A Guide To Court Procedures In India

Folks,
What are the procedures that are followed when a case goes to court?I don’t know and I am sure that you don’t know either. I am searching/looking for this info and it would be great if someone could gift me this information. I found this book called “A Handbook Of Court Procedures In India” at this site.
Here is an Alternative site.
Here is an overview of the book: ” There is a general feeling among Indians that resorting to court proceedings leads to empty-wallets and heavy heads. This feeling is partly attributable to lack of awareness among common folk about court procedures in India. The present work is an attempt to bring this basic awareness in the litigant’s mind that courts are meant to serve the people by providing the necessary relief. Basic knowledge of court procedures has become a necessity in the modern complex societies. This work envisages a utility not only for the general public but also for the students of law who enter the courts with no knowledge of court procedures.”
This is a good place to start. I will post more info as I go along.

______________________________________

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

_______________________________

Union Minister Arjun Singh In Dowry Case

• Renuka Chaudhry Acknowledges Abuse of 498A-Defends Arjun Singh
  
• Here is the link
• http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/31/news/india.php
• http://munneerram.blogspot.com/2007/09/cbi-refuses-to-probe-dowry-case-linked.html
• http://www.twocircles.net/2007jul31/dont_blame_arjun_dowry_case_renuka_chowdhury.html

__________________________________________________

Madras HC: No Time Frame For AB

-UNI 18 July 2007

 

The Madras High Court has held that an order of anticipatory bail should not be limited to a particular period of time.
The full bench, comprising Mr Justices R Balasubramanyam, S K Krishnan and R Raghupathy, passed the order on a matter referred to it by the Chief Justice, through an administrative order on June 26, 2007.
The full bench was appointed to hear a case in which two persons, Sudhakaran and Palani Kumar, approached the Madurai bench of Madras High Court to get anticipatory bail. A single judge had granted anticipatory bail, but only for a limited
The Madurai Bar had argued before the single judge that if the court decided to grant anticipatory bail, it should do so without limiting the
The single judge had pointed out the conflict in the Supreme Court judgement on whether the court had the power to grant anticipatory bail for a limited period or not. He had asked the Registry to present the papers before the Chief Justice. The matter was first referred to a Division Bench and later to the full Bench.
The full bench observed that the Supreme Court held conflicting views on the matter and pointed out the Apex Court observation that as per the law of precedence, if a High Court faced conflicting views, it should follow the opinion expressed by the larger Bench.
It also referred to the Constitutional Bench judgement in the case of one Gurupaksh Singh, in which it was held that the operation of the order should not be limited to a particular period of time.

_______________________________________

What Does An FIR Form Look Like?

I found this at the NCRB site. The forms are possibly translated into regional languages. This is a 21 page document, so be patient while it loads.

Here is the english version of an FIR from the NCRB site

_________________________________________________

Police Attempting To Arrest Kids, Ages 4 And 8, In A 498A Case

Here is the Link to the article

Here is an excerpt, along with the judgment of Justice Dhingra.

“Kanpur: In an age when the life for little ones is all play and fun,
four year-old Vishal is hiding at an unknown place since June 29,
evading his arrest. Reason: He and his brother Ajay (8) are facing a
non-bailable warrant (NBW) in a dowry harassment case.

Under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the district court had asked the
police to register a case against Ramesh Kuriel, a resident of
Darshadev village near Gujaini in Kanpur Dehat district, his wife
Shanti and their sons Abhinay (24), Vishal (4) and Ajay (8). The court
issued the directive on a complaint lodged by Abhinay’s wife Deepa,
who had alleged that her in-laws, husband and two minor
brothers-in-law tired to set her ablaze on December 2, 2006 when her
family refused to pay a dowry demand of Rs.50,000, besides a bike. The
two kids have been accused of helping the family in puring kerosene on
Deepa during the unsuccessful bid to set her ablaze.

While the police in a bid to comply with the court order continued
raiding possible hideouts of the kids, the complainants advocate Arun
Srivastava explained that as Deepa had not disclosed the age of the
accused persons, this goof up took place. “We are rectifying the
lapse,” he added. Although Ramesh Kuriel and his wife were granted
bail on Tuesday, their three sons are yet to seek it and come out of
hiding. “Deepa has implicated my entire family after her husband and
my son Abhinay refused to leave us and stay separately,” Ramesh alleged.

The case has, however, added to the swelling number of the frivolous
anti-dowry cases in which the criminal justice system is used as a
tool to settle personal scores. This is happening despite several
higher court orders in the past asking lower courts to avoid
entertaining flimsy use of anti-dowry law. The latest such direction
had come from the Delhi High Court on March 13 last.

“The trial court must take into account the entirety of the case, all
documents which are brought to its notice and thereafter decide
whether there was a case made out or the court was being used as a
tool,” Justice SN Dhingra had observed in his order.”

You can read about this order here: Do Not Entertain Frivolous Dowry Cases

______________________________________________

Calcutta HC: No Alimony For Leaving Hubbies On Flimsy Grounds

Folks,
Here is the judgment. It is a large file (1.4Mb): No Alimony For Leaving Hubbies On Flimsy Grounds

_______________

TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Kolkata: Here is one for the harassed husbands’ club. If a woman leaves her husband’s home on “flimsy grounds”, she is not entitled to maintenance, the Calcutta High Court has ruled.
On Thursday, the HC set aside a lower court’s order and asked a Baranagar youth to stop paying his estranged wife a monthly allowance, after judging that she had left her husband’s home “on flimsy grounds”. The landmark judgment is one of those rare cases where the husband gets reprieve in a case under the stringent section 498A, which is meant to prevent harassment of women but is sometimes exploited by the fair sex for unfair ends. The ruling came as a relief for Baranagar’s Partha Pratim Banik who was locked in a bruising battle with his estranged wife, Arundhati. Their marriage had not been a happy one and they had frequent quarrels. According to sources, Arundhati left Partha’s home suddenly one morning, taking along their fouryear-old son, and filed a case against her husband and inlaws under section 498A for “physical and mental torture”. Later, she claimed in court that Partha had cheated her by claiming he was a computer engineer whereas he was a “computer mechanic”.
A Barrackpore court granted her plea and directed Partha to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs 1,700 — Rs 1,000 for the boy and Rs 700 for Arundhati. Partha appealed against th e order in high court. The case came up for its final hearing on Thursday. Partha’s counsel Koushik Dey said that the allegations against Partha were false and that Arundhati had left her home voluntarily without any concrete reason. He cited section 4 of 125 CrPC, which states that a wife who refuses to stay with her husband without sufficient reason is not entitled to a maintenance allowance. Dey also claimed that Partha was willing to take Arundhati back home, but she had refused.

___________________________________________

Foot In The Mouth: The Hon’ble Minister For Women And Children

The Hon’ble Minister backtracked with the usual “my comments are misinterpreted” excuse.

Here is the link

This is what the Hon’ble Minister originally said:

“men cannot be trusted. A woman should not feel shy about keeping condoms with her. She is equally responsible for her health and she should be prepared for any any kind of eventuality. Women is always more vulnerable.”

This is the excuse by the Hon’ble Minister: “”Yes, it is ironic. It is a tragedy that it is interpreted like this. The people, the women I have met are women who are survivors of HIV, people who are living with HIV/AIDS. And the women themselves have said it in the audience, in front of everyone that we have got AIDS because of our husbands,”

Err, is this an issue of misinterpretation or one of foot in the mouth ?

Can we at least get someone who can communicate to be a Union Minister?

_________________________________

School Teacher Acquitted In 498A Case

Here is an inspiring story of a very forgiving school teacher and father in law. The cops humiliated him and his family.

Download the pdf here: School teacher Paraded by cops praised by court

___________________________________________________

An RTI For The Pay Of The MPs

Some guy has filed an RTI against the MPs.

Here is my question. If a guy can file an RTI against the MPs, why can’t the 498A affected folks file RTIs against the cops, if they feel the officer did not do his duty ?

