Justice Dhingra Ensures The Jailing Of A Corrupt Female CAW Cell Officer-2007

Justice Dhingra in action again.

This time he denies the appeal of convicted, corrupt CAW cell SI. This judgment more than reinforces my assertion that 498A and all this crap about protecting women is just a smokescreen to make money of the misery of citizens.

Here is an excerpt:

“The evidence shows that she was posted out on 28th September, 1999 and the bribe was accepted on 1st October, 1999. There is no evidence that complainant was aware of her posting out from the department. Moreover, if she was posted out on 28th October, 1999 she had no business to be there in CAW Cell. Her presence there itself shows that she had come to the office of CAW Cell only for the purpose of obtaining bribe. Even if she was not working as investigating officer, she took advantage of ignorance of the complainant that she was no more investigating officer and still accepted the bribe. I, therefore, consider that in such a case where police official, and those who are responsible for proper running of criminal justice system , indulge into the corruption, the Court should take serious view. Considering all facts I do not find it a fit case where the sentence of the appellant be suspended. The application is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall prejudice the decision of appeal on merits”

Here is the judgment:

Justice Dhingra Ensures The Jailing Of A Corrupt CAW Cell Officer-2007

___________________________________________

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

____________________________________________

Clarification On NRI Divorces

I am revisiting an old case, the YN Rao vs Venkatalaxmi, NRI divorce case. The crux of the matter is that the Supreme Court has stated, according to the article in TOI given below, that a foreign court has no authority to dissolve a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, IF, the person who filed the case in the foreign court is not domiciled (a permanent legal residence) in the jurisdiction of the foreign court.

Here is the link to the YN Rao Vs Venkatalaxmi judgment

Please read this article to understand what the court meant.

Finally read this post to understand the reality of broken NRI marriages and Indian court judgments

_______________________________

The Judgments Of Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra

Matrimonial home is  not just a building made of bricks and walls. It is a home/place comprising of sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing.

-Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra

Justice Dhingra was a judge of the Delhi High Court. I learned about him from an article written by the Indian feminazi, Indira Jaising, to tarnish his reputation. As I read his judgments, I realized that he is an upright judge and Indira Jaising was maligning him with some silly but vicious motive.

Here is the link to that article by Indira Jaising: “It was a crime that I was born a woman”.

While talking about Indira Jaising, click here to know what she did to a lady in violation of article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and in disregard of the right to due process (Indira Jaising had a woman whose brother was having marital issues jailed. The lady was released after her brother paid his estranged wife $100,000).

Read this article to know more about Justice Dhingra:

http://www.rediff.com/news/mar/17rai3.htm

The same in pdf format if it disappears:

Rediff on the NeT: The judge who took on Parliament and politicians

Justice Dhingra took many steps to end the extortion in the name of Section 498A in Delhi. He started with the judgment that changed it all:

Smt Neera Singh (498A Income tax) Judgment of 2007.

Here is a post with what additional details I could find about him:

Justice SN Dhingra

Here’s his Linked in profile:

http://in.linkedin.com/pub/shiv-narayan-dhingra/29/293/597

The residents of Delhi have a lot to thank this judge for. Read the article below to understand what I mean:

• Delhi Police: No 498A Arrests Without DCP’s Permission
• https://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/giving-dowry-is-crime-delhi-police-circular/

Here is a collection of some of his most relevant judgments for fighting 498A cases. For the beleaguered lot entangled in 498A cases across India, these judgments are a gift from a god.

• A Gift From The Gods: A Judgment By Justice SN Dhingra (Income Tax Case. Also says that taunting is not 498A cruelty)
• Justice Dhingra: Police Do Not Investigate In 498A Cases (Crl.Apl No. 696/2004)
• Justice Dhingra Explains Section 482 Of IPC (HC Quash Petition)

• Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household

• Justice Dhingra Teaches Us The Guidelines The Courts Abide By To Determine Child Custody
• Justice Dhingra Rules That The Lawyer Can Represent Client In Mutual Divorce Cases
• Justice Dhingra Explains Defamation – 2009

• Justice Dhingra Quashes An HMA Case-2008

• Justice Dhingra Explains Section 24 Of The HMA – 2008
• Justice Dhingra’s Landmark Judgment On Purpose Of CrPC 125

• Justice Dhingra Says A Case Can Be Applied For Transfer If The MM Appears To Be Biased

• Justice Dhingra Settles Jurisdiction In NRI 498A Case- Jan 2008
• Delhi HC: Wife Can’t Use Failed Marriage To Harass In-Laws
• Delhi HC: The CAW Cell Proceedings Are Voluntary
• Delhi HC: Jurisdiction in 498A cases
• Settling Scores: A Judgment By Justice Dhingra
• Justice Dhingra: The Reasoning Behind Permitting The Compounding Of 498A Cases
• Justice Dhingra: Go Beyond Prosecutions Case For Truth-Surender Kumar Acquitted
  
• Justice Dhingra: Do Not Entertain Frivolous Dowry Cases
• Justice Dhingra Orders A CBI Inquiry Into The Conduct Of The Corrupt Delhi Cops
• Justice Dhingra Explains Double Jeopardy (21.9.2007)

• Justice Dhingra Chides A 498A Abusing Wife And Compulsive Cheat
• Justice Dhingra Quashes An NRI 498A Case
• Justice Dhingra Denies A 498A FIR Quash Petition Citing Section 188
• Justice Dhingra: When to file for compensation in the event of illegal arrest (Judgment is at the bottom)

________________________________________

Delhi HC Defines Powers Of The CAW Cell

Here are several judgments by Justice Dhingra since his return. He clearly defines the powers of the Crimes Against Women (CAW) cells and maintains that the proceeding before the CAW cell are reconciliatory and voluntary only. The CAW cells have no power to take coercive action. The proceedings of these cells are not judicial or quasi-judicial nor can they issue summons to appear before it. That power remains with the judiciary. With these judgments, Justice Dhingra has effectively ended the tyranny of these corrupt CAW cells.

Here is the news from the Tribune.

There is an earlier judgment about the CAW cells, again by the Delhi HC.

Here is the judgment:  Jasbir Kaur Vs State, Delhi HC – 2006.

I quote:

“Police Headquarter framed the procedure to be followed by the C.A.W. Cell with the intention of preventing abuse of the process of law. But in this case police committed abuse of the process established by its Commissioner. No attempt was made to resolve the difference between Manoj Kumar and respondent No.5 nor efforts were made to bring about amicable settlement for which purpose Crime Against Women Cell was created. This cell is meant to safeguard the marriage and not to ruin it by registering case immediately on the asking of the complainant. Once an FIR is registered it becomes difficult to solve matrimonial tangles and things reaches such a pass that it cannot be restored back”

Here are some articles about CAW:

• Cell for Crime Against Women
• Training Workshop for Police Personnel By Delhi Commission For Women. Please read the recommendations for the CAW cell. They are asking for the disbandment of the CAW cell.
• Confusion about the powers of the CAW cell
• Looks like the Chandigarh police have gotten it right

Finally, here are the short and concise judgments of Justice Dhingra on the Delhi CAW cells.

NOTE: I thank the volunteer from Delhi who has been helping me with gathering these judgments.

_________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

13.08.2007

Present: Mr. Vinay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

Crl. M. No.9052/2007 and W.P. (Crl.)1045/2007

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the conversation recorded by the petitioner between father of the petitioner and the father of the respondent should be heard by the CAW Cell and should be made part of the investigation. I consider that CAW Cell has no power to investigate the crime. It is not a police station where FIRs are registered. Investigation in any crime can be done only after registration of FIR. CAW Cell only makes reconciliatory efforts between the parties that also up to the stage of pre- registration of FIR. The investigation can also be done by CAW Cell if it is referred to it after registration of FIR. Since no FIR has been registered in this case, no directions can be given to CAW Cell for investigation. The petition is infructuous and is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

August 13, 2007

______________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

10.08.2007

Present: Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for State with

Ms. Rajdipa Behura and Mr. Akshai Malik, Adocates

W.P. (Crl.) No.1032/2007 and Crl.M.A.No. 8989/07

It is stated by the counsel for petitioner that CAW Cell was threatening the petitioner for appearance. It is made clear that CAW Cell has no authority to secure the presence of any person either by coercion or by threat. CAW Cell is only a conciliatory body where efforts are made for conciliation with the free will of the parties. If any person is not willing to go to CAW Cell, he cannot be compelled. It is also directed that CAW Cell, in future, instead of issuing summons to the parties shall send request letters asking them to appear for the purpose of conciliation and not for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is at liberty not to appear before CAW Cell. No threat or coercive steps shall be taken by the CAW Cell. No further direction can be given by the Court in respect of respondent No. 5, who according to the petitioner has refused to accompany him. It is alleged that she was living under the influence of her parents. Earlier when she appeared in this Court, she was living with the petitioner. She refused to meet her parents at that time. If the respondent is such an immature lady that when she comes under the influence of petitioner, she refuses to meet her parents and next time when she comes under the influence of her parents, she refuses to meet the petitioner, the Court cannot help the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in above terms.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

August 10, 2007

____________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
07.08.2007
Present: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Mukta Gupta, Standing Counsel for the state with
Mr. Ahshal Mehtra, Advocate
W.P.(Crl.) No. 1009/2007

Issue notice of the petition to the respondents returnable for 17th January, 2008. Notice is accepted by the Standing Counsel of the State. Crl.M. A. No. 8813/07 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1009/2007.
The parties were referred to CAW Cell where CAW Cell after making enquiries, came to the conclusion that it was not a case of cruelty or harassment on the part of the husband. The CAW Cell recommended a Closure Report saying that no case is made out against the husband or family of the husband. After this recommendation, respondent no. 2 made an application under Section 156(3) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate without giving any reason as to why he considered that a case was made out, ordered for registration of an FIR. I consider that it is a fit case where operation of the order can be stayed. The operation of the order dated 3rd August, 2007 wrongly mentioned as dated 30th July, 2007 is stayed. Trial Court record be called.
Dasti.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA. J.

August 07, 2007

_________________

Here is the second judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
07.08.2007
Present: Mr.R.P. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate for the State.
W.P. (Crl.) No.849/2007
Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner for dropping of proceedings pending before the CAW Cell, Amar Colony against the petitioner and his family members on the ground that the complainant wife has already made a complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. Her allegations made before the Metropolitan Magistrate and CAW Cell are ditto.
CAW Cell is an agency created to make efforts for reconciliation between the families before initiation of criminal proceedings on the complaint of the wife. The petitioner is at liberty not to appear before the CAW Cell. No coercive action can be taken by the CAW Cell, compelling an unwilling person to put in appearance before it. CAW Cell can conduct proceedings only where both the parties are ready and willing to join the proceedings voluntarily.
I consider that there is no reason for the Court to pass any order in respect of proceedings before the CAW Cell as these proceedings are not judicial or quasi-judicial nor proceedings in the investigation of the crime. They are only reconciliatory proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty not to join the proceedings before CAW Cell.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed as such.
Dasti.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA. J.
August 07, 2007

_________________________________________

The Gods Have Smiled!! Justice Dhingra Is BAACK!!

Folks,

Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra is back and he’s started with a bang. This time he has defined the limits on the powers of the CAW cells that have terrorized families with their stupidity. This judgment is important as it shows that it is the judiciary whose orders need to be obeyed and not the orders of any random agency that attempts to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

Here is the judgment.

______________________________________