Bahu can't occupy in-laws' own property: Delhi high court

Bahu can't occupy in-laws' own property: Delhi high court

Abhinav Garg,TNN | Aug 11, 2014

NEW DELHI: A daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes, the Delhi high court has held in a significant order.

Justice A K Pathak in a recent verdict, made it clear that a self-acquired property doesn't fall under the definition of a "shared household" enunciated in the Domestic Violence Act and a daughter in law can't enforce her right in such a property.

In fact, HC went a step further, holding that even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents against their consent.

"Daughter-in-law cannot assert her rights, if any, in the property of her parents-in-law wherein her husband has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in such a house of her parents-in-law against their consent and wishes. In my view, even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents; against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house occupies the same as a gratuitous licensee and if such licence is revoked, he has to vacate the said property," the court noted in its order

HC was hearing an appeal by the daughter-in-law against a trial court's verdict directing her to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to her estranged father-in-law. In her plea in HC the woman said she is a legally wedded wife and has a right to live in the property from where her father-in-law wants her evicted.

She claimed that the property was purchased out of joint family funds. Accusing the father-in-law and husband of harassing her for dowry, she informed HC that she is living separately from her husband due to matrimonial discord and divorce proceedings are on. Under DV Act, the property is a shared household where she has the right to reside, the wife maintained.

But the father in law through advocate Prabhjit Jauhar told HC that he is sole owner of the self-acquired property. Jauhar also convinced the court that the property was not purchased from joint family funds and his son had no share in it.

The father-in-law furnished before the court proof that he disowned his son in 2010 who has since then been living separately.

Justice Pathak concluded that the legal position "which can be culled out from the above reports is that the daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self -acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes more so when her husband has no independent right therein nor is living there, as it is not a "shared household" within the meaning of Section 17(1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

HC also took into account lack of evidence to show that suit property was purchased from joint family funds.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Bahu-cant-occupy-in-laws-own-property-Delhi-high-court/articleshow/40020176.cms

Failure of live-in relations a major reason for increase in rape cases, claims Delhi High Court

Failure of live-in relations a major reason for increase in rape cases, claims Delhi High Court

Thursday, 19 June 2014 - 5:07pm IST | Agency: PTI

Failure of live-in relationship or young adults acting immaturely by getting into commitments that end up in break-ups are among major reasons for increase in rape cases, the Delhi High Court has observed. The court also cautioned parents of young couples to behave with "more sensitivity" while dealing with such issues.

A bench of justices Kailash Gambhir and Sunita Gupta made the observation while upholding the life term awarded to four members of a Delhi-based girl's family, including her father, for killing her lover as they did not approve of their relationship.

Anguished over the killing of the 24-year-old youth, the bench said young adults, especially girls, need to be more responsible and act maturely when taking important decisions like getting married or entering into a live-in relationship. "The need of the hour is that boys and more importantly girls have to be very careful and cautious before taking such an important decision concerning their lives before entering into the most sanctimonious relationship of marriage or even to have live-in relationship.  "One of the major reasons contributing to increase in the rape cases is failure of live-in relationship or any immature decision on the part of such young adults which more often end up in a broken relationship but sometimes after indulging into physical relationship," it said.

However, this placed an implied onus on the shoulders of the persons involved in such relationships to act responsibly and maturely, it said.

Parents are "expected to behave with more sensitivity and maturity as such issues need to be resolved with patience, understanding and tolerance and instead of indifference or with a bent of mind of alienating the two", the court said. "It is often noticed that any impetuous act to smother such relationships often has a backlash in the form of resentful feelings or even rebellious actions.

"Therefore, it is with great sensitivity that the parents need to acknowledge the growing independence of their children and rationally and dispassionately deal with these emotive issues giving due respect to their feelings," the bench added.

24-year-old Kuldeep was stabbed to death on the evening of October 14, 2006, by his lover's father, Ravi Kumar and her three uncles Karamvir, Raj Kumar and Sanjay at Uttam Nagar in west Delhi.

According to the prosecution, the four had acted with the common intention of eliminating Kuldeep as they believed he had damaged their reputation because of his affair with Ravi's daughter. The court also agreed with this view that the four acted with the common intention of killing Kuldeep, as Karamvir and Raj had immobolised the victim by holding his arms and legs and Sanjay stopped anyone from coming to the aid of the youth while Ravi stabbed him seven times with a knife. The trial court on June 6, 2011, had awarded life term to all the four after holding them guilty of murder.

While upholding the trial court decision, the high court also said, "Kuldeep perhaps would not have met such a tragic end and these accused persons perhaps would not have suffered severity of punishment of life imprisonment had they acted in a sensible and mature manner with due patience, tolerance and understanding to resolve the things instead of taking the law in their own hands."

Source-http://www.dnaindia.com/delhi/report-failure-of-live-in-relations-a-major-reason-for-increase-in-rape-cases-claims-delhi-high-court-1996651

Have to follow Delhi high court order on domestic violence Act, says Bombay high court | PIL seeks to grant all women in house power to use Domestic Violence Act

Have to follow Delhi high court order on domestic violence Act, says Bombay high court

Pushpa (L) and her daughter Kusum filed the PIL

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday was informed that the Delhi high court has upheld the inclusion of a mother of a male abuser for relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and also that the Supreme Court had rejected an appeal filed against this order.

A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sonak heard a petition by Kusum Harsora (54) and her 78-year-old mother challenging the exclusion of women, other than wife/live-in partner, of a male abuser. A magistrate had rejected their complaint against a sister-in-law and Kusum's two sisters on the grounds that a mother and sister do not qualify as "aggrieved persons" under the Act. Kusum informed the court that the Delhi HC in Kusumlata Sharma versus State of Delhi (NCR) on September 2, 2011, had held that that a mother-in-law is also entitled to file a domestic violence complaint against her daughter-in-law.

"While the Delhi HC does not say about a sister, but it is understood to include her. We'll have to follow the (Delhi HC) order," said Justice Shah.

But the Centre's advocate, Dhiren Shah, sought time to "confirm" the SC order and if the women and child welfare development ministry knew of it. The next hearing is on June 17.

Source - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Have-to-follow-Delhi-high-court-order-on-domestic-violence-Act-says-Bombay-high-court/articleshow/36451699.cms

----

PIL seeks to grant all women in house power to use Domestic Violence Act

Women in a household other than a daughter-in-law or a live-in partner could be allowed to file a case under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act if the Bombay High Court rules in favour of a Public Interest Litigation currently before it. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sonak on Thursday gave the central government five days to verify if the Supreme Court had passed any order on the issue.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by a mother-daughter duo who are challenging the validity of Section 2(q) of the DV Act, which restricts the definition of a respondent to male members of the family. The PIL, filed by Kusum Harsora, 54, and her mother Pushpa, 78, says the section discriminates between women living in the same household.

During the hearing on Thursday, Kusum argued on the basis of details given in the PIL and later submitted a 2013 Delhi High Court judgment in which a mother-in-law was allowed to file a complaint under the DV Act against her daughter-in-law.

The court then asked the Union government's advocate, Dhiren Shah, to verify if there was any Supreme Court judgment on the issue and to inform the court of this after the lunch-break. The advocates informed the court that there was one SC judgment that could help Kusum but they wanted time to verify the facts.

The PIL says that both petitioners had lodged a complaint against Kusum's brother, sister-in-law and two sisters for subjecting them to mental and physical harassment. But in February 2012, a single-judge bench of the HC discharged all three women, holding that no complaint under the DV Act can be filed against the female members.

The mother-daughter petition challenges this very provision, saying that though the legislation is supposed to protect women from domestic violence, it discriminates between two women in a domestic relationship.

According to the PIL, while the provision allows a wife or a woman in a live-in relationship to file a complaint against her husband or male partner and/or any of his relatives, it does not allow other women in a domestic relationship to lodge a complaint and seek relief against other female members of the family. This would include a daughter-in-law, sister or daughter.

"The proviso ignores the fact that even female members of the family can be perpetrators of domestic violence. There is no rational basis of classification between a wife or a woman in a live-in relationship and other females of the family," says the PIL.

On Wednesday, the Union government had filed an affidavit saying that allowing a man's female relatives to seek relief under the said Act could make it prone to misuse. Though the affidavit agreed that women other than wives or partners were also susceptible to domestic violence, it denied that the Act causes undue hardship to other women in the house.

Source - http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/crime/PIL-seeks-to-grant-all-women-in-house-power-to-use-Domestic-Violence-Act/articleshow/36452656.cms

***

Delhi HC grants temporary relief to J. Swatanter Kumar; Restraint on publishing details of allegations, use of J. Kumar's photograph

Delhi HC grants temporary relief to J. Swatanter Kumar; Restraint on publishing details of allegations, use of J. Kumar's photograph

Murali Krishnan On January 16, 2014 - 1:55pm

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Justice Swatanter Kumar in the defamation suit filed by J Kumar (Petitioner) against media houses seeking to restrain them from publishing news pertaining to the law intern’s allegation of sexual harassment (except judicial orders) and claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 5 crore.

Justice Manmohan Singh, in an interim order running to 42 pages, has restrained the media from publishing or airing content on the intern harassment case till the next date of hearing to be held on February 24, 2013. The Court has also directed the media to not use J. Kumar's picture in any of the news articles published in connection with this case. The restrictions on reporting however, do not apply to court proceedings related to the allegations.

Justice Kumar, who has been accused of sexually harassing a law intern, had filed the suit against Indian Express, CNN IBN, Times Now and the law intern (Respondents) alleging that the manner in which the Respondents had reported the news pertaining to the intern's affidavit was deliberate and with the intent to “defame the plaintiff and the institutions dispensing justice”. The plaint has also impleaded the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 

He has also claimed that the Respondent media houses proceeded to reveal his name as the accused in the matter despite him categorically informing them that the allegations against him were false and publication of his name would cause irreparable damage to his reputation. The retired judge also claimed that the allegations were, "baseless, fraudulent and motivated in their entirety".

In his plaint, settled by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh and re-settled by Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar, AS Chandhiok and Mukul Rohatgi, Justice Kumar states,

“The reckless and irresponsible action of the Defendants 1 to 4 seeking to increase their circulation and TRPs at the cost of the reputation of the Plaintiff and his public office have caused grave and irreparable injury to the Plaintiff and degraded the dignity of the Institution of Justice....Defendant no. 5 caused the publication of her false complaint to the media both print as well as electronic. The said acts of Defendants no. 1 to 5 lowered the esteem of the Plaintiff in the estimation of the public at large and his colleagues, staff, peers and members of his social circle.”

During the hearing yesterday afternoon in a packed courtroom no. 21, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Justice Kumar, had taken strong objection to the manner in which the Respondents had reported news pertaining to the intern’s affidavit. Waving around copies of Indian Express and Mail Today, he had protested against newspapers lifting “juicy lines from the affidavit” and making front page headlines out of it terming it as yellow journalism.

He had also objected to the Respondent TV Channels airing debates and discussions centred on the contents of the affidavit and passing judgments on the character of the judge. He had further submitted that the said acts of the Respondents had not only impacted the reputation of the Petitioner but also besmirched the integrity of the Supreme Court and the entire judiciary.

The Court after hearing the Petitioner and the Respondents had reserved its order yesterday. Nine Senior Counsels inlcuding Mukul Rohatgi, AS Chandhiok, Rajiv Nayar, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Vinay Bhasin, Maninder Singh and Aman Lekhi represented the Petitioner. Senior Counsels Ashwani Mata and Dinesh Dwivedi appeared for the Respondents.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had issued notice to Justice Kumar yesterday in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the law intern seeking, amongst other things, the establishment of a permanent mechanism to address complaints of sexual harassment against sitting and retired judicial officers.

Full text of the order is available below.

Swatanter Kumar v Indian Express & Ors

Sex on promise of Marriage-Rape? Premarital sex-Immoral ? Panel Dicussion on Gender Discourse LOKSABHA TV 09 January 2014

Sex on promise of Marriage-Rape? Premarital sex-Immoral ? 

Panel Discussion on Gender Discourse LOKSABHA TV

on 09 January 2014

Interesting Discussion where Feminists confess how Girls/Women Trap MEN using SEX as Tool/Pleasure toy and further go on to bat for MEN acknowledging the Vulnerability of MEN to such False Sexual Allegations. 

They go on to detail out as to how Women/Girls should to approach and explore their Sexuality. 

But they stop short of saying that Abusers and Misusers of Women centric highly biased laws be PUNISHED.

Wondering why Mens Right Activists or masculinists were not invited on this Panel discussion


Part 1/4




Part 2/4




Part 3/4




Part 4/4




Full Texts of Rape cases under Discussion are at below links

Delhi Court - Every act sexual intercourse between two adults on the assurance of promise of marriage does not become rape. Pre-marital sex not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion
http://bit.ly/1fz0Le4

Delhi Court - GIRLS LODGE FALSE CASES TO ESCAPE PARENTS’ SCOLDING
http://bit.ly/1gMa9HD

Judge's rape remark insensitive: Delhi high court
http://bit.ly/1eDWvod

Judge's rape remark insensitive: Delhi high court

Judge's rape remark insensitive: Delhi high court

Smriti Singh, TNN Jan 7, 2014, 12.07AM IST

NEW DELHI: Just a day before a fast-track court, set up exclusively to deal with cases of sexual offence against women, said that pre-marital sex "is not only immoral but also against the tenets of every religion", Delhi high court had passed a stern order against the same court for giving "sermons" to "the feminine gender as a class" in one of its previous orders.

The HC had taken suo motu cognizance of the remarks made in the October 7, 2013 rape case decided by additional sessions judge Virender Bhat, wherein he had said, "They voluntarily elope with their lovers to explore the greener pastures of bodily pleasure, and on return to their homes, they conveniently fabricate the story of kidnap and rape in order to escape scolds and harsh treatment from the parents." 

The trial court had further said, "The girls are morally and socially bound not to indulge in sexual intercourse before a proper marriage, and if they do so, it would be to their peril and they cannot be heard to cry later on that it was rape."

In its order pronounced on December 19, 2013, a division bench of justices Pradeep Nandrajog and V Kameswar Rao held that the trial court's observations were "prima facie insensitive" and were "capable of influencing the police to take up women harassment cases lightly, resulting in an insensitive investigation and complete evidence not being brought before the court."

The HC asked State Judicial Academy to nominate the judge as a participant "whenever a topic on gender sensitivity is discussed". The bench further said that the "sweeping observations" against the girl in the case were "not based on the evidence on record".

"It is apparent that the remarks, which are general in nature, are not based on the evidence on record (and) appear to be the result of the experience of the judge...The judge has imparted his personal knowledge pertaining to females in the decision-making," the bench said.

Just a day after the HC passed its order, ASJ Bhat, on December 20, observed in another rape case that pre-marital sex is "not only immoral but also against the tenets of every religion. No religion in the world allows pre-marital sex".

While absolving the man of the charge of rape- he had been accused of having sexual intercourse with a woman after obtaining her consent on the false promise of marriage - the court observed, "When a grown-up, educated and office-going woman subjects herself to sexual intercourse with a friend or colleague on the latter's promise that he would marry her, she does so at her own peril."

While his comments once again stirred up a controversy, ASJ Bhat has been known for speaking his mind in his orders. In November last year, while acquitting a youth who was accused of kidnapping and raping a minor girl with whom he was in love and had married her, the judge asked the parents to "impart good moral values and education" to their children to curb the menace of elopement and runaway marriages.

He had also stoked a debate in May 2012, when he criticized the proposed law by the government to raise the age of consent for sex from 16 years to 18. Terming it as "undemocratic" and "regressive", the judge had said the move would open "floodgates for the prosecution of the boys for offences of rape, on the basis of complaints by the parents of the girl, no matter (even if) the girl would have been the consenting party and offer to have sexual intercourse may have come from her side."

SOURCE - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-07/delhi/45954737_1_trial-court-delhi-high-court

Delhi Cops rapped for hasty arrest in Dowry harassment ipc 498a case

Delhi Cops rapped for hasty arrest in Dowry harassment ipc 498a case

TNN | Jul 8, 2013, 04.22 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Delhi Police's act of immediately arresting a man after the registration of an FIR in a domestic violence case has come under a trial court's scanner as cops had failed to follow the directions laid down by the Delhi high court.

The court was referring to the Delhi Police commissioner's standing order, which said that no case under Section 498A (dowry) or 406 (criminal breach of trust) of IPC should be registered without his prior approval. The standing order was issued after the high court said the main accused should be arrested only after a thorough investigation.

While granting interim bail to the man arrested immediately after the FIR was registered against him under Section 498A, the metropolitan magistrate said, "It is clear from the assertions of the investigating officer that the judgment of HC and the subsequent standing order of commissioner of police, Delhi, have not been duly complied by the concerned official before lodging of the FIR. So, the bail application of the accused is allowed and interim bail is confirmed."

The man's counsel, Prashant Mendiratta, submitted that his client was arrested by the police even when no permission had been taken from the DCP. He also said that the police had acted illegally and the FIR was registered without following the high court's order.

When the court issued a notice to the DCP seeking a reply on the matter, it was informed that "an explanation has been sought from the investigating officer in the case and necessary disciplinary action will be taken against them after receiving their replies".

The court granted interim bail to the man after going through the submissions of the police.

The judgment of HC and the subsequent standing order of the Delhi Police commissioner have not been complied with by the police officer before lodging the FIR, said the trial court.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Cops-rapped-for-hasty-arrest/articleshow/20963896.cms

Indian courts can decide NRI couples' matrimonial and guardianship rows: SC

Indian courts can decide NRI couples' matrimonial and guardianship rows: SC

16 may 2011

New Delhi Indian courts have jurisdiction to deal with custodial disputes of minor children even if a foreign court has passed an order in favour of either of the parents, the Supreme Court has ruled in a matrimonial dispute of an NRI family.

A bench of justices V S Sirpurkar and T S Thakur said in a judgement said that simply because a foreign court has passed an order, Indian courts cannot "abjectly surrender" to it and shirk its duty of deciding the dispute.

"Simply because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning the welfare of the minor is not enough for the courts in this country to shut out an independent consideration of the matter. Objectivity, and not abject surrender, is the mantra in such cases," Justice Thakur, writing the judgement, said.

The apex court passed the judgement while upholding an appeal filed by Ruchi Majoo challenging a Delhi High Court judgement that Indian courts have no jurisdiction under the doctrine of "comity of courts" to entertain any petition if a decree or order has already been passed by any foreign court.

A superior court in California had issued a red corner notice against Ruchi in a suit filed by her estranged US-based husband Sanjeev Majoo who had alleged his wife had fled with their minor son to India despite a decree by the US court granting him custody of the child.

The couple were living with the kid in the US before she returned to India in 2008. A Delhi court had on Ruchi's application granted her custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act.

The Delhi High Court had, however, struck down the trial court's order and asked the couple to submit themselves to the Californian court as all the three possessed US citizenship.

Aggrieved, the wife appealed through her counsel Ashish Bhan in the apex court where she accused her husband of being involved in pornography and adulterous relationship. The husband, while denying the allegations, maintained that Indian courts had no jurisdiction since a decree had already been passed by the Californian court.

Rejecting the husband's arguments, the apex court said "recognition of decrees and orders passed by foreign courts remains an eternal dilemma in as much as whenever called upon to do so, courts in this country are bound to determine the validity of such decrees and orders keeping in view the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 and 2002.

"The duty of a court exercising its Parens Patraie (legal guardian) jurisdiction as in cases involving custody of minor children is all the more onerous. Welfare of the minor in such cases being the paramount consideration, the court has to approach the issue regarding the validity and enforcement of a foreign decree or order carefully.

The bench hastened to add that it does not, however, mean that the order passed by a foreign court need not be considered by Indian courts.

"But it is one thing to consider the foreign judgement to be conclusive and another to treat it as a factor or consideration that would go into the making of a final decision.

"We must make it clear that no matter a court is exercising powers under the Guardian & Wards Act, it can choose to hold a summary inquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders provided it is otherwise competent to entertain a petition for custody of the minor under Section 9(1) of the Act.

The apex court reiterated that in matters dealing with custodial rights, the interest of the minor should be paramount.

The bench said the interest of the minor shall be better served if he continued in the custody of his mother, especially when the father has contracted a second marriage and did not appear to be keen for having actual custody of the minor.

The apex court, however, minced no words in expressing displeasure at the conduct of the wife and her parents in poisoning the mind of the kid against their father.

"For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep-rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents can hardly be appreciated.

"What the appellant ought to appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and despise for his father does not serve his interest or his growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has his father¿s care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his life," the bench said.

The apex court said the father should be allowed to talk through telephone or video conference, "which too shall not only be permitted but encouraged by the appellant," Justice Thakur added.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Indian-courts-can-decide-NRI-couples%5C-matrimonial-rows-SC/791624/

Blatant and flagrant Misuse of 498a dowry harassment laws a stark reality- Anatomical busting of false feminists tactics ! Drilled wide open

Blatant and flagrant Misuse of 498a dowry harassment laws a stark reality- Anatomical busting of false feminists tactics ! Drilled wide open

Shonee kapoor drills into feminists tactics and lies - LokSabha TV 10 March 2011

 

'No personal interest in Afzal's execution'

'No personal interest in Afzal's execution'

New Delhi, March 03, 2011

A day after slamming the government for inordinate delays in arriving at a decision on Parliament attack case convict Afzal Guru's mercy plea, Justice SN Dhingra on Wednesday said he did not have any personal interest in the matter. "I cannot have any personal interest in Afzal Guru's hanging nor am

I personally aggrieved. My job, as a judge, was to decide the case on the basis of evidence and give the sentence. Now, it is for the Executive to take a decision on the hanging," Justice Dhingra told HT.

On the day of his retirement as a Delhi High Court judge, Justice Dhingra, who sentenced Guru to death, had on Tuesday said: "Ministers on various platforms criticise the judiciary for pendency and talk of speedy trial…they forget the Centre is unable to take a decision on his (Afzal's) mercy petition and on many others on death row for several years."

Dhingra, who pronounced judgment in the case, within a year, said mercy petitions did not require detailed examination, as there was no need to go into the specifics.

He added that the Centre needs only to look at the basis on which courts had come to such a conclusion.

"The Centre is unable to do even this much and at the same time, keeps blaming the judiciary for pendency," he said.

The Supreme Court had, in 2006, dismissed Guru's appeal against his death sentence, after which he had filed a mercy petition.

After shooting into the limelight with the order, Justice Dhingra, who became a Delhi High Court judge five years ago, has been widely acclaimed as a judge who boldly stood up for citizens rights in the capital and speedy trial.

Justice Dhingra has also been known to uphold the freedom of the press by ruling that journalists cannot be prosecuted for carrying out sting operations to expose corruption.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/No-personal-interest-in-Afzal-s-execution/Article1-668747.aspx

All new FIRs in Delhi to be available online from Feb 1

All new FIRs in Delhi to be available online from Feb 1

Thu Jan 27 2011

Policemen in Delhi denying anyone a copy of First Information Reports (FIRs) will be a thing of the past.

From February one, people can download new FIRs registered in the capital from Delhi Police's official website -- www.delhipolice.nic.in. An accused can get a copy from the police station by paying Rs 25.

The move comes following a direction by the Delhi High Court on December six last year when it said that an accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR within 24 hours of its registration and police cannot deny supplying it.

The court had said that the FIRs should be uploaded online within 24 hours of its registration though it exempted the force from making public FIRs on sensitive issues.

However, whenever it does not make FIRs public, such a decision has to be taken by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and they have to inform the area magistrates.

 

"We will be uploading the FIRs from February one. The FIRs will be uploaded from police stations and software has been installed," Rajan Bhagat, Delhi Police spokesperson, said.

All the police stations have been instructed to upload all FIRs registered.

According to the official, an accused can apply for the copy of an FIR at a charge of Rs 25 for four pages and an extra Rs ten for each extra page.

"The accused can approach the police station in person or depute another person or his lawyer to collect the FIR registered against him," Bhagat said.

The FIRs on sensitive issues like terrorism, national security, rape, molestation and kidnapping for ransom will not be uploaded, he said.

The application forms for procuring the FIRs will be available at all police stations and Deputy Commissioners' office, he said.

The High Court had observed that fair and impartial investigation is the fundamental right of an accused and he or she need not move to court in order for getting a copy of FIR and it is the duty of the police to provide it.

An accused is entitled to get a copy of the FIR at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the CrPC which says that accused has to move the court and it would be supplied by order of Magistrate, the High Court had said.

In case if police refuse to reveal the FIR, then the person can approach the Police Commissioner, who will form a committee to decide such cases.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/all-new-firs-in-delhi-to-be-available-online-from-feb-1/742724/2

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

7th Dec 2010

NEW DELHI: In a major move towards transparency in police functioning, the high court has directed the Delhi Police to start uploading all First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in the city onto its website within 24 hours of filing. The police are required to implement the order from February 1, 2011.

The landmark order, passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan, said it's the duty of the police to provide information and the accused does not need to move court to get a copy of an FIR.

"Fair and impartial investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and presumption as regards the innocence of an accused is a right. Therefore, a person booked under criminal law has a right to know the nature of allegations so that he can take necessary steps to safeguard his liberty," the bench said.

Earlier, additional solicitor general A S Chandiok and amicus curie Arvind Nigam submitted their suggestions on the matter.
The counsel had said that recording of an FIR was an official act of a public official in discharge of his or her official duties and, therefore, it was a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The court said an accused was entitled to get a copy of the FIR earlier than what's prescribed under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (which says the FIR would be supplied through a magistrate's order after the accused moves court).

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Put-all-new-FIRs-online-Delhi-HC-/articleshow/7056292.cms#ixzz17Nmc2yYg

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and  public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

The Delhi High Court has said the justice delivery system needs overhauling as the poor are not getting timely justice in higher courts which are are kept occupied with cases involving persons with money or power.

"The whole criminal justice system needs overhauling so that the constitutional mandate of equality before law is made meaningful and it should not be the case that higher courts are kept occupied by the persons with money or power, as is the case today," the court said.

The court made the remarks while setting aside the conviction of a poor vegetable vendor who had to spend seven years in jail due to delay in disposing his appeal in the High Court.

The trial court had awarded seven years jail term to the vendor for allegedly killing his wife in 2003 and he filed an appeal in 2004 on which the High Court took six years to pass the verdict.

In the verdict, Justice S N Dhingra found him innocent and acquitted him but he had already spent his jail term.
"In this case, the High Court did not find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants who continued to remain in jail during trial period as well as appeal period for no crime of theirs," the court said adding the High Court should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals.

"Neither the criminal should be let off by default as the High Court has no time to hear appeals nor should the innocents rot in jail by default," the court said.

The High Court pulled up the trial court for convicting the accused even though there were not sufficient evidence against him and merely on the basis of a statement made by his brother-in-laws.

"The conviction seems to be the result of a callous criminal justice system where neither the defence counsel prepared the case nor the prosecutor discharged his duty in an impartial manner nor did the judge consider it as his duty to see what offence was made out and everyone acted in a mechanical manner," the court said.

The court found that there was no evidence that the accused was harassing his wife for dowry leading to her death."The most disturbing factor is that no evidence, whatsoever, was collected by the police about the real facts. No effort was made by the public prosecutor or by the trial judge to even go through the evidence and consider what charges were made out. Charges seemed to have been framed in a mechanical manner," the court said.

In this case, the accused had married Janki in December, 2000 and she died within five months of her marriage.The court said that in such cases husband and in-laws should come forward to tell what was the real cause of death.

"The criminal practice in India has been on the lines of old track that accused must not speak and he should not be examined as a witness. I do not know why this practice developed but in all matrimonial offences, this practice is shutting the doors of the court to the version of the other side by their advocates," the court said.

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?703620

Delhi HC orders contempt case against father of girl for resiling from mutual consent divorce agreement of daughter after extorting the agreed amount

The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the father of a Germany-based woman for backing out from a mutual consent divorce agreement in exchange of Rs 12 lakh. In March 2010, the woman had moved the Delhi High Court against her husband, charging him with domestic violence.

Her Delhi-based father filed a case of domestic violence and dowry demand against his bed-ridden daughter's husband.

Later, she agreed for a mutual-consent divorce for Rs 12 lakh.

Sunny and Sheila (names changed) married in 2002 in Delhi. During her stay in Germany, Sheila developed multiple sclerosis.

In 2008, she filed cases in Germany against her husband.

At present, the couple lives separately in Germany.

Prabhjit Jauhar, counsel for Sunny, in his petition said: "Sheila registered false complainants with the German court. Later German investigative authorities found that those complaints were false."

Jauhar told the court that Sheila was not summoned, as the German court noted she was suffering from an acute disease.

In March 2010, Sheila, through her father, informed the Delhi High Court's Mediation Conciliation Centre, that a divorce by mutual consent should be agreed upon for a sum of R12 lakh. She also gave her consent to quash the FIR against her husband.

However on November 1, Sheila's father said he was not willing to comply with the terms of agreement signed in March.

"It is a clear breach of undertaking given to the court and amounts to contempt," Jauhar submitted in court.

Justice GS Sistani said: "Respondent (father of the woman) has willfully violated the terms of settlement agreed upon. Issue notice to show cause, as to why contempt proceedings should be not initiated."

Sunny, in his petition, alleged that he has already deposited R12 lakh with the registry department of the High Court in March 2010.

The court has directed Sheila's father to be personally present in court on the next date of hearing.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/HC-orders-contempt-case-against-man/Article1-627757.aspx

Woman to face trial for lodging false rape case – PERJURY : Delhi high court

The Delhi high court today refused to quash a false criminal case of rape lodged by a Delhi police woman employee against a man to ensure that she faces prosecution later for falsely implicating him.

"If a prosecutrix makes false statement of an offence punishable with minimum period of 7 years imprisonment, she must be made to face the consequence of registering a false FIR against an innocent person," said Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, dismissing a petition by a Delhi-based property dealer Karan for quashing of the FIR against him.

Justice Dhingra dismissed the petition despite his plea that the woman has admitted to making false accusations against him early this year and they have reached an out-of-court settlement of the issue.

"I consider that an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code being punishable with minimum sentence of seven years cannot be looked at so lightly," Justice Dhingra said.

"The prosecutrix cannot be allowed to turn around and say that she made a false statement and that now she has compromised the matter," he added, refusing to quash the FIR, and leaving it to the trial court to acquit the man and initiate prosecution against the woman instead on charges of perjury.

"The court cannot allow quashing of such FIR when neither the prosecutrix is being punished for making false statement nor the accused is brought to book for the offence of rape," he said.

FULL TEXT AWAITED

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_woman-to-face-trial-for-lodging-false-rape-case-delhi-high-court_1467597

Court pulls up Delhi sub-divisional magistrate

Court pulls up Delhi sub-divisional magistrate

New Delhi, Oct 4 (IANS) A sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) posted in south Delhi has been pulled up by the Delhi High Court for abusing his power and acting in a corrupt manner in a land dispute case.

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra while setting aside a December 2009 order passed by Vivek Tripathy, SDM, Vasant Vihar, said: “It is most unfortunate that an SDM holding a responsible post in executive could have acted in such a corrupt manner that he could pass an order without caring for the orders passed by his predecessor in respect of the same land.”

The matter is related to a dispute over 14 biswas of land (1 biswa is 8.2 acres) in Bijwasan Village in south Delhi.

Earlier, the SDM’s senior had passed an order in favour of Sanjeev Kumar Sharma who was declared owner of the land. But Tripathy modified the ruling when his senior’s decision was contested by Usha Puri in Bijwasan village.