Here is the link the article from HT

______________________________________

The Indian Domestic Violence Act: Behind The Scenes

Looks like there was a lot of action behind the scenes. Here are some pdfs that explain what I mean:

• Govt version of the bill
• The version by the Lawyers Collective
• The non-negotiables
• Comparison of the DV Act bills

This happened on March 15th 2002.

Here is the link to the pdf: COMMENTS BY MR. ARUN JAITLEY, Union Minister For Law And Justice, in defence of the GOI Domestic Violence Bill Given to women’s groups on March 15, 2002

Here is a comment by Indira Jaising:

“There should be a policy underlying every legislation. The only possible objective of a law on domestic violence can only be to Stop Violence. Whereas the policy of the GOI Draft seems to be to preserve the family and the marriage, and the same is already achieved by all the marriage laws and civil laws. The only “unoccupied field” is protecting a woman from domestic violence and this present draft does not achieve that.”

Here is the pdf if the link is inactive: GOI DVA Bill Original Version Comments

__________________________________________

An Explanation Of Section 182 Of IPC

This is a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The judgment gives an explanation of Section 182, which is a criminal offence, if a false complaint is made. I hope we’ll see more use of this section, especially in 498A cases.

A word of caution. Section 182 must be filed within 1 year from the date of exoneration.

Here is the excerpt from the judgment:

“Whenever any information is given to the authorities and when the said authority found that the averments made in the complaint were false, it is for the said authority to initiate action under Section 182 I.P.C. The offence under Section 182 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for a period of six months or with fine or with both. When the authorities themselves found in the years 1996 and 1997 after due investigation that the averments made by Ashwani Kumar in his complaint were false, it is for them to initiate proceedings immediately or within the prescribed period as provided under Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure. The acceptance of the cancellation report by the Court is immaterial. It does not save the limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. which prescribes the period of one year for taking cognizance if offence is punishable, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Since the offence under Section 182 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for a period of six months only, the authority should file the complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. within one year from the date when that authority found that the allegations made in the complaint were false. Since more than four years lapsed from the date when the authority found the allegations were false, no question of filing any complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. at this belated stage arises.”

Here is the pdf of the judgment: An Explanation Of Section 182 Of IPC

_________________________________

Alien Torts Claims

This is for the NRIs whose families are held by Indian cops to extort money from them.

You can read about this here: Alien Tort Claims Act

Here is an article in Time magazine that will give you more info

________________________________________

Police Organization And Criminal Justice Procedures

Here is a pdf put out by CHRI. I cropped it to just include the relevant parts and I have highlighted them as well.

This document details the procedures to be followed  in a criminal case.

Here is the document:  Police Organization And Criminal Justice Procedures

________________________________

Bombay HC 498A Divorce Appeal Judgement

Here is the judgment:   Bombay HC 498A Divorce Appeal Judgement

________________________________

Feminism: The Six Frauds

Here is an interesting article:  Feminism: The Six Frauds

_____________________________

Delhi HC Hauls Up The Lower Judiciary

Here are two petitions upheld by the Delhi HC. In both cases, the magistrates of the lower courts summoned the respondents without a basis and the High Court took cognizance and set things right.

Here are the judgments:

• Delhi HC Hauls Up The Lower Judiciary-2007
• Delhi HC Hauls Up The The Lower Judiciary-2003

___________________________

Misc SC And Delhi HC Judgments

Here are some miscellaneous judgments.

• Miscellaneous SC Judgments(1.4Mb)
• Delhi HC Judgments On Maintenance
• A Judgment On Jurisdiction (1963)

________________________________

Delhi HC Quashes A 498A Against A Sister: Mar 2007

Here is an excerpt:

“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”

Expect another tirade by Indira Jaising in the near future ..

I’ve been sloppy of late, just very busy and tired. Bear with me !

Here is the judgment: Delhi HC Squashes A 498A Against A Sister: Mar 2007

_______________________________

Delhi HC Allows A Corrupt Cop (498A) To Walk

This cop got nailed in a 498A extortion case, but the HC allowed him to walk after the prosecution botched the case.

Here is the link:  Delhi HC Allows A Corrupt Cop (498A) To Walk

______________________________________