Archive for the 'SN Dhingra' Category

Justice Dhingra Explains The Guidelines Used To Determine Child Custody

Here is what Justice Dhingra says while determining an interim child custody case:

“The principles of law in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite that while determining the question as to which parent the care and control of a child should be committed, the first and the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. Indubitably the provisions of law pertaining to the custody of child contained in either the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 (Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the welfare of the child are predominant consideration. In fact, no statute on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of the minor. The question of welfare of the minor child has again to be considered in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly serve as binding precedents insofar as the factual aspects of the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is presumed by the statutes to be better suited to look after the welfare of the child, being normally the working member and   head of the family, yet in each case the Court has to see primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the question of his or her custody. Better financial resources of either of the parents or their love for the child may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be the sold determining factor for the custody of the child. It is here that a heavy duty is cast on the Court to exercise its judicial discretion judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.”

Here is the judgment: J Dhingra: CM(M) No. 752/2000 Ram Murti Chopra and Anr. v. Nagesh Tyagi

More information can be had from here:

INTERPARENTAL CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES – THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE

___________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains Section 24 Of The HMA – 2008

Justice Dhingra explains Section 24 of the HMA in a judgment. Section 24/HMA reads as follows:

24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable””

Here is the excerpt:

5. From the perusal of Section 24, it is abundantly clear that the object and intent of this Section is to enable the husband or the wife, as the case may be, who has no independent source of income for his or her support and necessary expense of proceedings under the Act to obtain maintenance expenses pendent lite so that the proceedings may be continued without any hardships on his or her part. The benefits granted under this Section are only temporary in nature and there are other provisions of law where a wife, who is not able to maintain herself, can claim maintenance/permanent alimony from the husband e.g. Section 25 of HMA or under provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The provisions of this Section are not meant for equivalising the income of wife with that of husband but are meant to see that where divorce or other proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the Court should pass an order even during the pendency of such a petition, for maintenance and litigation expenses. Where a wife has no income or is without any support for maintaining herself, the Court has to pass an order considering the income and living status of the husband. However, where the wife and her husband both are earning and both are having good salary, merely because there is some salary difference, an order is not required to be passed under Section 24 of HMA.

Here is this all important judgment: Justice Dhingra Explains Section 24 Of The HMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: August 18, 2008
Date of Order: September 18,2008
CM(M) 949/2008
18.09.2008
Manish Kumar …Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku with Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, Advocate
Versus
Mrs. Pratibha…Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and Ms. Ekta Kalra, Advocates
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA


1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT:
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order 25th July 2008 passed by learned trial court whereby the learned ADJ awarded a maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).
2. There is no dispute about the fact that both husband and wife were gainfully employed. Wife claimed that her monthly salary was Rs.28,500 whereas her husband was having monthly salary of Rs.90,000/- per month. She claimed a maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month.
3. Both husband and wife were working in private companies and their salary statements and other record was placed before the trial court. The trial court found that the take-home salary of wife was Rs.41,900/- and that of the husband was Rs.75,761/- per month respectively. Finding that the salary of the husband was more than the salary of the wife, the trial court granted maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to the wife.
4. I consider that while awarding maintenance to the wife, the trial court has lost sight of the basic ingredients of Section 24. Section 24 of HMA reads as follows:
“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable”
5. From the perusal of Section 24, it is abundantly clear that the object and intent of this Section is to enable the husband or the wife, as the case may be, who has no independent source of income for his or her support and necessary expense of proceedings under the
Act to obtain maintenance expenses pendent lite so that the proceedings may be continued without any hardships on his or her part. The benefits granted under this Section are only temporary in nature and there are other provisions of law where a wife, who is not able to maintain herself, can claim maintenance/permanent alimony from the husband e.g. Section 25 of HMA or under provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The provisions of this Section are not meant for equivalising the income of wife with that of husband but are meant to see that where divorce or other proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the Court should pass an order even during the pendency of such a petition, for maintenance and litigation expenses. Where a wife has no income or is without any support for maintaining herself, the Court has to pass an order considering the income and living status of the husband. However, where the wife and her husband both are earning and both are having good salary, merely because there is some salary difference, an order is not required to be passed under Section 24 of HMA.
6. In the instant case, it is nowhere pleaded by the wife in her application under Section 24 that the income being earned by her was not sufficient for her maintenance. Her contention in the application was that the petitioner was liable to bring her to the same status and station as if she was living with him in the matrimonial home. In my view, this is not the intent and purpose of Section 24. The purpose and intent of 24 is quite different as stated above.
7. The salary slips of the wife has been placed on record which show that she was having salary in the range of around Rs.50,000/- per month. Her statement of salary account from February 2007 to January 2008 shows that she had a take-home salary during this year of Rs.6,80,188/-. The average monthly salary was thus Rs.56,682/-. This salary was after deduction of tax, employees provident fund, PF contribution etc. Her gross salary inclusive of tax, provident fund etc was around Rs.80,000/- per month. A person who is earning this much of salary can very well maintain herself with such a standard which may be envy of many and under no stretch of imagination it can be said that the income earned by her was not enough to maintain her. There was no other liability on her. There is no offspring from this wedlock.
8. In view of my foregoing discussion, I consider that the trial court has wrongly allowed maintenance to the respondent wife. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25th July 2008, granting maintenance of Rs.7500/- per month to the wife, is hereby set aside. However, the petitioner would be liable to pay the litigation expenses, as ordered by the trial court. No order as to costs.
September 18, 2008
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

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:

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 🙂.

____________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains Double Jeopardy-Sept 2007

This is not related to 498A, but of late, these brides from hell have been attempting to pursue their hapless hubbies to the ends of the earth by abusing the process of criminal justice. This judgment explains double jeopardy.

Here is the judgment:  Justice Dhingra Explains Double Jeopardy (21.9.2007)

__________________________________

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.

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.

_________________________________________

Justice Dhingra: Police Do Not Investigate In 498A Cases (Crl.Apl No. 696/2004)

News Flash

This judgment of Justice Dhingra led to the standing order from Delhi Police Commissioner YS Dadwal, prohibiting the arrests in 498A cases without the permission of the DCP (Jun/21/2008).

You can read about this here:  Delhi Police Commissioner: No 498A Arrests W/O Permission Of DCP

__________

Publication: Times Of India Delhi;
Date:Nov 2, 2007;
Section:Times City;
Page Number:5
HC: Wife can’t use failed marriage to harass in-laws
Abhinav Garg | TNN

New Delhi: Dismayed by the increasing misuse of anti-dowry laws, the Delhi high court has observed that failed marriages are ‘‘not a crime’’ and berated the tendency by women to see souring of matrimony as valid ground to get even with the husband and in-laws or to extract money.
‘‘A failed marriage is not a crime. However, provisions of section 498-A (cruelty by in-laws or husband) are being used to convert failed marriages into a crime and people are using this as a tool to extract as much monetary benefit as possible,’’ Justice S N Dhingra said on Thursday while acquitting the husband, in laws and ‘jethani’ of a woman who had alleged that they poured kerosene on her and set her on fire due to her inability to get dowry or secure an employment for her husband.
‘‘It must be acknowledged that marriages do fail and there is a mismatch not only in an arranged union but even in love marriages, which is discovered during the continuation of married life,’’ the judge remarked as it turned out that the harassment charge was slapped by the wife because she was unhappy with her husband’s unemployment and a life of penury.

Excerpts:

  • ” It is her own case that a container of 05 litres of kerosene oil was poured on her. 05 litres of kerosene oil is an enormous quantity of oil and if this quantity is poured on a person and fire is lit, he/she will immediately turn into a fire ball. Presuming that the complainant had extinguished the fire immediately by pouring a bucket full of water on herself and by tearing her clothes, in that case the unburnt kerosene oil would remain on clothes and she would have been profusely smelling of kerosene oil. Not only her clothes but her entire body would have been drenched with kerosene oil and her clothes would have been drenched with kerosene oil and water. It is not her case that when she was removed to hospital her clothes were changed or she was washed off and bathed, rather her allegations are that she was continuously beaten for two hours before having been removed to the hospital and she kept lying there for two hours in kerosene oil and water. It cannot be believed that on seeing a patient in such a condition, doctor would have closed his eyes and would not record the condition in the MLC. “
  • “Her husband was not a criminal neither it is alleged that he had any criminal background. A poor man who was starving for his survival and had to work as a labour from morning till evening for livelihood, could not have given threats to kill his own son and father-in-law. This story of threat seems to have been developed later on by the complainant in consultation with father. “
  • “The Courts must be very cautious during trials of such offences. 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 does 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.”
  • “From the entire documents and the testimony of the witnesses I come to the conclusion that it is an unfortunate case where the complainant by making false statement implicated the entire family in offenses of under Section 307 and 498 A IPC. The Trial Court was not cautious enough to even look to admitted documents on record before convicting the family on mere statement of an estranged wife. Trial Courts should guard themselves from being swayed by emotions. They should consider entire circumstances and should carefully analyze the entire evidence. Poverty should not be allowed to become a crime. Neither failed marriage be permitted to be a crime.”

Here is the judgment: Delhi HC: Wife Can’t Use Failed Marriage To Harass In-Laws

___________________________________

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

___________________________________________

Delhi HC: When To File For Compensation On Illegal Arrest/False Complaint

Here is the judgment in pdf: Delhi HC: When To File For Compensation On Illegal Arrest/False Complaint

Here is an excerpt:

“When a criminal case is registered against somebody, the Court cannot jump to conclusion, merely on the basis of FIR, whether the case was a false case or a truthful case and whether the petitioner has been malafidely arrested or has been rightly arrested. FIR is merely a first information given to the police so as to bring machinery of criminal law in motion. FIR is not considered as an encyclopedia of facts. It is only after challan is filed, the Court can form an opinion, at the time of framing of charge, whether a case was made out against the accused worth trial or not. If the evidence collected by the prosecution does not disclose commission of any offence, by the accused even prima facie, the Court has to discharge the accused. The accused at that stage can lay a claim that the case was got registered against him malafidely and police also acted malafidely. Even after charge is framed, on conclusion of trial if a Court finds that no case was made out against the accused and he was falsely implicated, the Court is bound to acquit the accused and that will be the second stage whether accused gets a right to claim that he was falsely implicated. The present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner has not been filed after discharge of the petitioner or after acquittal of the petitioner. In a Writ Petition this Court cannot declare if the arrest of the petitioner in a criminal case was illegal, unless on the face of it , it appears that it was a case where no arrest could have been made.”

Please read this to understand what the Supreme Court has to say :

SC: Compensation For Illegal Detention-1994

 

______________________________________________

Understanding Issues Of Jurisdiction In A 498A Case

Here is a pdf that explains the rules governing jurisdiction of cognizable offenses (498A cases).

Understanding Issues Of Jurisdiction In A 498A Case

Here are a couple of the judgments of Justice Dhingra where I pulled all this information from.

  1. Delhi HC: 498A Jurisdiction Explained
  2. Justice Dhingra Settles Jurisdiction In NRI 498A Case- Jan 2008

I couldn’t find the Satvinder Kaur Judgment, but here is another judgment on jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, the Ajith Abraham case (Chennai).

SC Judgment On Jurisdiction-Ajith Abraham (Chennai)

Finally, NRIs, you are governed by Section 188 of the IPC and to understand it, please read this judgment by Justice Dhingra:

  1. Justice Dhingra Denies A 498A FIR Quash Petition Citing Section 188
  2. Justice Dhingra Settles Jurisdiction In NRI 498A Case- Jan 2008

___________________________________________________________

Settling Scores: A Judgment By Justice Dhingra

Another gem from Justice Dhingra.

Here is the link to the TOI Article. 

Here is the judgment:  Settling Scores: A Judgment By Justice Dhingra

SETTLING SCORES
Misuse of dowry charges irks HC
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: Expressing anguish that the criminal justice system was being ‘‘grossly misused’’ in dowry death cases to harass the husband and his relatives, the Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR lodged by a woman against her husband, brother-in-law and his wife accusing them of dowry harassment Justice S N Dhingra quashed the FIR in question after concluding there was no prima facie evidence to support the allegations against the other relatives and it was registered for the sole purpose of harassing them. However, the court did not quash the FIR against the husband of the woman and directed the police to probe the matter. ‘‘In order to settle scores with her husband, the complainant implicated other family members for dowry harassment while there was no complaint prior to that, and she has been married for about 14 years before lodging of this FIR,’’ the court noted while granting relief to the husband’s relatives. The FIR had been lodged on the complaint of a Punjab-based woman against her brother-inlaw and his wife. The woman had married one Harvinder Singh Khurana, a Delhi-based businessman, in 1992. Later, their marital relationsturned sour, which resulted in various types of litigation, from divorce suits to criminal cases slapped against each other levelling several accusations. The case involving Khurana’s relatives was lodged with Lajpat Nagar police station and also accused him of dowry harassment. She further alleged that her husband was a drunkard, a womaniser and often maltreated her, and also accused him of trying to secure the custody of their two children by threatening to commit suicide in 2001. But Khurana claimed he was almost killed and it wasn’t a suicide attempt. In light of this the court felt that while Khurana’s relatives were being wrongly charged, the allegations against him merited further probe. toireporter@timesgroup.com

__________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Denies A 498A FIR Quash Petition Citing Section 188

This is a 498A FIR quash petition that Justice Dhingra denied. This is yet another example that shows the clarity of thought and reasoning employed by this honorable judge, perpetually under attack by those beholden to the radical Indian feminist agenda.

An excerpt from the judgment that explains Section 188:

“It is apparent that as per the complaint, cruelties were perpetuated by the husband and in laws while they were living outside India. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an Indian citizen who married to the respondent/complainant as per the Muslims rites and laws prevalent in India, alluring her on a dream of bright future and making misrepresentations about his being a bachelor, although he was a married man. As per the provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C, when an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside India, he/she may be dealt with in respect of such an offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found. The complainant has every right to lodge an FIR against the petitioner who committed of fences against her outside India, at Delhi where she lives and considers that the petitioner can be found.”

Here is the pdf: Justice Dhingra Denies A 498A FIR Quash Petition

_____________________________________________

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

_____________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Quashes An NRI 498A Case: Sept 12, 2007

This judgment is of considerable significance to NRIs.

Here is the news article from DNA India

Click here for the pdf of the same.

Here is the judgment: Justice Dhingra Quashes An NRI 498A Case

_______________________________________

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:

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.

________________________________________

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:

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.

______________________________________


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,331,535

Cluster Map

Live Traffic

Archives

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

%d bloggers like this: