedings in India, having regard to the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C., which provides as follows :- “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.”

6. Learned counsel urged that Section 188 Cr.P.C. recognizes that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he would have to be dealt with as if such offence had been committed in any place within India at which he may be found. Learned counsel, however, laid stress on the proviso which indicates that no such offence could be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government [Emphasis Supplied]. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of an offence committed outside India, the same could not be proceeded with without previous sanction of the Central Government and that, accordingly, even if any of the offences was allegedly committed inside India, trial in respect of the same could continue, but the trial in respect of the offences committed outside India could not be continued, without the previous sanction of the Central Government.

7. On behalf of the Respondents it was urged that a part of the alleged offences relating to the Dowry Prohibition Act did appear to have arisen in India, even at the initial stage when various articles, including large sums of cash and jewellery were given in dowry by the father of the Respondent No.2. It was submitted that since a part of the cause of action had arisen in India on account of alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1968, the learned Magistrate trying the said complaint could also try the other offences alleged to have been committed outside India along with the said offences. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 609], wherein it had been held that obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government was not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences, since sanction could be obtained before trial begins.

8. The question which we have been called upon to consider in this case is whether in respect of a series of offences arising out of the same transaction, some of which were committed within India and some outside India, such offences could be tried together, without the previous sanction of the Central Government, as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

9. From the complaint made by the Respondent No.2 in the present case, it is clear that the cases relating to alleged offences under Section 498-A and 506 I.P.C. had been committed outside India in Botswana, where the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 were residing. At best it may be said that the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in India and could, therefore, be tried by the Courts in India without having to obtain the previous sanction of the Central Government. However, we are still left with the question as to whether in cases where the offences are alleged to have been committed outside India, any previous sanction is required to be taken by the prosecuting agency, before the trial can commence.

10. The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal’s case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows :-

“29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one – commission of an offence; second by an Indian citizen; and third — that it should have been committed outside the country.”Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal’s case (supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C.

The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of Section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be required before the trial could commence.

11. Accordingly, upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required.

12. It may also be indicated that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof. Accordingly, offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

13. Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision to reject the petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007, we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

14. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

………………………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

………………………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

New Delhi,

Dated: 02.09.2011.


India Today’s Coverage Of The SIFF Shimla Meet -2009

India Today covered the SIFF National meet in Simla. You can download the pdf here:

IT-SIFF-Coverage (pdf)

Here are the pictures of the SIF activists:

Here is snapshot of the stats printed by India Today


Here is the coverage of the SIFF Shimla meet:

National Meet - India Today 1

National Meet - India Today 2


Techie Commits Suicide In Bangalore Jail Due To 498A

Click Here For The 498A Survival Kit

It is with sadness that I am posting this.

A techie committed suicide in Bangalore, apparently due to the harassment meted out to him. The 498A was allegedly filed after the divorce took place six months ago.  As usual an idiotic magistrate approved his arrest.

Following the posting of this news at, a person named Nandini, purportedly the ex-wife, made a comment on the Supari article. If this Nandini was his ex-wife, here is my question — how did she get to, a little known site, so fast and with such a perfect  sob story?

More questions. If Nandini was being subjected to cruelty by her now deceased husband, why did she have a baby with him in the first place. I didn’t have a kid with my ex-wife as I realized the evil she represented, and I didn’t want to gift my child with a mother like her. I think the same principle applies here in Nandini’s case — if her allegations about her husband are true.

Why didn’t she seek help and counseling? Maybe, just maybe, the guy  may have needed professional help. And what did he get? — a 498A six months after a divorce !

Hmm… !, Nandini is quite a grieving little ex-wife, isn’t she?

For the moment, I’m sticking this post to the front page.

Here is Nandini’s comment from followed by the coverage in the times of India.


Coverage from TOI:


SC: No Irrelevant Conditions For Wife’s Maintenance For Granting Bail

Will uplaod the judgment as soon as I find it:


Dated : 01-03-2009

Sourece : UNI

Delhi :


The Supreme Court has held that while granting anticipatory bail,
courts cannot impose irrelevant conditions on the husband such as
directing him to pay maintenance, along with arrears, to the wife.

A bench comprising Justices R V Raveedran and J M Panchal allowed the
appeal of Munish Bhasin and his parents against the order of the
Delhi High Court directing him to pay arrears of Rs three lakh from
August 2005 and also pay maintenance to the tune of Rs 12,500 per
month in future.

Justice Panchal, writing an 11-page judgment for the bench ruled, `It
is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an
accused under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, neither the High Court, nor
the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish

`There is no manner of doubt that the court having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and
efficacious conditions, while enlarging an accused on bail under
Section 483 of the Code.

`However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant
conditions at all.

`There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under
Section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as
to frustrate the very object of the grant of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code.’ The apex court went on to add, `In the
instant case, the question before the court was whether having regard
to the averments made by Ms Renuka in her complaint, the appellant
and his parents were entitled to bail under Section 438 of the Code.

`When the High Court had found that a case for grant of bail under
Section 438 was made out, it was not open to the court to direct the
appellant to pay Rs three lakh for past maintenance and a sum of Rs
12,500 per month as future maintenance to his wife and child.

`In a proceeding under Section 438 of the Code, the court would not
be justified in awarding maintenance to the wife and child. The case
of the appellant is that his wife Renuka is employed and receiving a
handsome salary and therefore, is not entitled to maintenance.

`Normally, the question of grant of maintenance should be left to be
decided by the competent court in a proceeding, where the parties can
adduce evidence in support of their respective case, after which
liability of husband to pay maintenance could be determined and
appropriate order would be passed, directing the husband to pay
amount of maintenance to his wife.’ The apex court also took note of
the fact that the wife has already filed a petition for maintenance
under Section 125, Cr.P.C., which is pending before the trial court.

The High Court vide order dated August 7, 2007, after noting that net
salary of the husband was Rs 33,000 per month, directed him to pay
the maintenance, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused and
his parents.

The amount already paid by the husband following the High Court
orders need not be refunded by the wife and will be adjusted, subject
to the final order in the maintenance case.

The judgment was pronounced on February 20, copies of which were made
available to the media.



CrPC Sec 41 Amendment Maybe The Law Someday



The amendments are on hold due to sustained opposition by some of the beneficiaries of arbitrary arrests, the lawyers. They consider this “anti-lawyer” as they will lose a huge revenue stream due to the cut back in bail applications, once the gazette notification is issued.

Regardless, please remember that the CrPC amendment to Section 41, is the codification of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP, 1994. This judgment clearly states that an arrest is an exception and that an arrest should only be made in heinous crimes and that too only after an investigation and must be justified. Please download this judgment and keep a copy with you if you fear an arrest by the police for any reason:

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994


The amendment to Section 41 of the CrPC has been signed into law by the President Of India.

As soon as the gazette notification is issued, no person can be arrested under 498A by the police without an investigation.

This is what the new Home Minister had to say:

“Referring to Section 41 of the Act, Chidambaram said in his letter, “This provision was severely criticised as capable of being misused and, in fact, was being misused.” To substantiate his point, he advised CMs to refer to reports of the Law Commission and the Malimath Committee and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in D K Basu case which laid down guidelines for effecting arrest. “

It is not just DK Basu Vs State Of WB, Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP has what has been codified into the CrPC amendment. This is an action that has been long overdue.

Bar associations across the country have been protesting under the pretext that these CrPC amendment (Section 41, CrPC), doing away with mandatory arrest provisions, would remove fear from the minds of criminals who would misuse the provisions under the garb of personal liberty.

What the bar associations will never tell you is that the police never had the power to make such arrests and that arrest is an exception and not the norm.

The fact is that by law,  it is the seminal  judgment of the Supreme Court, Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP,  that governs arrests in India.

