Delhi ASJ Pratibha Rani Holds Cops in Contempt For 498A Arrests

Excerpt from the order:

“13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, I am of the considered view that the directions given above by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi have been violated by the respondents. The Sanctioning Authority is trying to justify its action. This shows that it has scant regard for process of law and decision of Hon’ble High Court. I find it a fit case for informing Commissioner of Police as to how his subordinates are working. I hope that the Commissioner of Police would personally look into the matter and take strong action against defiant officers under intimation to undersigned.”

Here is the copy of the order:   Delhi ASJ Pratibha Rani Holds Cops in Contempt

____________________________________________________________________

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: 

____________________________________________

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

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

Password:

SC Clarifies Sections 406 And 498A – 2007

Excerpts:

• According to Section 406 I.P.C., the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created. (See: The Superintendent & remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. S.K. Roy )
• We are convinced that the allegation of misbehaviour on the part of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and V.C.R. by them made by the complainant in her subsequent statement, dated 4.4.1995, was an after thought and not bona fide. Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, we find that charge under Section 498A I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.

Here is the judgment: SC Clarifies 406 And 498A-2007

_____________________________________________

Fudging Data-19,000 Frivolous 498A Cases: Renuka Choudhry In Parliament

• http://164.100.24.208/lsq14/quest.asp?qref=54495
• 19000 Frivolous 498A Cases (pdf)

You can read about her obfuscation of facts here:

http://desicritics.org/2008/03/16/091618.php

FULL TEXT: 

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT

LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 193
ANSWERED ON 16.11.2007

FALSE IMPLICATION IN DOWRY DEATH CASES

193. SHRI RAGHUVIR SINGH KAUSHAL
Will the Minister of WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT be pleased to state:-
(a) whether the Law Commission has suggested not to acquit the
accused of dowry death on flimsy grounds;
(b) if so, the details thereof and the action taken thereon;
(c) whether the Government is aware of false or willful implications
in dowry cases; and
(d) if so, the reaction of the Government alongwith the action taken
thereon?

ANSWER
MINISTER OF THE STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
(SHRIMATI RENUKA CHOWDHURY)
(a)&(b) Law Commission of India has submitted in October, 2007 its
202nd Report on “Proposal to amend Section 304-B of Indian Penal
Code” in which recommendations have been made relating to dowry
deaths. The Report is available on the website of Ministry of Law and
Justice, Law Commission of India. Department of Legal Affairs has
forwarded a copy of the Report to Ministry of Home Affairs for
examination/implementation.

(c) The following data for the country has been furnished by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs for the period 2004-06:-

Under Section 304-B IPC (Dowry death)

No. of cases registered: 21431
No. of cases declared false on account of mistake of fact or law: 974

Under Section 498-A IPC (Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband)

No. of cases registered: 179568
No. of cases declared false on account of mistake of fact or law:
19013

Under Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

No. of cases registered: 11300
No. of cases declared false on account of mistake of fact or law: 615

(d) It is for the investigating and prosecuting authorities in the States to deal with any false complaint relating to dowry.

_________________________________________________________

Mumbai HC: Hubby Can Be Jailed Despite Patch-Up

The Mumbai HC may have taken the first step in the right direction of blunting this extortion racket called Sec 498A Of The IPC. A 498A wife files the case to force the hubby to settle and then prays the HC for a quash.

To understand what I am saying, read this:

The Abuse Of The Benevolence Of The Courts In 498A Cases

You can also read about this NRI doctor whose sister was jailed for a month and released after the NRI paid up the demanded cash. Indira Jaising was instrumental in getting his sister arrested.

You can read about it here: NRI doctor fleeced for 40 Lakhs

If this is not extortion, then what is ?

Here is the news article: Mumbai HC: Hubby Can Be Jailed Despite Patch-Up

Here is the 107 Page judgment:  Mumbai HC Judgement: Hubby Can Be Jailed Despite Patch-Up

Here is the graphic:

__________________________________________________

The Comprehensive Guide To Surviving IPC 498A

The Survivor’s Guide To IPC498A has been renamed, rewritten and divided into an introduction and 3 chapters.

Chapter one contains comprehensive excerpts from Supreme Court and High Court judgments that describe your rights and the limits on the powers of the police. Please read it to defend yourselves effectively.

