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: 

____________________________________________

Justice Dhingra’s Judgment Clarifying CrPC 125

CrPC 125 is meant to serve as a tool to prevent destitution. Highly qualified Indian women harass their husbands by filing these cases to park themselves on their butts and collect tax free pay checks.

Justice Dhingra has turned his attention to putting an end to this malaise of laziness. This judgment embodies everything that can be done to end the abuse of CrPC 125.

Here is the text of this short and sharp judgment:

The petitioner who is an MBBS qualified Doctor and admittedly had been in practice before, claims that she was sitting at home despite being a qualified Doctor and does not work. The petitioner claimed maintenance against her husband who is in service. The Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. This petition is made against observation of the Trial Court that she was working somewhere and earning around Rs.8,000 to 10,000/- PM and that the maintenance granted by the Trial Court was made subject to adjustment of the maintenance being received by her under Section 125. Since counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not working anywhere, despite being a qualified Doctor, I consider that as she is receiving maintenance from husband, the Court should not allow her experience and qualification to go waste. I consider that she should be directed to work as a honorary Doctor in some public welfare institute or school free of charges where she can take care of health of the poor people. Let her come to Court and give an undertaking that she was prepared to work without charging anything in any institution named by this Court around her house minimum 5 hours a day and 6 days a week, so long she receives maintenance from her husband on the plea of being unemployed.

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra’s Landmark Judgment On Purpose Of CrPC 125

PS:

Thanks to the visitor who posted this judgment on my blog as a comment.

____________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Fines A Woman For Alienating The Son From The Father

Here are the excerpts from this case:

4.  The notice of the petition was served upon the wife who appeared along with her counsel and also brought the child to the Court. She stated that she could not comply with the order as the child was unwilling to meet his father. The child in this case is about five and a half years old and is student of Class-I. While her mother was addressing the Court the child started weeping loudly and cried that he does not want to meet his father and he continuously cried for some time. It looked as if weeping button has been switched on. Thereafter, this Court enquired from the child why he was unwilling to meet the father. The child told that his father used to beat him and his mother, during meetings. He could not give a single instance of beating either of him or his mother. It is not the case of respondent also that the petitioner used to beat them at the time of meeting under visitation rights. The enquiry made from the child showed that the mind of child was highly poisoned against the petitioner by the respondent and he was tutored to a great extent. It is amply clear that the respondent who was not agreeable to the visitation rights, had seen to it that the child himself created such a scene in the Court that the Court was convinced that child was unwilling to meet the father. The child is of tender years age. The manner in which the mind of the child has been poisoned against the father shows that the respondent was out to frustrate the order of the Court.
5.  It is apparent that there is a clear and willful design of defiance of the order of this Court by the respondent who used the child as a tool of her design by poisoning the mind of the child to such an extent that the child started crying on just seeing the father without any provocation in the Court itself.
6.  Although, it is a clear case of contempt committed by the wife but I consider that it would not be appropriate to sent the wife to the jail since that would cause further trauma of the child and it would be appropriate if a fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the wife for defying the order of the Court. A fine of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the respondent. In case of default of depositing the fine she shall suffer a simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

Here is the judgment: Mr.Aman Oberoi Versus Ms. Tina Oberoi

_______________________________________

Justice Dhingra Rules That Attorney Can Represent Client In Mutual Divorce Cases

Justice Dhingra had to say the following:

“Where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the Court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. Attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. The Courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the Court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. The attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. The Court can take necessary precautions to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the Court smells some kind of fraud being played with it, the Court should normally recognize the act of the attorneys.”

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Rules That Attorney Can Represent Client In Mutual Divorce Cases

_______________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Kicks Some Sense Into The MM Of Patiala House

Justice Dhingra, well on his way to the pantheon of great Indian judges, recently received an application to take cognizance of criminal contempt of court against  some respondents in a 498a case from the excuse of a Metropolitan Magistrate of Patiala House.

Read what he had to say about this scumbag Magistrate:

• The learned MM seems to have spent a lot of time in framing this reference petition which runs into 37 pages and annexures to the reference run into another more than 100 pages. After perusal of the entire reference I find the reference is not worth the paper wasted by the learned MM on it. I find no imputation had been made against the learned MMs Court but of bias which was inferred from the orders passed by him. It is surprising that the learned MM should have sent this reference of contempt only on the allegations of bias made against him. However, on perusal of this reference, I feel that the  learned MM definitely seems to be biased in favour of the wife and against the husband and other in-laws. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to get provoked for sending this reference, so that the family members of the husband are called by this Court in criminal contempt, despite the fact that no person insinuation was made against him.
• I consider it is a right of every litigant, who is facing proceeding in a Court, that justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done and if a litigant feels that  what he was seeing was not justice but injustice, he has a right to move transfer application and if bias is inferred from the orders passed by the Court, the Court has no reason to send a reference for criminal contempt. This reference is rejected. There is no ground to summon the respondents. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Delhi. A copy of this order be also sent to the Inspecting Judge of the learned MM and to Honble the Chief Justice.

It is precisely this kind of a  scumbag who denied my mom and sister bail after being bought by my ex-father In law.

Justice Dhingra has yet again shown us the way and added one more weapon to our arsenal to fight back against this extortion racket.

Here is the order from Justice Dhingra.

CourtOnItsOwnMotion-Vs-Sunil-Seth-2007

____________________________________________

A Few Notes On CrPC 125

The credit for this info goes to the original poster/researcher, a great guy and a true 498A warrior.

A Few Notes On Crpc 125

1. The code has dangerous implications – any wife (that includes divorced women) may file a petition for maintenance under CrPC 125. In the event that she doesn’t marry anyone, you are liable for her maintenance for the remainder of her life. You are liable no matter what, whether you pay or you don’t that’s your choice. If you don’t pay maintenance, the Order can go to execution resulting in a warrant against you and potentially Passport cancellation (Passport Act, 1967) – I repeat, passport cancellation – that DOES NOT mean you will be extradited – but it’s a concern nevertheless.

2. Divorced wife means – whether she lives in adultery doesnt affect her rights to maintenance – ONLY if she is capable of earning on her own (has a job) OR gets married – then you are off the hook. Or, you may get US or Canadian citizenship in which case the Indian law doesn’t affect you unless you land in India. Unpaid maintenance resulting in a warrant still remains valid within Indian jurisdiction.

3. Most importantly, US divorce – contested, uncontested, ex-parte, mutual consent, whatever… don’t matter in the case of CrPC 125……the Magistrate at the lower court, may upon his/her discretion, ignore the US court’s verdict. His call on “change of circumstances” is final… if the girl had a job in the US (legal or illegal) and she returns to India just for fun… that’s a change in fiscal circumstance and she may be entitled for maintenance u/s CrPC 125.

Even if you pay/settle in the U.S. or India – she may still claim and get more maintenance, if she has reasons – such as a medical need or any other life events that have changed her fiscal condition (she has blown all the money you had paid in permanent maintenance) .

No matter how fool proof your marital termination agreement here is, she can claim and get maintenance u/s CrPC 125. Monetary sanctions against a wife levied in the US has no impact in India as Indian law and judgments will be based on Indian public policy and socio-economic context.

4. The only silver lining is – if you can smoke her out in the U.S. to participate in a contested divorce, at least the divorce is valid in India.

5. Finally, marital misconduct in the U.S. such as restraining orders on wife’s or arrests of abusive wives may have some feeble impact, if any, on the “FINAL” maintenance order. As far as the interim “maintenance pendente lite” – court awards temporary maintenance based on prima facie assumption of truth on the girl’s petition and cursory review of preliminary facts.

Bad news huh? Well, I learned it/learning it the hard way.

This doesn’t mean however, that we shouldn’t fight – if your case has merits (or so you think) – keep fighting… the ONLY two prongs we have –

1. Lengthier procedure may frustrate the girl’s party

2. She may get married…Hope and pray that she gets married

In this gloom and doom, some rays of hope:

• Justice Dhingra’s Landmark Judgment On Purpose Of CrPC 125

• Mumbai HC: Deserting without just Cause. No Maintenance
• THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
  Appellate Side

  Amal Mukherjee
  versus
  Pranati Mukherjee & Anr.

  C.R.R. NO. 399 of 2007

  In the case of Md. Jahangir Khan Vs. Mst. Manoara Bibi, reported  in 1992 Cri L.J. 83, a Division Bench of our High Court held that the future salary not being a tangible corporeal property the same cannot be attached for recovery of the arrear maintenance.

• More to come…

________________________________________________

Justice R Regupathi (Chennai HC) Ends The Abuse Of 498A

This year has been significant for those of us fighting to end this extortion racket known as IPC 498A.

The four most significant events that have occurred this year and that will lead to the eventual end of 498A are the following:

• The Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases
• Delhi Police Commissioner: No 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP
• Hyderabad Police: No Arrest In 498A Cases Without Permission Of DCP – 2002

The fourth of these events are orders issued by Justice Regupathi of the Chennai HC. You can read about the news coverage from the Indian Express:

Women Police Resorting To 3rd Degree Restrained By HC

To understand one of the reasons why these orders were issued, we need to look no further than at this news clipping of this sack of shit, caught accepting a bribe:

I don’t have his original orders from July/2008, but I got my hands on the acknowledgment filed by the DGP’s office, Chennai, from a SIF volunteer. The gist of the orders were the following as per news reports:

The Honorable High Court has issued the following observation in M.P. No.1/2008 in Criminal Original Petition No.10896/2008 filed by Tr.Romaiah.

i) Except in cases of Dowry Death/suicide and offences of serious nature, the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations are to register F.I.R. only on approval of the Dowry Prohibition Officer concerned.
ii) Social workers/mediators with experience may be nominated and housed in the same premises of All Women Police Stations along with Dowry Prohibition Officers.
iii) Arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm, sick persons and minors, shall not be made by the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations.
iv) If arrest is necessary during investigation, sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police concerned by forwarding the reasons recorded in writing.
v) Arrest can be made after filing of the final report before the Magistrate concerned if there is non-cooperation and abscondance of accused persons, and after receipt of appropriate order (Non-Bailable Warrant).
vi) Charge sheet must be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of registration of the F.I.R. and in case of failure, extension of time shall be sought for from the jurisdiction Magistrate indicating the reasons for the failure.
vii) No weapon including Lathis/physical force be used while handling cases at the All Women Police Stations.
viii) Complainants/victims should be provided with adequate security/accommodation at Government Home and interest of the children must be taken care of.
ix) Sridana properties/movables and immovable to be restored at the earliest to the victims/complainants and legal aid may be arranged for them through Legal Services Authority for immediate redressal of their grievances.

Here are some excerpts from the acknowledgment of the above orders of Justice Regupathi that will go a long way in ending the extortion racket called 498A in Chennai/TN:

• Arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm, sick persons and minors, shall not be made by the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations.
• If arrest is necessary during investigation, sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police concerned by forwarding the reasons recorded in writing.
• Commissioners of Police and the Superintendents of Police in the State have been instructed to scrupulously follow the suggestions.
• When the investigating officers seek for remand of the accused, the Magistrates must examine the necessity for the same and only where there are valid grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within a period of 24 hours, remand may be ordered. Violation of human rights and infringement of personal liberties must be viewed seriously. Except in cases of grave nature viz., dowry death, murder, suicide, hurt, etc., in other matters like matrimonial disputes between spouses where it may not take much time for the police officer to interrogate/investigate, remand should not be ordered mechanically, for, remand of an accused by a Magistrate is not automatic one on the mere request of the investigating officer and sufficient grounds must exist for the Magistrate to exercise the power of remand.
• Of course, it is provided in the Code that remand should not exceed 15 days at a time, but, it does not mean that in all cases, remand for 15 days should be ordered invariably.
• Though the law is manifestly clear, plain and patent, in many cases, it is witnessed that, on the mere request of the investigating officers, remand is ordered mechanically without application of mind and such illegal practice must be avoided.
• The preliminary job of an Investigating Officer including that of the Officers posted at the All Women Police Stations is only to collect the materials in respect of the dispute they are investigating and place the same before the court/Magistrate. For adjudicating any issue, the dispute must be forwarded only to the learned Magistrate or the Family court. In this type of fragile matters, in the name of ‘petition enquiry’ or investigation after registration of F.I.R., the police should not be allowed to conduct lengthy panchayats in police stations.

Here is the acknowledgment of the police compliance of Justice Regupathi’s earlier orders:

Justice Regupathi 498A Orders Compliance Aknowledgement-2008

__________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The guidelines are given below:

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

________________________________________________________________

Delhi HC Landmark Judgment On Paternity (DNA) Test – 2008

Folks,

finally got my hands on this landmark judgment. The Delhi HC allowed DNA tests to establish paternity. This is a landmark judgment for victims of paternity fraud in India.

Just imagine this situation. A devoted husband and father spends years of his life building a life for his wife and offspring and suddenly one day, he finds out that his wife had cheated on him years ago and what he perceived to be his own flesh and blood wasn’t after all, his own. And worse, his now exposed adulterous wife files a 498A against him. This happened to a very dear and now devastated friend of mine.

Justice Vipin Sanghi has done us all a great service.

Thanks to him, these bitches can face the consequences of their actions.

Should any bleeding heart feminazis like Girija Vyas or Indira Jaising object to my words, or raise a hue and cry about how the child was becoming the victim or the mother was the victim, I implore them to do more than that, by adopting these signs of infidelity and sin into their homes and raising them as their own and better still, marrying these adulterous women to their nephews or grand nephews and random relatives. Don’t actions speak louder than words?

Here is the judgment: Delhi HC – DNA Test-HMA-2008- Justice Vipin Sanghi

For those of you who find yourselves in a similar situation or luckily, are just facing a 498A, please read the judgment (M.Srinivasulu Vs State of A.P. (10/09/2007)) below.

The reason for introducing this judgment is this. Most 498A complaints aren’t worth the paper they are written on. This judgment clearly establishes that the consequences of cruelty need to be proven, before a complaint can be brought under the purview of 498A. Click on the quote to download it:

“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.”

This judgment, coupled with Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP will go a long way in beating off the 498A. I promise you that !!!

I dedicate this post to my friend. Hopefully he’ll be able to climb out of the hole he’s been pushed into and overcome the ordeal he’s been subjected to…

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Delhi Police Commissioner: No 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP

Folks,

if you remember, YS (Yudhbir Singh) Dadwal was appointed as the commissioner of Police, Delhi, amid a controversy.

Here is a photograph of former Delhi Police Commissioner, YS Dadwal:

I wondered who YS Dadwal was, but had stated that this establishment needs capable officers in key posts in order to continue their ventures without the distractions of issues with Law and Order etc. I was right about this and what came as a pleasant surprise to me is that, after the assumption of office, Commissioner Dadwal publicly stated that he wouldn’t allow the police to be used as instruments of revenge, especially in 498A cases.

This enlightened officer has followed up on his words with actions and has issued standing orders to the effect that no one is to be arrested in 498A cases without the permission of the DCP.

Here is the order in pdf format:

Delhi Police Comm YS Dadwal: No 498A Arrests Without Approval Of DCP (pdf)

______________________________

Here is another order from the Delhi police enforcing Justice Dhingra’s Smt Neera Singh Judgment:

• Delhi Police Circular Enforcing Delhi HC Instructions Regarding Dowry (498A) cases
• For Reference: Justice Dhingra’s Smt Neera Singh Judgment

What is the impact of Commissioner Dadwal’s order ? In Delhi, this order:

• Eliminates the need for Anticipatory bail
• Ensures the 498A can no longer be used to jail entire families and extort money.
• Eliminates the police as a factor in this extortion racket.
• Takes away the power to arrest from the morons who infest the Indian criminal justice system. These morons range from the goons in uniform to corrupt lower court magistrates.
• The lawyers will see a huge source of revenue dry up in the form of the elimination for the need for Anticipatory bail and defense in 498A cases.
• The Delhi courts will see a drop in the number of cases getting into the filthy sewer known as the Indian Criminal Justice System.
• The number of final reports filed in Delhi will go up. Read this to know what a final report is: The 498A Final Report Of Film Actor Prashanth
• Commissioner Dadwal can now focus the energies of the Delhi police force on real issues, such as rapes, traficking of women, terrorist attacks and real crimes, instead of allowing goons in uniform to capture middle aged women and grandmothers in their home in the early morning or the start of the weekend, all in the name of “protecting women”.

This order is in line with the order issued by the AP Police Commissioner, MV Krishna Rao, in 2002. You can read about that order here:

Hyderabad Police: No Arrest In 498A Cases Without Permission Of DCP – 2002

All these orders are based on the Supreme Court Judgment of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP. You can read about the importance and the rationale behind this judgment here:

Habeas Corpus, Magna Carta And Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP

That brings me back to Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra, who undoubtedly ranks amongst the greatest judges of India. He wrote (Crl. Appeal No. 696/2004, 01.Nov.2007):

“In all these cases in the name of investigation, except recording statement of complainant and her few relatives nothing is done by police. The police do not verify any circumstantial evidence nor collect any other evidence about the claims made by the complainant. No evidence about giving of dowry or resources of the complainant’s family claiming spending of huge amounts is collected by the police. This all is resulting into gross misuse of the provisions of law.”

You can download this judgment from here:

Justice Dhingra (Crl. Appeal No. 696/2004, 01.Nov.2007)

It is this excerpt that Commissioner Dadwal quotes in his order.

Personally, I feel a sense of satisfaction as I had quoted the same excerpt in the last chapter of The Guide To Surviving IPC 498A.

This is it. For all you folks from Delhi, this signals the end of the extortion racket known as section 498A. For the rest of you in this country, use this to nail the cops who showed up/show up at your door to effect an illegal arrest. We have turned the corner in this fight against this extortion racket known as 498A and against the practitioners of pussy politics, aka, The Feminazis of India.

Update: Aug/16/08

This order has been reinforced:

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

Next steps:

• Use this to pressure other states to issue similar standing orders for the police to comply with the Joginder Kumar Vs UP judgment.
• Set a target date to eliminate 498A as an extortion racket and make it bailable and non-compoundable across the country.
• File compensation for illegal detention against police officers who violated the Joginder Kumar arrest guidelines. If 20 people per state do this, this will break the budgets of the states for law and order and cause the scum in uniform to think twice before entering our homes to terrorize our families to extort large sums of money under the pretext of women protection laws.
• Prepare to force an amendment to the DV Act to sanitize it and make it gender neural and implementable. This will be the next evil to overcome and give Indira Jaising more reasons to moan about 🙂.

____________________________________

Taking Stock After An Year Of Activism

“Feminism in India has no integrity. You can’t trust it”

– Madhu Purnima Kishwar

It’s time to reflect.

I was thrust into this mess on account of the ill advised actions of my ex-wife and her conniving father. The 498A was filed as means to force me into a settlement (they had my family in custody) or to take her back and sell myself for the money they offered me. I was never arrested. A charge sheet was never filed after my sister filed complaints against the police for their illegal actions.

I knew about 498A the day I filed for divorce, except, as time went by, I let down my guard and expected her to go her way and not resort to these tricks. I hoped she would gauge the depth of this pile of dung before jumping in. Fond hope on my part.

While my family was in custody and was being terrorized by the police, I looked for info on the web and talked to SIF volunteers. The SIF volunteers were great and were available round the clock. I can’t thank them enough, but, the info given didn’t go very far. I failed to understand the extent and depth of the mess my family and I were tossed into. In short, I was given helpful suggestions, but they were not applicable to my case and my situation.

The info on the web was sketchy at the best and inaccurate at the worst. An example was about the meaning of cognizable*, which was portrayed as the unrestricted power of the police to arrest, which is inaccurate.

*In a cognizable offense, the police are duty bound to register and investigate the complaint. Cognizable does not mean that the police can arrest you upon the filing of the FIR. They are required to investigate as a first step. 498A is a cognizable offence.

After writing a bunch of memos and press notes, enduring the rantings of Ranjana Kumari, Girija Vyas and the random Feminazis of India in the press, I was restless and felt a pervasive sense of not doing enough.

At this point I was introduced to blogging thanks to the idiocy of a bunch of embittered ex-wives, who spewed venom and gloated about the trouble they got their ex-hubbies and their families into. I was enraged over the fact that they felt smug about the plight of their mothers and sisters in law. I started blogging to mock them and developed an appreciation for the possibilities that blogging opens up. As a footnote, I take full credit for shutting them down.

I felt the need for A Guide To Surviving IPC 498A, as at this stage, though I knew and understood a lot, it was obvious to me that there was nothing anywhere that tied it all together or served as a repository of information.

The motivation to educate others about their Fundamental Rights was given by the book by Prof Som K Shah, Faith Belied, which mentioned Joginder Kumar Vs The State Of UP, which, for the first time, detailed the limits on the powers of the police to arrest.

Taking that as a base, I started digging and soon found DK Basu Vs State Of WB and more judgments from the Supreme Court. Initially I focused on the judgments curtailing/defining the powers of the Indian Police. I got pretty good at digging up judgments at Judis.

Around this time, I received a gift from the gods, in the form of a Judgment by Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra, which is now popularly known as the 498A Income Tax judgment. This and the following judgments by him were my first posts.

I put all this together and wrote up the Survivor’s Guide To IPC 498A. I did have some friends proof read it and had to edit it, as my anger was apparent in tone and the choice of words. As an example, I referred to the 498A wives as bitches. Nothing wrong with that, except, when writing, moderation should be exercised, to reach out to a wider audience.

I kept digging through Judis and the web and as I came across relevant judgments and material, I blogged them in order to serve as a repository of information.

By July, I had it all together, but had to wait until November to inaugurate the 498A Survival Kit, as I was having the document reviewed for accuracy by a former IPS officer.

By then, I was burnt out and decided to walk away for a short time. Upon my return, I was able to have the Gujju version up. I also made a major update and uploaded it.

The blog averages over 400 visitors a day and they are from all over the world. Check out the cluster map on the lower right side of this page, to see the spread. It also looks like I may have a small but regular set of readers, though I don’t know who they are.

498A and the associated asinine laws, though formulated with good intentions, are inherently flawed. The establishment has taken advantage of these flaws and it is now an extortion racket feeding the ravenous appetite of the corrupt Indian Police force, the lower judiciary, NGOs like CSR, statutory bodies like the NCW and worse, has become a component of vote bank politics.

Who cares if more than a 100,000 women have been arrested in 4 years, or the Indian criminal justice system is clogged, or the fact that the real victims of domestic violence or dowry harassment will never get justice as the cases will drag on for years due to the numerous frivolous cases that have been filed?

As depressing as this situation seems, the tide is turning.

I have asserted, from the moment that I came across Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP, that the police have been arresting people in 498A cases in contravention of the orders of the Supreme Court. My stand has been vindicated by the recent emergence of a memo from 2002, by the Hyderabad Comm Of Police, MV Krishna Rao, who forbade any 498A arrests without the authorisation of the DCP of the investigating officer. This is a standing order, in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment. Further vindication came in the form of the Delhi Police Commissioner issuing a circular forbidding 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP

People on the ground are finally questioning the cops about arbitrary arrests and I expect this to spread, especially as the translations in the regional languages come into play.

I have made some lasting friendships in this time of my activism and also had to endure the idiocy of morons. This battle can be fought and will be won, though it will take time.

So how does one fight this hydra headed monster?

As a first step, it must be recognized that it is the radical feminists and crass opportunists of India, who are preventing any kind of a discussion or amendment to this flawed law from taking place. These radical feminists are like the Taliban. They are radical, they are stupid, they are corrupt and they will be defeated. The domestic violence act is their swan song and the sinking of the Sati Law is proof of their diminishing clout.

As a next step, it is essential to re-frame this fight as anything else other than that between men and women. The Feminazis got this far as they successfully portrayed themselves as “Abala Nari” vs the “Rakshas Ravana” .

SIF is fighting this as a way to protect the Indian family structure. The petrol pump scam tainted Girija Vyas, feeling the sting of the inroads made by SIF, is now attempting to claim this mantle. I feel that this issue can also be framed as a fight against corruption in India.

The Feminazis of India are like hyenas and vultures, they feed on the helpless. They have successfully pushed aside respected women rights activists like Madhu Kishwar and have hijacked the cause of the empowerment of women to serve their selfish ends. They are the enablers in setting the corrupt establishment upon vulnerable individuals and families. They play the role of useful idiots for the establishment, in return for access and privilege, and they have the MPs cowed. They have been attempting to intimidate the judiciary with varying degrees of success, under the garb of “gender sensitization”.

The Feminazis haven’t faced organized opposition due to the nature of this problem. This is not oppression of a particular caste, religion, language or sex. This is persecution of small units in this multitude of millions for the purposes of empty propaganda; to claim that the establishment has legislated laws for women, is pro women and thus pandering to a perceived vote bank. In reality, as with everything else, this is empty propaganda which enriches the establishment and nothing concrete is accomplished. If 100,000 women have been arrested in 4 years, you won’t hear a peep of protest as it doesn’t matter. They don’t count as a voting block as they are scattered across the country and so they won’t dent an election. Besides, who really understands fully the pernicious theory of vote-bank politics?. These numbers are a drop in the 500,000,000 women of India. In addition, these persecuted individuals and their families come from the middle and upper middle classes and they are spread out over the country with the only unifying thread being that they have been 498A’d or DV Act’d. Finally groups like SIF, though small in number are unifying and fighting the establishment.

The most prominent Feminazis are unmarried or divorced. Their temperament was never tempered by the pangs of birthing or gazing fondly upon their own flesh and blood, be it a boy or a girl. They want privilege, but don’t want to earn it, but want it handed over under the garb of equality. 498A and the DV Act have nothing to do with womens rights or feminism, these laws are designed to feed on the helpless and unsuspecting.

What do they have to gain from propagating and spreading this misery ? The explanation is simple. It is money, lifestyle, access to power and privilege, a paycheck and I don’t know what else. I can only stoop to a certain level of dirt in terms of speculating about motivation. Regardless they are the beneficiaries of this misery. They are backed up by large amounts of money in funds from the center or from the UN. They have the megaphone and can lock up the print media and the TV channels with their rants and propaganda.

But, alas, they have decisively lost the online battle. An example is the maligning of Justice Dhingra. Before the advent of this blog, anyone who read about him would pass him off as a male chauvinist and a sexist, thanks to the malicious propaganda of Indira Jaising.

I’ve set the record straight and effectively countered Indira Jaising’s mud slinging. She had made it her mission to malign Justice Dhingra at any given opportunity. As a writer with a guaranteed readership of at least 12,000 a month, I assert that Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra can be ranked amongst the greatest judges in the history of our nation. All you need to do is read his judgments, any judgments and you will understand what I mean. Those of us, who’ve been entangled in this mess need to thank the gods for their gift, in the form of this great judge.

I work hard, stay fit and have loads of fun and I don’t believe that I will ever marry again. My ex-wife gave me a precious gift, a gift so precious that few men would have ever received it. This is the ability to live alone and endure with ease, the pangs of loneliness. On the occasions that I felt it, all it took was a recollection of my life with her, of her nagging, her threats and accusations of incest and the blackmail she subjected me to, and I am back on my feet.

There is a lot to do, and I am an idea factory, but often, just like Cassandra, my words fall on deaf ears and I feel frustrated at the stupidity. This is the reason for the existence today of the 498A Survival Kit. Fortunately, unlike Cassandra who ended up as a slave to the Greeks, I’ve been gaining in credibility and being listened to. The biggest example of this is the widening recognition of the importance of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP, as a cornerstone of defense against arbitrary arrest by the 498A accused and activists.

As I drift away to resurrect my once promising career, I leave with a hope that I may have laid a foundation.

Getting back to the 498A wives, here is a song, whose message their parents should have drilled into their stupid heads: Itna Nazuk Na Bano.

I want to share with you the approach I took to get through my darkest days.

When ever you feel overwhelmed and unable to go on, just remember this, get through today and wait for tomorrow. Tomorrow will dawn, glorious and bright, and you can pick up where you left off, filled with energy after a night’s rest.

The 498A wives have a biological clock ticking. Each day you’ve gained is a day they’ve lost. Run out the clock on them. This is the way to beat them.

______________________________________________________________________________________

SC 498A AB Judgment Explaining Some Misconceptions – 2003

Here is the judgment: SC 498A AB Judgment – 2003

Excerpts:

• From a careful reading of the said judgment we do not find any restriction or absolute bar on the concerned Court granting anticipatory bail even in cases where either cognizance has been taken or a chagesheet has been filed. This judgment only lays down a guideline that while considering the prima facie case against an accused the factum of cognizance having been taken and the laying of chargesheet would be of some assistance for coming to the conclusion whether the claimant for an anticipatory bail is entitled for such bail or not.
• We respectfully agree with the observations of this Court in the said case that the duration of anticipatory bail should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory bail for an unspecified period. This judgment in our opinion does not support the extreme argument addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court. As stated above this would only amount to defeat the very object for which Section 438 was introduced in the Crl.P.C. in the year 1973.

__________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains Section 482 Of IPC (HC Quash Petition)

The courts have always been reluctant to quash a case under Section 482 IPC.

I have written about it here: Understanding High Court Quash Petitions (Section 482 Of CrPC)

The best explanation of the view of the courts, in my opinion, has been given by Justice Dhingra.

This is what he says:

“While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. the Court has to keep in mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. This is a function of the Trial Court. Though the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment but the Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances in consideration before issuing process under Section 482 lest the Section becomes an instrument in the hands of accused persons to claim differential treatment only because the accused persons can spend money to approach higher forums. This Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. “

Here is the judgment I pulled this from : Justice Dhingra Explains Section 482

____________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Orders A CBI Inquiry Into The Conduct Of Some Corrupt Delhi Cops

Here is the news coverage. This judgment has a significant importance to me as the cops and the bastard of a magistrate pulled a similar stunt with my family.

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Orders A CBI Inquiry

http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_J.asp?pn=783&yr=2008

High Court directs CBI to inquire into Delhi Police conduct Monday, February 25, 2008 :

Taking exception to the manner in which the Delhi police is handling petty cases and pushing the innocent behind bars, Delhi High Courthas directed the Central CBI to inquire into the conduct of the police in this matter. Justice S N Dhingra directed the Delhi Government to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 each to two people who were confined illegally in police custody, for petty offences just because the police official wanted to settle scores with them. The incident related to one Sanjeev Kumar Singh and his friend, who were picked up by the Delhi police on February 4, 2007, at Samaypur Badali police station. They were apprehended by the police under Section 107/151, CrPC on the charge of abusing, threatening and quarrelling with each other. They were produced before ACP J S Vaid, who was working as Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) on February 4. The SEM sent them to Judicial Custody (JC) till February 17. Though they were asked to furnish a surety of Rs 5000 each, the record showed that the bail bond was accepted by furnishing a surety of Rs 15000 from each. In his petition, Sanjeev Kumar had alleged that the police officials had not only incorporated these sections to illegally detain and harass them, but have also encroached upon their fundamental right. They were friends but the police wanted to settle scores with them and booked them illegally. Justice Dhingra observed the case showed high-handedness of the police and the SEM concerned. The petitioner was kept in illegal confinement because of the SEM’s illegal action of not accepting the bail bond on the same day. The court directed the CBI to investigate the matter and submit its report to the Metropilitan Magistrate concerned within 120 days.

_________________________________________

Allahabad HC-No Arbitrary Arrests In Cognizable Cases – 2004

Here is a judgment by Justice Markandeya Katju while he was serving as a judge of the Allahabad HC.
He says:
“After the promulgation of the Constitution individual liberty has become of great importance particularly in view of Article 21, which is a fundamental right. Hence it cannot be lightly interfered with. Moreover, section 157(1) Cr.P.C. States :-

“157. Procedure for investigation – (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officer not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.”

The above provision clearly shows that it is not necessary to arrest in every case wherever a FIR of cognizable offence has been registered. No doubt investigation has to be made in every case where a cognizable offence is disclosed but in our opinion investigation does not necessarily include arrest. Often the investigation can be done without arresting a person, and this legal position becomes clear from section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C. because that provision states that the Police Officer has to investigate the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the arrest of the offender. The use of words ‘ if necessary’ clearly indicates that the Police Officer does not have to arrest in every case wherever FIR has been lodged and this position has been clarified in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).

In our country unfortunately whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged the police immediately goes to arrest the accused. This practice in our opinion is illegal as it s against the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar’s case, and it is also in violation of Article 21 of theConstitution as well as section 157 (1) Cr.P.C. No doubt section 157(1) Cr.P.C. gives a police officer discretion to arrest or not, but this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and it must be exercised in accordance with the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).”

Here is the judgment: Allahabad HC-No Arbitrary Arrests In Cognizable Cases

_____________________________________________________

SC: Judges Should Not Misuse Powers For Sadistic Pleasure

Here is the link to the IE article

This link will take you to the recent judgment:

SC Answers The Question Of When NBWs Should Be Issued-2007
_________________________________________________________

Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus And Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP

This symbolizes everything that’s wrong with the Indian criminal justice system.

The celebrated writ of habeas corpus has been described as `a great constitutional privilege of the citizen’ or `the first security of civil liberty’. The writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention and its purpose is to safeguard the liberty of the citizen, which is a precious right not to be lightly transgressed by anyone. The imperative necessity to protect those precious rights is a lesson taught by all history and all human experience. Our founding fathers have lived through bitter years of the freedom struggle and seen an alien government trample upon the human rights of our citizens. It is for this reason that they introduced Article 21 in the Constitution and provided for the writs of habeas corpus, etc.

Habeas Corpus (Latin:”We command that you have the body”) is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action. In order to truly understand this judgment and the meaning of Habeas Corpus, we need a short lesson in history.

The Magna Carta was originally issued in 1215, and was written because of disagreements among Pope Innocent III, King John and the English barons about the rights of the King. Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the king’s subjects, whether free or fettered – most notably the right of Habeas Corpus, meaning that they had rights against unlawful imprisonment. The link between the Magna Carta and this landmark judgment of the Supreme Court are the magic words: Habeas Corpus. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts “declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty”.

This is what former Chief Justice Of India, M.N. Venkatachalliah says (JOGINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.25/04/1994) in this landmark judgment that defined the powers of the police to arrest a person. This judgment is especially applicable in the case of a cognizable offense such as 498A:

“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. 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 for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter.

There are significant other requirements that need to be fulfilled for an arrest. These are:

1. The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims.

2. The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.

3. The accused is given to violent behavior and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.

4. The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again. It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the specified guidelines.

Justice JD Kapoor, in this judgment (Delhi High Court CRLMM 3875/2003 28.01.2004 Court on its own motion Versus Central Bureau of Investigation), says:

“For instance it is the experience of this court that in offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC which are much abused provisions and exploited by the police and the victims to the level of absurdity and are of such nature which can be investigated without arrest and do not fall under the aforesaid category viz. being of highest magnitude and prescribing severest punishment or minimum punishment, every relative of husband, close or distant, old or minor is arrested by the police. By arresting such relatives whose arrest may not be necessary for completing the investigation as it can be completed by recording the statement of victim, her parents and other witnesses, police assumes the role of breaker of homes and not the maker as once any relative of he husband is sent to jail, the marriage ends for all practical purposes and divorce and other miseries are bound to follow. Unless the allegations are of very serious nature and highest magnitude arrest should always be avoided.”

In yet another judgment dated 22.8.2004 (Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.4861 of 2000, Ajeet Singh alias Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others), Justice Markandeya Katju, while serving as a judge on the Allahahabad High Court, had the following to say:

“157. Procedure for investigation –

(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officer not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf to proceed, to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.”

The above provision clearly shows that it is not necessary to arrest in every case wherever a FIR of cognizable offence has been registered. No doubt investigation has to be made in every case where a cognizable offence is disclosed but in our opinion investigation does not necessarily include arrest. Often the investigation can be done without arresting a person, and this legal position becomes clear from section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C. because that provision states that the Police Officer has to investigate the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the arrest of the offender. The use of words ‘ if necessary’ clearly indicates that the Police Officer does not have to arrest in every case wherever FIR has been lodged and this position has been clarified in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).

In our country unfortunately whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged the police immediately goes to arrest the accused. This practice in our opinion is illegal as it is against the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar’s case, and it is also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as well as section 157 (1) Cr.P.C. No doubt section 157(1) Cr.P.C. gives a police officer discretion to arrest or not, but this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and it must be exercised in accordance with the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar’s case (supra).”

Keeping the following judgments in mind, I am really interested in seeing how a grandma or a granddad, kids,  aging parents and young siblings can fall into any of the categories described by Justice M.N. Venkatachalliah. The police cannot arrest a citizen without an investigation and without justification. The police will say that 498A is a cognizable offence. By cognizable, it means they have to register an FIR and INVESTIGATE not effect an immediate arrest. Think about it. If a king has been stripped of his power to arrest without cause, way back in 1215, how can the police still claim to have that power, especially since Habeas Corpus is incorporated in The Constitution Of India under Article 32?

To summarize, the police have the discretionary power to arrest you, but they need to justify the arrest and the Supreme Court has established that some investigation must be done before an arrest is made and only if necessary.

Given below are the orders of the Delhi Commissioner of Police which complies with the order of the Supreme Court under this  judgment:

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

Here is the pdf of Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP:

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP-Apr/25/1994

Here is the link to the judgment of the Allahabad HC, reiterating Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP:

Allahabad HC On Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP

_____________________________

Delhi HC Bail Orders

Here are some of the old 498A bail orders of the Delhi HC. You can see how frivolous some of these 498A complaints are. The reason for collecting these bail orders is primarily to show the stupidity of the prevailing situation in our country. This is a tiny fraction of some of the old bail orders from just one High Court of our country. Can you imagine the scale of the abuse of this law happening across the rest of the country?

Think of the local courts, district courts, High Courts and the cases that reach the Supreme Court. Think of the court time wasted in processing these frivolous cases. Think of the lives destroyed of ordinary citizens entangled in the slow Indian criminal justice system, due to badly framed and implemented laws such as 498A.

Do you think a real victim of dowry harassment can get justice if her complaint lands among this pile of frivolous complaints? Who would have the time to investigate her complaint and bring the culprits to justice? The cops won’t. The courts are choking with frivolous complaints that it will take ages before her case concludes.

Under these circumstances, Justice will be delayed and in such circumstances, justice is denied.

The four factors, which are relevant for considering the application for
grant of anticipatory bail, are :

1. The nature and gravity or seriousness of accusation as apprehended by the applicant;
2. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a Court, previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence;
3. The likely object of the accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested; and
4. The possibility of the appellant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice.

Most of the following bail orders are by Justice Pradeep Nand Rajog.

You can read about him here: http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/pra_rajog.htm

All the bail orders are in pdf format:

1. Bail Denied To 498A Accused. Trend Noted
2. Bail For In-Laws Of Deceased
3. Bail For Mother In Law Of Deceased
4. Bail For Sister In Law Of Deceased
5. Bail Granted Airline Baggage Case
6. Bail Granted General Complaints
7. Bail Granted Hubby Disappears
8. Bail Granted-Hubby Gives Maintenance
9. Bail Granted-Saudi Arabia
10. Bail Granted-Wishy Washy Complaint
11. Bail Granted-Blue Films
12. Bail Granted-Kerosene-Hubby-Ready-To-Reconcile

_____________________________________________

Judgments On NRI Cases By The Courts In India

I thank Ms Girija Vyas for this document. I extracted this information from the MOIA document she sponsored in a misdirected zeal to paint all NRIs men with marital issues as crooks, liars and cheats.

I thought, I’d perform a public service by sparing the public from the vitriol and the smug faces of netas, contained in this otherwise excellent document, by extracting and presenting the excellent parts.

Here is the document: Judgments On NRI Cases By The Courts In India(pdf)

Read this judgment of Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra: Justice Dhingra Quashes An NRI 498A Case

Read this judgment as well:   Delhi HC: Beniwal Vs Beniwal 1989

Also read this news. The Supreme Court is looking into the issue of women who live abroad, fight their divorce/custody battles abroad, lose their cases, land in India and file 498A or whatever against their husbands.

____________________________________________

SC: Concensual Sex Not Rape

NOTE: I sourced this judgment from a dynamic young lawyer.

I am amazed that it took the Supreme Court to drill some sense into the women who willingly consent to a sexual relationship and then scream ‘rape’ when the marriage doesn’t materialize.

We are turning into a land of promiscuous morons and wannabe victimized virgins.

Here is the link to the HT article

Here is the judgment: SC: Concensual Sex Not Rape

_____________________________________