The reasons the bar associations are giving for protesting against the CrPC amendments, such  as criminals not fearing the law and other such excuses is just plain bullshit.

They are giving their game away by saying with the same breath that these amendments are anti-lawyer and will reduce their income. Really !

How low can you get?

For a measly few thousand Rupees, these lawyers want to have entire families entangled in the corrupt criminal justice system for years !! Talk about ethics!

“Among the grouses of the lawyers is that the law if enacted will eat into their work substantially reducing their income. A sizeable income of the lawyers is generated by Bail related works.”

Now you know why these lawyers are protesting so that they can get bail related gravy. How about doing an honest days work for a change?

In reality, this amendment does away with the need to get bails and anticipatory bails,  a rich source of revenue for the lawyers, the dirty Indian cops, some filthy lower court magistrates and public prosecutors.

To see what I mean, take a look at the NCRB stats about the women arrested under 498A. If the SC guidelines had been judiciously followed, do you think so many men, women or children would have been arrested? Click here to look at the stats.

The CrPC amendments effectively signals the end of using 498A for extortion as the cops can no longer use arrests for extortion. Also remember this, the cops never had the power to arrest without cause or justification.  Hence, almost all 498A arrests have been illegal detentions.

This is a significant win for all who are fighting against the tyranny on men and their families imposed by this law, IPC 498A.

The Indian Feminazis are so stupid that they did not foresee the immediate consequence of this law or they would have been up in arms. I saw this coming and kept my mouth shut in order to not draw any attention to this beneficial side effect in the fight against 498A. The stupidity of the Feminazis can be guaged by the fact that they are ignoring the basic tenet of the Constitution, Habeas Corpus or the right against arbitrary detention, which this amendment codifies into the CrPC. They can try to change the Constitution Of India if they are unhappy about these amendments.


Should the govt decide to reverse course and allow arrests under 498A, I would be very happy. Why ?

The reason being that more Swarup Sarkars will emerge to bash the Feminazis and roll back the gains they made.

So Indian Feminazis, please do your best to roll back these amendments !


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

Adv Pradeep Nawani has shown us the way on how to go about nailing the scum that infest the ranks of the Indian police and has also shown us to how to nail the bitter half and her enablers under Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3 (DP3).

Here is the coverage in the news. This is reproduced from DNA India:

NEW DELHI: A Noida court has ordered police to book a woman and her parents for giving dowry. The chief judicial magistrate (CJM) of Noida ordered the police to register an FIR against Noida-based call centre employee Natasha Juyal and her parents under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) for giving dowry. The CJM also ordered action against police officers who refused to register Natasha’s husband Namit Juyal’s complaint.

Giving or taking dowry is a criminal offence under Section 3 of the DPA with imprisonment. This is a rare case where the section was evoked against a woman and her family.

Namit’s lawyer Pradeep Nawani argued that Natasha had not only accepted to giving dowry, but also submitted a list of stridhan that was not as per the DPA. Even her claim of huge wedding expense did not match her father’s financial capacity.

According to Nawani, Natasha filed a complaint of dowry harassment in Noida’s sector-20 police station last year, saying Namit was given Rs10 lakh as dowry in 2005.

The Noida police arrested Namit and packed him off to Dasna jail in UP. After getting bail, Namit sought information under RTI from the Noida police, seeking to know on what basis he was arrested.

He was horrified to hear that he was arrested on the basis of his wife’s mere written complaint and verbal statement with no records to back her allegations. He then asked police to register a complaint against his wife and family for giving dowry.

On refusal by the police, he approached court to get a complaint registered against his wife and her parents. He also sought contempt of court action against the police for failing to comply with a supreme court order, stipulating that refusing to register police complaint by a husband in a dowry case is tantamount to the contempt of court.

Here are the orders:  pradeep-nawani-dp3-orders_page_11



Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,287,433

Cluster Map

Live Traffic


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 Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.


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
January 2020
« Nov    

%d bloggers like this: