Archive

Archive for July 29, 2010

Ex-cop ‘Radha’ told to pay Rs.15,000 maintenance to wife

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/84575/ex-cop-radha-told-pay.html

Lucknow, July 28 (IANS):

Former Uttar Pradesh inspector general of police D K Panda, who abandoned his wife after proclaiming himself to be a reincarnation of Lord Krishna’s childhood companion Radha, was told by a court on Wednesday to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000 to his wife.
 
Dressed in a saree, adorned with jewellery, sporting thick vermillion on his parted hair and wearing bangles in both hands, the nearly six-feet-tall Panda on Wednesday made every effort to appear a woman as he came to court.

Family Court Principal Judge Chandramauli Shukla gave the verdict after spending more than two hours counselling the separated couple to reunite.

The court refused to grant them a divorce, even as both pleaded against the suggestion  of living together again. However, the court conceded the wife’s plea for a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000.

“Although I receive a pension of just Rs.25,000 a month, I will anyhow manage to pay her the maintenance as per the court’s orders; but under no circumstances would I allow her to live with me as I ceased to be her husband the day I was bestowed with the identity of Radha,” Panda told reporters outside the court.

“The only way I could permit her to stay with me would be as my daughter,” he stressed.
He even sang a Krishna bhajan inside the court.

Panda was retired compulsorily before attaining superannuation on account of his behaviour, which shot him into the spotlight nearly six years ago. The case filed by his wife before the family court was pending since then.

Advertisements
Categories: Other news

Lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court is no ground for quashing 498A IPC

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4852 of 2010

ORAL ORDER :

          The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C.No.452 of 2009 on the file of                  I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. The Narasaraopet Town Police registered report of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant as case in Crime No.257 of 2009, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet in the lower Court against the petitioner.

          2. The only point urged by the petitioner’s counsel in this petition is that the alleged offences took place at Pamulapadu Village within the limits of Tadikonda Police Station and within the territorial limits of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mangalagiri and that no part of cause of action for the offences took place at Narasaraopet and that Narasaraopet Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

          3. The plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court is no ground for quashing the criminal case pending in that Court. It is not as if the lower Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the case. In case the petitioner feels that the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case, then it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for transfer of the case from Narasaraopet Court to Mangalagiri Court. Since both Narasaraopet and Mangalagiri are within the same Sessions Division of Guntur, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court, Guntur, for transferring the case to the Court having territorial jurisdiction. In case the petitioner is going to file such petition before the Sessions Court at Guntur, it is open to that Court to dispose of the transfer petition on merits having regard to all the circumstances of the case and without being carried away with any observations made in this order.

          4. Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed.

                           _________________________________________

                           JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

10.06.2010.

Msr

Categories: 498A Judgements

No Quash but finish trial in 3 months – AP HC

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY

 

CRIMINAL PETITION No.328 OF 2010

 

Dated : 21.01.2010

Between :

M.Mahesh Babu

                                                          …..    Petitioner/A.1

          a n d

The State of A.P. & another

                                                          …..    Respondents

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.328 OF 2010

ORDER :

          This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/A.1 seeking to quash proceedings against him in C.C.No.415 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Mahila Court, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

          2) Heard.

          3) The allegations against the petitioner are that he married the defacto complainant by demanding and taking Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry at the instance of other accused and thereafter tortured her to bring additional dowry subjected her to cruelty.

          4) A reading of the complaint reveals specific allegations of harassment on the part of the petitioner against the complainant and after investigation on the complaint filed by the complainant, Police filed charge sheet supporting the averments of the complaint.  Since prima facie material on record reveals accusation against the petitioner, proceedings against him cannot be quashed.

          5) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that divorce petition filed by the petitioner was decreed on the ground of cruelty of the wife-second respondent.  But, that itself cannot be sufficient to say that there was no cruelty on the part of the husband-petitioner. 

          6) However, it is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a non-resident of India, has come down to India for facing trial.  In the above circumstances, it is directed that the trial Court shall dispose of C.C.No.415 of 2007 on its file within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are only 8 in number.  A continuous schedule for examination of witnesses shall be fixed and followed.

          7) With above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of.

______________________

P.SWAROOP REDDY, J

21st January, 2010

SUR

Categories: 498A Judgements

498A IPC – No Quash but finish Trial in 4 Months – Chennai HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.03.2010

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

Crl.O.P.No.15114 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 of 2007

 

1.  R.Parthasarathy
2.  P. Rathinamani   .. Petitioners/Accused No.2&3

Vs.
State by
  Inspector of police
All Women Police Station (East)
Coimbatore City
Coimbatore.       .. Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for a direction to call for the records in C.C. No.286/2007 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore and quash the proceedings as far as these petitioners are concerned and pass further orders.

 For Petitioners : Mr.C.S. Dhanasekaran

 For Respondent      : Mr.J.C.Durairaj, G.A (Crl.Side)

ORDER

  This petition has been preferred by the second and third accused in C.C.No.286 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore seeking the relief of quash of proceedings in such case, in so far as they are concerned.

  2.  It is now informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first accused is the husband, the second accused is the father-in-law and the third is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant and offences u/s.406, 498 (A) and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been alleged. 

  3.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petitioner, father-in-law is no more.  On the complaint of the defacto complainant alleging offences against her husband, as also the first petitioner (now deceased) and the second petitioner who is her mother-in-law, case has been registered in Cr.No.24/2006 on the file of the respondent police for offences u/s.498A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  Subsequently, charge sheet has been filed for offences u/s.406, 498A IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which has been taken on file as C.C.No.286/2007.

  4. In support of the quash petitioner, the learned counsel urges the grant of limitation and also informs that the 161(3) Cr.P.C statements which are put up in the case have been received by the investigating officer through post.  They also bear the signatures of the persons who are said to have made the statements.

  5.  Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

  6.  This court is of the opinion that, given the fact that section 498A IPC dealing with the cruelty would be a continuance offence, the petition would not survive for consideration.  However, it is open to the petitioner to urge all grounds before the lower court.  Considering the representation made and in view of the advanced age of the petitioner, the lower court would be directed to dispose of the proceedings within a time frame.

  7. The lower court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is dismissed.  Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed.
 

05.03.2010
avr

Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II,
    Coimbatore. 
 
2.The Public Prosecutor,
   High Court, Chennai.

C.T.SELVAM, J.,
avr
Crl.O.P.No.15114 of 2007
and
M.P.No.1 of 2007
05.03.2010

Categories: 498A Judgements

The Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Bill, 2010

http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/society/article538345.ece

With the draft of The Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Bill, 2010, being debated, activists discuss its pros and cons

It was in “a momentary lapse of judgment” that the accused “ravished her honour”, probably “in a fit of passion” or “momentary lust”. To quote the landmark judgment in the 1974 Mathura case, the two policemen who raped the 16-year-old girl from Chandrapur were acquitted because she “was habituated to sexual intercourse”.

Since the Indian Penal Code does not recognise child abuse as a separate offence, it is to the quagmire of adult laws on rape and sodomy that young victims of abuse turn — laws that fail to adequately address the crime of child sexual abuse. But the tide could be turning. The second working draft of The Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Bill, 2010 is doing the rounds of the Ministries concerned. A remarkably gender-neutral draft, that allows for Special Courts to deal with CSA (child sexual abuse), it lists the procedures to be followed for recording a child’s evidence and to protect his or her identity, and a requirement of a verdict within a year.

“It began sometime in April with a series of discussions and debates all over the country — Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai,” says Vidya Reddy of Tulir, the organisation that was asked to captain the consultations. Thousands of novel ideas, outrageous suggestions, ambitious plans and zealous recommendations. “Chaos!” she laughs. And gleaned from it all were a few hundred words that could ease the lives of thousands of children brave enough to place some of their darkest moments under the judicial eye.

A study by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in 2007 revealed that 53.22 per cent of all Indian children, irrespective of class, caste, religion, education and income backgrounds had disclosed being sexually victimised in at least one way; and there had been very little difference in the disclosure of abuse from girls and boys.

“I have a ‘One-Step Theory’, that people like to acknowledge issues such as CSA as always one step away from themselves,” says Vidya. There is also a constant minimalisation of the problem. “So what if someone tickled her under her dress?” demanded a headmistress to her once with a Gallic shrug. “It was just a little bit of CSA!”

Till now, the only Sections that were invoked from the IPC were 354 (‘intent to outrage her modesty’), 376 (which deals with rape, specifically of a woman by a man) and where boys were concerned, the now in-limbo section 377 dealing with sodomy. This leaves us with loopholes large enough to waltz through, with a parade following. (Remember designer Anand Jon, accused of violent sexual assault of seven young women, some of them under-age, who asked to be tried in India? He was refused. A Los Angeles court sentenced him to 59 years in prison.)

Five categories

In the draft bill, CSA has been delineated into five categories, with differing punishments — sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Is this necessary? “Here’s a for-instance. Rape laws in Kenya are so sweeping and tough that you would think the conviction rates would be very high there. In fact, it’s just the opposite. The laws are so rigid that they’re escaping through the cracks,” says Carol A. Plummer who has been working in the area of prevention of child sexual abuse for over three decades in the United States. “It also lends a clarity to the nature of abuse,” says advocate Geetha Ramaseshan, who led the consultation process as well. “But what we need is not increasing punishment, but sure punishment.”

One of the hardest things during the consultations was to keep in mind how the law would translate into local languages. “These cases are going to be heard in the 673 district courts in India, with judges who might not even want to acknowledge child abuse. The language has to work there,” says Vidya.

And significantly, the Bill recognises the role of social workers and NGOs who work in this field as vital to dealing with abuse. For instance, children who are mentally or physically challenged are allowed to have a special educator present to record their statement.

A few concerns linger. For instance, the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. “We’re not very comfortable with that clause. Yes, it is a heinous crime, but we cannot be emotional about this, and subvert one of the basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence system,” says Geetha.

Categories: Other news

Exhaustive and Appropriate guidelines for Karnataka to curb the Heavy misuse of 498A IPC

30th July 2010

Bangalore

To,

Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka

High Court Buildings,

High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

Subject: Request your personal intervention for Exhaustive and Appropriate guidelines for the State of Karnataka to curb the Heavy misuse of 498A IPC.

About National Family Harmony Society®: “National Family Harmony Society® NFHS is a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) promoting the cause of “family harmony” and “gender equality”. It is registered under “The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960” and is based in Bangalore. We have branches in more than 16 states and in abroad too. We have approximately 14500 members all over India. To know more about us please visit http://www.family-harmony.org / http://www.498a.org.in.

Dear Sir,

This is with regard to the news article published in “Indian Express” and also available on the website of the said News Paper at the following link.

http://expressbuzz.com/cities/hyderabad/plea-on-dowry-cases-referred-to-division-bench/193527.html

The said article is also attached herewith as an Annexure for your reference.

Similarly, there is a Judgment/Order from Honorable Justice Regupathi of the Chennai High Court in M.P. No.1/2008 in Criminal Original Petition No.10896/2008 filed by Tr.Romaiah. In compliance of the observation made in the above said order, DGP-Tamil Nadu has issued a Circular Memorandum for the State Police of Tamil Nadu.

Similarly, in compliance of the advisory issued by the “Union Ministry of Home Affairs” dated 20-October-2009 vide no 3/5/2008-Judl Cell, “Maharashtra Government” has issued a Circular for the State Police of Maharashtra.

In the absence of any such Circular/Advisory, the misuse of 498A IPC is rampant in the state of Karnataka and ordinary, law abiding and innocent Men & Women are being arrested and sent to Judicial Custody merely on a false complaint by estranged wife. 498A IPC is increasingly being used as “Arrest on Demand” by estranged wife in case of any matrimonial dispute.

DEMAND OF NFHS:

In view of the proactive and laudable steps taken by the Judiciary in neighbouring states to curb the heavy misuse of 498A IPC, we National Family Harmony Society® request your personal intervention to direct the Registry of “High Court of Karnataka” to register a Suo Motto Case and file a Public Interest Litigation by the way of Writ Petition to issue Exhaustive and Appropriate guidelines for the State of Karnataka so the heavy misuse of 498A IPC can be curbed and suffering, harassment and torture of innocent citizens can be brought to an end.

We are available at any time of your convenience to have discussion with you on this subject matter. We have tried many times seeking appointment with you in the past but could not succeed. We would be grateful if you can grant personal appointment so that we can express our pain and sorrow in detail.

Awaiting favorable response from you.

P Suresh, President,

National Family Harmony Society, 9880141531

Categories: Judges