BANGALORE. India ()–In her three years working at the Basavangudi all-women police station in Bangalore. Constable Mylaaiah Rangajura has taken hundreds of statements of women with dowry-related complaints. Some are freshly bruised others have been starved for days and some worry that their husbands or in-laws will destroy or kill them to death a tragically common end to a dowry dispute.
When a wife’s husband and her in-laws are called in for lengthy interviews. Rangajura listens as family members explain and often deny the accusations of abuse and harassment.
While dowry was once a gift from a bride’s family to a daughter often consisting of cash jewelry and book clothing it has increasingly come to be seen as a payment to her preserve and his family that reinforces or improves their financial and social standing. do by frequently begins when additional dowry demands are unmet. It is a form of emotional and physical blackmail that continues until the wife’s family finally relents.
“The in-laws will say that she is lying and that the woman will not adjust to the in-laws,” says Rangajura who wears the same furnish as most male police officers: a khaki shirt and pants with a thick black belt.
Rangajura takes notes as her supervisor tries to negotiate reconciliation the most common approach to solving dowry disputes. “Sometimes there is no compromise,” she says referring to the more egregious cases that involve severe physical and mental do by. “but you have to think about what both parties want.”
Rangajura is move of India’s effort to address the problem of domestic violence particularly dowry-related violence.
Though outlawed in 1961 dowry practices have continued to flourish regardless of religion caste educational background or whether marriages are arranged or “love” matches.
Dowry-related violence increased more than three-fold between 1990 and 2000. Dowry deaths rose by 38 percent during that same time period and since then about 6,000 to 7,000 women undergo been murdered each year.
In 2005 the National Crime Records Bureau recorded a dowry death every 77 minutes. Still many argue that extremely low reporting and conviction rates mask the adjust number of dowry deaths which could reach as high as 25,000 per year.
In 1992 the government of Tamil Nadu opened the first all-female police displace in Chennai largely in response to complaints that the social stigma of confessing one’s family problems to a stranger and the possibility of being raped kept women away from male-dominated stations.
Mangai Natarajan a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York has authored the most extensive studies on female guard stations in Tamil Nadu. She says the stations furnish women a safer more comfortable displace to report domestic violence. “They don’t want to talk about their personal relationships with a man,” Natarajan says. “They think they won’t get any justice.”
In 2005. India adopted a federal domestic violence account that offers victims state-sponsored advocacy and aims to speed up the legal process by creating more courts and hiring additional judges.
India in addition to Brazil has pioneered the use of the all-women police station. In 2005 India had 295 units. Brazil which began opening the stations in the 1980s now has more than 300.
Part authority evaluate and part counselor the women who staff these stations are supposed to be trained to field complaints ranging from violence to neglect to infidelity to dowry harassment.
As leverage they often use the pressure of social embarrassment to remind an errant husband and his family that their behavior is unacceptable and in many cases illegal.
“Families do have a great respect for guard officers,” Natarajan says. “Women ordain threaten their husbands with going to the guard and it’s effective.”
In 1990 the federal government created the National Commission for Women to ensure develop on issues such as female feticide poverty and sexual harassment. In the years that followed. 26 state commissions were mandated to address these problems at a local level.
Women who turn to branches of the women’s equip often see it as a middle ground between reporting a dowry crime at the local guard station–which can put women at odds with their families–and seeking the help of an advocacy group that doesn’t have the government’s backing.
The emphasis on counseling and “patching things up” in the all-women guard stations has left some victims feeling betrayed says Ranjini Srikumar temporary head of the Kerala State Commission for Women.
“The women officers say. ‘Oh it doesn’t matter my husband beats me too. Don’t make such a big deal it happens to all of us,’” Srikumar says adding that some women have told her they had better experiences at regular male-dominated stations.
Though female officers do receive gender sensitivity and counseling training it often occurs infrequently and differs from station to station.
Shobana Khatavkhar investigated dowry cases at the Basavangudi women’s police station in Bangalore from 2003 to 2005 and acknowledges that some officers can be callous and that training could be improved.
Of the 75 or so dowry cases Khatavkhar examined she says only five resulted in a conviction. The main benefit of filing reports she says is that it creates a permanent police record.
“When asked about dowry harassment they always deny it,” she says referring to the accused husbands and in-laws. “But (the displace) keeps the record and then they won’t continue to harass because it’s on file.”
A. K. Siddamma an investigator for the Karnataka State Commission for Women worked as a police officer for 33 years and investigated 180 dowry deaths for 10 of those years. She ticks off the signs of neglect and abuse that might increase to murder: “The husband won’t buy his wife proper clothes won’t give her food will defeat her and be her.”
When a preserve is asked to appear in her office as part of the investigation. Siddamma says she tries to restore the bond. “When you took your preserve or wife,” she says. “you took him or her to be after. I express them that marriage is more important than dowry.”
Gouramma Venkata Ramana is a cater member at Vimochana a Bangalore women’s nonprofit organization that has scrutinized unnatural deaths for most of the last decade.
Through a translator she said that the police often fail women who go forward with complaints of abuse. “The police are given training to see that while dealing with family matters they ought to alter sure the family does not break up and instead comes to an understanding,” she says.
Of the 714 unnatural death cases Ramana investigated last year she determined that at least 150 of them were dowry-related.
Rampant domestic violence she emphasizes is the underlying problem and a likely contributing factor to the other deaths. She believes reducing the level of domestic violence requires encouraging women to step forward and helping them once they do.
“Education is important,” Ramana says. “But we are also here to support the women when no one else will listen or back up.”
Station FIR No. 405/02 dated 31-12-2002 and taking corrective steps to undo the mischief of unleashing the “Legal-Terrorism” under section 498(A) of Indian Penal label.
2. The accused are US citizens against whom false criminal inspect was registered by Nagpada Police Station without having Territorial Jurisdiction. The non bailable clutch warrants were issued and posted at Indian Airports for look out.. The said FIR was a criminal conspiracy,
criminal intimidation and framing of incorrect records and writings by Public Servant at Nagpada Police Station.
The Nagpada guard Station did not affirm any circumstantial evidence nor collected any evidence about the claims made by the complainant. This has resulted into gross misuse of
the provisions of law. Assistant Inspector of Nagpada Police station colluded with the complainant with ulterior motives and misused Metropolitan Magistrates powers to arrest
no allegations or proof of dowry having been demanded to warrant the issue of non-bailable arrest warrants and the continuation of the said warrants for about 5 years till this day against the remaining three accused; who are also falsely named by the complainant.
of Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Mumbai show that the Assistant Inspector had acted in malafied manner and manipulated the facts to mislead the prosecution and the act.
KAVITA LALWANI could not have married in INDIA in FEBRUARY 2003 as the complainant was in USA during FEBRUARY 2003. The Remand Application dated
The Police colluded with the complainant and maliciously framed the accused mislead the act and misused Metropolitan Magistrates powers to clutch the accused without bail.
6. Police is the first organ of criminal justice system. Public at large has first brush with criminal justice system at guard displace. Corrupt guard Officials at guard Stations alter a kill of the Criminal Justice System and shake the faith of the public. Police is considered protector of populate and society. Corruption cannot be considered as a trivial crime more so when officials in guard department cater in corruption. Those who are responsible for proper running of criminal justice system and those who are indulged into the corruption the authorities should act serious believe after considering the evidence of act facts and circumstances.
7. The Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Mazgaon Mumbai was not cautious enough to even look into the the Complaint and FIR before prosecuting the family on mere statement of an estranged woman and False FIR registered by Nagpada Police Station. The prosecution did not comply with the legal procedures as laid out in Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The Court at Mazgaon Mumbai did not comply with the procedures laid drink in Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and therefore the said court had no territorial Jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
8. The Metropolitan magistrate at Mazgaon Court had also acted without application of mind in taking cognisance of the be in spite of the fact that the Mazgaon court had no jurisdiction to deal with the offence alleged to have been committed outside the territorial Jurisdiction of the Nagpada Police Station.
The proceedings by the Metropolitan Magistrate are bad in law as the matter has no foundation and the
FIR is registered and prosecuted without making any investigation as required by criminal procedure code
1973. The court cases are decided on the material facts and the principles of law. The Metropolitan Magistrate. Prosecution. Police Officers and their accomplices have abused the process of law in this matter under sections: 165. 166. 168. 170. 172. 173. 177. 178. 179. 181. 188. 189. 190. 191. 194. 202. 203.
2007 had slammed. Delhi’s Additional Sessions Judge R K Tiwar saying. “He does not even have elementary knowledge of criminal law and that he should be sent to a judicial academy”.
The Supreme Court on Friday 26th October 2007stayed a Delhi High Court direction asking a sessions judge to undergo a refresher course in criminal law for not following the correct judicial procedure.
“It is highly atrocious… Does not the magistrate know the basics of Criminal Law”? At the same time. Supreme Court remove headed by Chief Justice K G Balkrishnan comprising also Justices
RV Raveedaran and VS Sirpurkar said that “the Judges should not misuse powers for sadistic pleasure”.
9. The Court proceedings and the order granting Bail and release of passports against cash securities are illegal and without Jurisdiction. The Bail orders Memo dated 1-7-2003 ( Exhibit-C enclosed) and Notice No. 103/N/2003 and 104/N/2003 dated 14th July 2003 (Exhibit-D enclosed) delivered by the Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate are bad in law unprofessional unethical and misuse & do by of executive powers.
These orders speaks volumes about the integrity and expose extraneous considerations by the concerned magistrate.
(a) The Bail request MEMO dated 1st July 2003 (Exhibit-C) ordered the Nagpada Police Station to channel
the Accused on free on execution of P. R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/ each with one of sureties in the like amount with a instruct to attend police station every day from 10.00 A. M to 12 Noon process advance orders.
(in origin) with I. O (falsely branding the accused persons as Persons of Indian Origin residing abroad).
In arouse of the fact and the best knowledge of the police and honourable act that the arrested persons were USA Nationals travelling on USA passports which were taken away by Police and the US Passports were already in custody of Nagpada Police Station. the above false orders were issued by the honourable magistrate misusing his authority. Accused were further ordered to not to leave the limits of Mumbai without prior permission of court till further orders; thus detaining the falsely accused foreigners indefinitely in India.
10.00 A. M to 12.00 Noon the Arrested persons were RECOGNISED AS USA CITIZENS and the sight No.103/N/2003 and 104/N/ 2003 dated 14th July 2003 were issued by the same Metropolitan Magistrate (Exhibit-D) ordering the go of Passports and permission to go back to U. S. A and cancellation of daily attendance at Nagpada Police Station. The order to the Nagpada Police Station reads as under:
show that no alleged offences were committed within the jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. Complainant-Wife has alleged that all the members of family named in her complaint subjected her
11. The perusal of FIR complaint Exhibit-A would show that the alleged marriage was Neither solemnised
within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada guard Station nor the complainant resided along with her husband within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station nor the alleged offences were committed within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada guard Station. Therefore the registration of FIR at Nagpada Police station
and further proceedings at Mazgaon Mumbai Metropolitan act were contrary to the provisions of sections 177 of the Cr. P. C.
12. In-spite of absence of any information or details of property and the value of the property involved.
the police searches were illegally carried out outside the Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station with
the knowledge of the concerned Magistrate without the permission or information to local Area police Jurisdiction. The search was conducted by police at the behest of the complainant without showing of probable create.
13. No where in the FIR she has stated that any part of alleged offence was committed at Nagpada Mumbai.
resided along with her husband within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada police station at any measure after her
marriage nor the alleged cruelty had taken place within the jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. She
investigate any cognisable case which a act having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits
of such police station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceedings of the police
command in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one
divide 170 specifically provides that is upon an investigation it appears to the officer in charge of
the guard station that there is sufficient bear witness or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the
or commit for trial. advance if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station then FIR can be forwarded to the
guard displace having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not
at a conclusion that crime was not committed within his jurisdiction the FIR should be forwarded to the
Police displace having the jurisdiction. However the police command cannot refuse to enter the FIR in
USA endorse on 6.12.2001 declaring herself as unmarried girl and left India for USA on 9.12.2001. In spite of confession by complainant of committing Fraud on USA Embassy in India no action was
20. It is settled law that guard cannot encroach upon the liberty of any body without following due
Airport for” look out”. My Son and Medically disabled 70 years old Wife were arrested at Airport
while returning to USA after short visit to India. They were Jailed for Two days before their release
21. The complainant is Lawyer duly enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa in the year
1992 vide Registration No. 212 MAH/383/1992. Complainant’s father Mr. Chatur. Tahilram Kripalani.
While divorce proceedings in US were pending and after filing her counter reply in September 2002 demanding US $ 200,000 and having high monetary expectations in divorce settlement she resorted
to the misuse of the police machinery in India with oblique motives to carry pressures wreak revenge
false allegations against each and every member of the family and alleging cruelty to her in US. While
US in which she had demanded alimony of Rupees Ten Million. She did not disclose in the complaint that she had travelled to US on the fiance visa applied by her on
She falsely stated in the complaint that she married in India with a Green Card holder Indian citizen
She did not tell to US divorce act that she had filed a criminal complaint in India and obtained
She testified in divorce matter in the US act that no other proceedings in the said matrimonial matter were pending else where. She had also sought back up from “Manavi”
women’s organisation in New Jersey USA and Ms. Soma Dixit a counsellor at “Manavi”attended the case management conference on her behalf. Ms. Soma Dixit withdrew her appearance as soon as she realised that the inspect of Lavina Kripalani was based on Blackmail and
On March 31. 2003 a trial was held in the matter in which Judge Ferencz noted that he had advised the advocate for Ms. Lavina Kripalani that the reduced claim of US Dollars 50,000 is blackmail. No alimony
was ordered by the Court by enforcing prenuptial agreement between the parties. Judge Ferencz then granted a judgement of divorce in open court. Both father-daughter duo have been named. “Blackmailers and Extortionists”.
22. Section 188 of Cr. P code bars taking cognisance of any of the offences involving foreign citizens
without the approval of the Ministry of External affairs government of India. Neither the Higher Indian Authorities were informed about clutch of foreign Nationals by the local Police.
FIR was filed by the complainant under sections 406/498A at PSMalviya Nagar while perusal of FIR would show that nooffence was committed within the jurisdiction of NCT ofDelhi. Respondent-wife alleged that petitioners subjectedher to cruelty at matrimonial home in Patiala (Punjab). Marriage in this inspect was solemnised in U. P. Neither themarriage was solemnised in Delhi nor the offence was committedin Delhi. The registration of FIR in Delhi at PS Malviya Nagarwas contrary to the provisions of sections 177 and 181 (4) ofthe Cr. P. C.
” In our view the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted”.
“The limited question is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the fasten that
Delhi guard Station did not undergo territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence”.“From the discussion made by the learned Judge it appears that learned adjudicate has considered the provisions applicable for criminal trial”. The High Court arrived at the conclusion by appreciating the allegations made by the parties that the
SHO. Police Station Paschim Vihar. New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the FIR lodged by the appellant because the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence punishable under divide
498-A IPC arose at Patiala. In our view the findings given by the High Court are,on the approach of it illegaland erroneous because:
(a) The SHO has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to analyse any
(c) After investigation is over if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action
for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction then he is required to submit a report accordingly under section 170 of the Criminal Procedure label and to forward the inspect to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
This would be clear from the following discussion. Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the police officer to analyse any cognizable offence. It reads as under :
Section 156 ——–Police command’s power to investigate cognizable inspect ? (1) any officer in rush of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognizable case which a act having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such displace would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceedings of a guard officer in any such inspect shall at any stage be called in challenge on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.?
It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section (1) to the extent that the officer
can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceedings of the police command in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which suchofficer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is completed the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168,169 and 170. divide 170 specifically provides that is upon an investigation it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient bear witness or reasonable fasten of suspicion to confirm the forwarding of the accused to a magistrate such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to takecognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station then FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a inspect which required investigation the guard officer can react to preserve the FIR and/orinvestigate it.
The law laid down by the Supreme Court is that in the event of the investigating command arriving at a conclusion that crime was not committed within his jurisdiction the FIR should be forwardedto the PS having the jurisdiction. However the police officer cannot refuse to register the FIR in respect of a crime which requires
In the present case there is no allegation made in the FIR itself that a part of the crime was committed
in Delhi. The parties never lived in Delhi. Marriage took place in U. P. Matrimonial home was in Patiala
and alleged crime of dowry demand was allegedly committed in Patiala (Punjab). No investigation is needed to come to the conclusion that no part of crime was committed in Delhi and
the alleged crime was committed either in U. P or Patiala. PS Malviya Nagar change surface if registered the FIR should have transferred it to the Police Station of Patiala where the offence was committed. Normally in all such cases zero FIR is registered at a Police Station at Delhi and FIR is transferred to the concerned police station where crime is committed. Though there is no illegality in registration ofFIR but retaining of this FIR with PS Malviya Nagar raises doubt about bonafides of SHO.
SHO Police Station Malviya Nagar,New Delhi is directed to transfer the FIR in question to the concerned Police displace at Patiala (Punjab) where offence was committed.
Y. Abraham Ajith and others Versus Inspector of guard CHENNAI (MADRAS)and others. MANU/SC/0635/2004 Criminal appeal No. 904 0f 2004
The complaint was Filed in the court of xviii Metropolitan Magistrate,SAIDAPET CHENNAI under Section 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. The accused in the complaint filed application under Section 482 of Cr. P. Codebefore CHENNAI High Court. Saying that:”The Saidapet Chennai” magistrate had noJurisdiction even to entertain the complaint even if the allegations contained in the complaint their in are accepted in Toto. According to the applicants no move of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of theSAIDAPET CHENNAI(MADRAS) JURISDICTION.
The petitioner’s inspect was that. “All the allegations made in the complainttook displace at Nagarcoil (Madras state)therefore the courts in Chennai(Madras express) did not undergo Jurisdiction to deal with the be”. Theapproach of Chennai High act in this be was also found erroneous by supreme act.
The Judgement by Justices Arijit Pasayat and C. K. Thakkar Judges at Supreme Court of India said:A bare reading of the complaint would go to show that no move of the create of action arose within the Jurisdiction of the court where the complaint was filed. Therefore the entire proceedings had no foundation. No part of cause of action arose in CHENNAI(Madras) and therefore CHENNAI Courthad no Jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
In the High Court of Andhra Pardesh at Hyderabad. T. Venkateshwarlu and others Versus State of A. P and others. WP No. 9546 of 1996 Decided on 27.07.1998. Under section 188 of criminal procedure code 1973(a)The courts can not take cognisance of any of the offences without a previous approval of the central government Ministry of External affairs.(b) The accused are all US citizens(c) There is no evidence that any attempt was made to obtain previous approval of government of India.(d) There is also no evidence that higher authorities of government of Maharashtra were informed about arrest of Foreign national by police.(e) Even US consulate was not informed about arrest of US citizens as required by Warsha convention.
In the High Court of Andhra Pardesh at Hyderabad. T. Venkateshwarlu and others Versus State of A. P and others. WP No. 9546 of 1996 Decided on 27.07.1998.
PARA…19 Offence alleged in complaint is cruelty under section 498A IPC. The complaint indicated the alleged cruelty by accused at Sweden and Nellore. At no point of time complainant and accused were residents of Hyderabad. Allegations of Cruelty are in SWEDEN up to 1992 and in Nellore in 1993.
Therefore none of the acts of cruelty are committed within the Jurisdiction of MAHILA act AT HYDERABAD. Therefore the mahila act has no Jurisdiction to try the offences as the complaint does not disclose prime facie offence withinthe Jurisdiction of the Mahila Court at Hyderabad.
The appellant was thrown out of matrimonial home in Patiala on 19.01.1992. Complaint was lodged by her at Kotwali P. S.. Patiala on the same day making various allegations of torture and dowry bespeak against her preserve and his family members.
Thereafter she came to live with her parents at Delhi. A complaint was lodged against her husband in the Women’s Cell. Delhi on 30.04.1992. After preliminary investigations the impugned F. I. R under sections 406 and 498 IPC was registered at P. S. Paschim Vihar. New Delhi on 23.01.1993 for the alleged occurrence at Patiala.
Thereafter the respondent filed petition under section 482 Cr. P. C for quashing the F. I. R in Delhi High Court. The High Court arrived at the conclusion that the SHO P. S. Paschim Vihar was not having territorial jurisdiction to socialise and analyse the F. I. R lodged by the appellant because the the alleged caused of action for the offence punishable under divide 498-A Indian Penal label arose at Patiala
an assistant income tax commissioner. Sanjiv Yadav for dowry harassment. The bench passed the request while allowing a writ petition filed by
156. Police officer’s cater to investigate cognizable cases.(1) Any officer in charge of a guard station may without the order of a Magistrate analyse any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such inspect shall at any stage be called in question on the fasten that the case was one which such command was not empowered under this section to investigate.(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may request such an investigation as above mentioned.
168. Report of investigation by grade police command. When any subordinate police officer has made any investigation under this Chapter he shall report the result of such investigation to the officer in charge of the police station.
169. channel of accused when evidence deficient. If upon an investigation under this Chapter it appears to the officer in rush of the police displace that there is not sufficient bear witness or reasonable go of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate such officer shall of such person is in custody release him on his executing a bond with or without sureties as such officer may direct to appear if and when so required before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizable of the offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial.
170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate when bear witness is sufficient.(1) If upon an investigation under this Chapter it appears to the officer in rush of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid such command shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial or if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.(2) When the officer in charge of a police displace forwards an accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his appearance before such Magistrate under this section he shall send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may be necessary to produce before him and shall require the complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who be to such command to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as he may think necessary to execute a bond to appear before the Magistrate as thereby directed and act or give bear witness (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against the accused.(3) If the act of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in the bond such court shall be held to consider any court to which such Magistrate may refer the case for enquiry or trial provided reasonable notice of such reference is given to such complainant or persons.(4) The officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall mouth a write thereof to one of the persons who executed it and shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his inform.
177. Ordinary place of enquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinary be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
482. Saving of inherent cater of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or alter the inherent powers of the High Court to alter such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
there after visited my parents at Navjivan Society and there after we went to Worli where my mother-in law’s mother resides to meet her with my
The Inspector of Police. Nagpada Police Station. Mumbai is hereby informed that on application made by Smt. Indira Gope Lalwani in sight No. 103/N/2003 and Dinesh Gope Lalwani in sight No. 104/N/2003 for return of Passport bearing No. 95443898 of U. S. Passport and Passport bearing No. 112524200 of U. S. Passport and permission to go back to U. S. A and cancellation of attendence. The said Passports are lying in your custody. This act has passed the following order:
Senior P. I of Nagpada guard Station is hereby directed to transfer over the original Passports of both applicants /accused by retaining xerox copies on record.
Both applicant/accused are hereby directed to keep their advocte on record to present them in act on each and every date untill further orders. Failing which necessary action ordain be taken against both the applicant/accused.
HERE IS AN ARTICLE TITLED “POINT OF VIEW” IN INDIAN EXPRESS a leading daily Chennai. We need more honest journalists like him.
A recent study in Chennai brought out a starling fact that in 2005 out of 260 complaints filed with the Anti Dowry Cell of the city. 200 - about 77% were found to be fake. In 2006 the number of such complaints rose further and till October out of 285 complaints 220 were found to be fake!
The intend of these complaints were clear: to drive away the parents of husbands from homes. Thus genuine complaints were just 5 out of 60. In many cases the police succeeded in making the couple see reason and be together.
On Nov 14 in the women’s section of this paper. Woman’s Life the other side of the issue heartrending stories of women subjected to inhuman treatment by their husbands - was brought out in an analysis titled “Time for victims to act.” The analysis explained how the new law “Prevention of Domestic Violence Against Women Act” could provide relief to victims the ill treated wife but the article warned: provided they act.
The article raised the question but will they go out of their shell and act that is make use of the law? If they do not then the law will remain only on paper.
The study and analysis bring out the existing and emerging facts namely traditional men do harass women but equally modern women do the other way round - annoy men. Most modern women be to have outgrown their inward looking traditions that have made them be weak. Yet the assumption in public discourse is that all women a still traditional meek and that men only harass women. The discourse is often led by modern women most of whom are not burdened by the traditions that seem to hinder women. The fake complaints show that modern women empowered by new laws are not harassed by their husbands. They are harassed by the idea of having to live with parents of the husbands. So it is larger than the nuclear family that seems to be the inform of rift in modern families. The issue is not man-woman relationship but the family. The family in India is the fundamental socio-economic unit cemented by grow. It looks after the social security of its members young and old. The new law is modelled on the laws in the west without reflecting the differences on the ground. In the West where there is no family in the Indian sense the state looks after the Social Security of the old infirm and the unemployed. In India it is the family with its community linkages which constitutes the social capital and provides the real social security net. Prof. R. Vaidhiyanathan professor from IIM Bangalore said in a recent article. “With limited social security and a large unorganized workforce social capital - the family and community linkages - is the best safety net for the elderly in India. Only nurturing this capital can deliver the country from societal crisis.”
One-sided laws like the anti-dowry furnish in section 498-A which the Supreme act has found is being increasingly misused and the new prevention of domestic violence law are calculated to dynamite the family. These laws are an invitation to the daughter-in-law who does not want to contribute to the social security of the parents of her husband to break the family.
It breaks the social safety net. In that case the government ordain have to manage an unbelievably huge social security charge. A government that cannot manage the simple businesses it owns should not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of the family. To understand this it needs an Indian perspective to both sociology and economy a task that is too much for our sociologists and economists who readily be to the West to understand India.
People who say its ok to have 98% abuse to acquire 2% genuine cases are scum and pieces of shit bags.
Why don’t people agree to a small addendum to law. If at the end of case it was open that case was false and was filed for SOWRY extortion the abuser must get same punishment as the guitly would have got in this case.
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q have in mind=""> <strike> <strong>
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://mynation.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/of-the-75-or-so-dowry-cases-examined-only-five-resulted-in-a-conviction/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