Here is the link to the same document and supporting material:

A Guide To Surviving IPC 498A

_____________________________________

Allahabad HC Quashes A 498A And Chides The Wife – 2006

Here is this judgment: Allahabad/Lucknow HC Quashed A 498A And Chides The Wife

An excerpt:

• “The sole purpose of a novel like story evolved by the informant and recited in her First Information Report is to take a revenge with him by getting him sent to jail and further placing him in sufferings with his eventual suspension. The Courts are to protect the valuable rights of not only a wife if she is victimized and maltreated with dowry demand but also a harassed husband who is also equal in the eyes of law and if a concocted attempt as the one in hand is made to place the husband in an awkward situation, certainly the Court must come to the rescue of such a husband in humiliation.”

-Allahabad/Lucknow HC, Writ Petition MB 528 of 2005, 10/01/2006

____________________________________________

Excerpts From Bail Orders And Judgments

I compiled a very short list of excerpts of what the courts around the country are saying about 498A and the impact on right to liberty.

Before I go on, here is what the spokesperson for NCW has to say about amending 498A:
“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,”

These excerpts below and in the accompanying pdf file are from Judis.nic.in. I attempted to find more from judgments from other courts, but it looks like the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court are the two courts whose officers appear to do a great job in making the bail orders and judgments available online. These excerpts are pretty funny and they throw some light upon the idiocy that is this law. Here are some gems:

• “The appellant has also filed a maintenance petition against her husband. What can she possibly get by prosecuting him as well as his family members? The appellant filed the criminal case under Section 498A etc. not only against her husband but also against her husband’s father, mother, brother, sister, etc. In exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal case filed by the appellant. After all, the appellant will not get any benefit by sending her husband or his family members to jail. She is pursuing her maintenance case, and if she is so advised she can also file a suit for damages, which if filed will be decided on its own merits.”

-The Supreme Court Of India, Appeal (crl.) 188 of 2007, 12/02/2007

• “The sole purpose of a novel like story evolved by the informant and recited in her First Information Report is to take a revenge with him by getting him sent to jail and further placing him in sufferings with his eventual suspension. The Courts are to protect the valuable rights of not only a wife if she is victimized and maltreated with dowry demand but also a harassed husband who is also equal in the eyes of law and if a concocted attempt as the one in hand is made to place the husband in an awkward situation, certainly the Court must come to the rescue of such a husband in humiliation.”

-Allahabad HC, Writ Petition MB 528 of 2005, 10/01/2006

• “Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be resorted to, in order to secure the ends of justice; it can be used, in given circumstances, to quash criminal proceedings. Lately, a tendency has emerged to set the criminal law into motion, either to settle scores, or to seek quick fix solutions to essentially civil disputes. This has been deprecated by the Supreme Court, (G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2000 SC 754; Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC Ltd., 2006(6) SCC 736) which has held that in such cases, the Court should invoke its power and quash criminal proceedings.”

-Justice Ravindra Bhat , Delhi HC, CRL.M.(C) No.5264/2005, 30.03.2007

• “The criminal case against her in which she was accused was compounded by the petitioner on the basis of compromise. She is living with her husband. She wants to use criminal justice as a tool against the petitioners who are her sister-in-laws and mother-in-law. She wants to enjoy the company of the husband keeping other relatives on tenterhooks.“

-Delhi HC, Crl. M.C. No. 8188-90/2006, 28.03.2007

Here are the rest of these gems in the pdf: Excerpts From Bail Orders And Judgments

_______________________________________________________

Extradition, Criminal Prosecution And International Child Abduction

This is a very nice article that explains quite a few things about extradition by a law office.

Here is the link:

Criminal Prosecution and International Child Abduction

____________________________________________________________

Violence By 498A Wife On Court Premises: Delhi HC Denies Bail To Her

Whoever said that the 498A filing women are all victims and incapable of violence ?

The radical Indian feminists, of course !!

Anyway, looks like a 498A filing wife assaulted her hubby in the court premises. The Delhi HC took a dim view of her actions and denied her bail. Here is the order denying bail: Violence By 498A Wife On Court Premises

___________________________________________

Stats On Domestic Violence Against Indian Men

Here is the link to the pdf: Stats On Domestic Violence Against Men

__________________________________________

Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand: JD Kapoor Judgment-2003

Old judgment, but here it is again. Justice JD Kapoor had his chair broken for stating in this judgment that 498A be made bailable and compoundable.

Here is the judgment:   Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand: JD Kapoor Judgment-2003

_____________________________________

Karnataka HC Quashes Pandurang Katti 498A-2003

This is an old judgment from 2003. This quash (Section 482) petition belongs to one of the oldest members of the movement to end the abuse of 498A. This judgment also has the FIR reproduced in full. The FIR looks a lot like the FIR filed by my ex-wife against myself and my family. It looks like a formula is being applied for filing FIRs, but again, that is just my opinion. An appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the quash, also led to the same verdict. This ended the Katti 498A case, a great victory for SIF.

Here is the judgment: Karnataka HC Quashes Pandurang Katti 498A-2003

Here are some observations from this judgment:

• “As regards to the alleged beating of the respondent number 2 by the petitioner no 2 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is absurd even to think that an old lady of 65 years would beat an independent minded educated young lady who also happens to be a state cricket player. I refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the matter but find that even if such a beating as alleged had been done for one day that can be termed only as a quarrel between mother in law and daughter in law and by no stretch of imagination it can be brought under the purview of an offense under section 498a of the IPC.”

• With regards to this the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Saritha Vs R.Ramachandra reported in (I) (2003) DMC 37 (DB) may be referred to:
  “The court would like to go on record that for nothing the educated women are approaching the courts for divorce and resorting to proceedings against in-laws under section 498A, IPC implicating not only the husbands but also their family members whether in India or Abroad. This is nothing but misuse of the beneficial provision intended to save the women from unscrupulous husbands. It has taken a reverse trend now. In some cases this kind of actions is coming as a formidable hurdle in the reconciliation efforts made by either well meaning people or the court and the sanctity attached to the marriage in Hindu Religion and the statutory mandate that the courts try to save the marriage through conciliatory efforts till last, are being buried neck-deep. It is for the law commission and the parliament either to continue that provision (section 498a IPC) in the same form or to make that offense non cognizable and bailable so that ill-educated women of this country do not misuse the provision to harass innocent people for the sin of contracting marriage with egoistic women “

• AP HC: Saritha Vs Ramachandra Judgment-2002

__________________________________________

Sonia Vs Vinod: Domestic Violence Case

Folks,

Here is the judgment on the Sonia Vs Vinod domestic violence case. This case is from the Delhi Rohini court. Here is the write up:

“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

____________________________________________

Rights Activists On Wrong Foot

Here is a collection of dirt from around the country and they all deal with the Womens Commission of the different states.

1. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070927/asp/northeast/story_8364332.asp
2. http://www.e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=10..270907.sep07
3. AP Womens Commission Chief Asked To Step Down
4. http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Aug12007/state2007080116440.asp
5. Cat Fight In AP

___________________________________

Men Are Being Harassed: Orissa Womens Panel

Here is the link to this revealing article from TOI

Here is another article with more details

Here is the link to the aftermath. The womens groups took to protests asking for her resignation for speaking the truth. These same groups have not uttered a word of protest against the goings on in the state of AP.  Here is the link to the dirt from AP

Here is the link to the news about the protest:        

Women activists want resignation of chairperson

From Orissa, another case of dowry law abuse:

Woman’s family cooks up murder for dowry story

___________________________________________

AP Womens Commission Chief Asked To Step Down

I have always maintained that these womens protection agencies are part of an extortion racket.

In most cases, the defendant are asked to pay up or face the consequences and the petitioners are asked to pay to have their complaints heard. Read on to understand what I mean.

There is more tabloid news from AP. Looks like the Womens Commission has become an agency that works for commissions.

Earlier, the AP womens commission was in the news due to the cat fight between a couple of the members. The event was recorded here: Cat Fight In AP.

The main characters in this cat fight were forced to resign by the AP CM and a replacement, Renuka Reddy was appointed.

Looks like the replacement was caught in a sting operation accepting a bribe.

You can read about that here: Renuka Reddy Asked To Step Down

____________________________________________

Fair Trials Abroad

Here is the link to their website: http://www.fairtrialsabroad.org/

This is what they do:

Fair Trials Abroad / Justice à l’étranger (FTA) : is a London-based charity that works to promote fair trials according to international standards of justice and to defend the rights of those facing criminal charges in a country other than their own.

___________________________________

Chandigarh Man Sues Ex-Wife, Police And Witnesses In A 498A Case

All,

Though this is an old story, we have a 498A winner. After 5 years, Kuldip Babbar was acquitted and looks like he may have gotten some justice after all.

Here is the link to the article:

____________________________________________