“The parties were all along contesting rights over the land in various courts. However, the SDM, in patent abuse of his power, conducted the proceedings on Dec 17, 2009, late at night, in the absence of the petitioner,” the court said in an order delivered last week.

“When the petitioner learnt about the late night proceedings, he went to the SDM but he was not allowed to participate in the proceedings and in gross misuse of his power passed the order,” said Justice Dhingra.

Following a legal battle for several years, the 14 biswas land was allotted to Sharma and physical possession was given to him with the help of local police in 2001. Puri contested the order in various forums but the decisions went against them.

In December 2009, on an application filed by Puri, the SDM passed an ex-parte order in a hurry favouring her, without issuing even a notice to Sharma. Later, he declined Sharma’s plea for re-hearing of the matter

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/court-pulls-up-delhi-sub-divisional-magistrate_100439188.html

Activist judges can thwart corrupt cops,“Judges cannot remain oblivious to injustice” – Justice Dhingra - Delhi Police rarely act against its erring officials

“Judges cannot remain oblivious to injustice” – Justice Dhingra

06.10.2010 | 21:46
New Delhi
Abhijit Pandey

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Delhi Police officer against a lower court decision directing to initiate criminal proceedings against the officer for not registering a case on the complaint of a woman who had been gang raped in 2005.

The court while upholding the lower court decision said “The Sessions Judge was rightly disturbed at the lack of sensitivity of the petitioner to a gang rape victim and his grave dereliction of duty in not registering FIR in a gang rape case”.

The court dismissed the contention of the petitioner that the power to direct police to make further inquiry under section 156 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) rest with the Magistrate and not with the Session Judge. Justice Dhingra noted with regret, “The learned Sessions Judge in this case directed registration of an FIR and had also brought the relevant facts to the notice of the senior police officials. It was expected of the police department to have taken action immediately and swiftly in this case. The most unfortunate part is that whatsoever wrong the police officials may do, the department rarely takes action against them instead they are protected despite dereliction of duties on their part.” Justice Shivnarayan Dhingra pulled up the police department for not taking appropriate action against such officers.

“I also consider that a judicial officer apart from being a Judge is also a human being and citizen of this country. He while discharging his functions as a Judge cannot remain aloof and oblivious to his functions as a citizen of this country and cannot just adjudicate the matter and rest with it when he finds that a police officer involved in the investigation of the case had deliberately tried to save the accused persons. It is his constitutional duty to bring it to the notice of the department and ask for appropriate action including registration of an FIR.” the court observed and dismissed the petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated on behest of recommendation of the Sessions Judge.

http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=2469

also @

Activist judges can thwart corrupt cops: HC

New Delhi, October 06, 2010

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the menace of cops colluding with accused in many criminal cases and in lodging of FIRs, can be effectively thwarted if a judge goes beyond the evidences submitted before him and thinks like a lay person. The court said that it is the judge’s

“constitutional duty” to bring it to the notice of the department and ask for appropriate action including FIR registration.

Justice SN Dhingra ruled: “If a Judge learns about commission of a crime, either inside the court or he learns about commission of crime by the investigating officer/SHO, during the course of trial, there is no reason why he cannot inform about this crime having been committed by one of the police officers, to his superiors and ask that action should be taken in accordance with law.”

“The HC considers that a judicial officer apart from being a Judge is also a human being and citizen of this country. While discharging functions, a Judge cannot remain aloof and oblivious to his functions as a citizen. He cannot just adjudicate the matter and rest with it when he finds that a police officer involved in the investigation of the case had deliberately tried to save the accused persons,” Dhingra said.

According to the High Court, “An FIR can be registered at the instance of any person, who has the information of commission of crime.”

Justice Dhingra’s remarks came while dismissing a petition filed by Inspector Gurmeet Singh seeking quashing of criminal proceedings ordered against him by the trial judge for refusing to lodge FIR in a Gokulpuri gang rape case in 2005. Singh was the SHO of the police station at the time of the incident.

The sessions judge’s order against the cop came after he tried and convicted all the accused in the gang rape case.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Activist-judges-can-thwart-corrupt-cops-HC/Article1-608915.aspx

----

also @

Delhi Police rarely act against its erring officials: HC

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/delhi-police-rarely-act-against-its-erring-officials-hc/384300.html

HC quashes FIR against DU professor accusing him of sexual molestation.

HC quashes FIR against DU professor accusing him of sexual molestation

TNN, Oct 5, 2010, 04.25am IST

NEW DELHI: In a relief to Delhi University professor, the Delhi high court has quashed an FIR registered against him accusing him of sexual molestation.

Justice S N Dhingra put an end to the proceedings against the accused, Bidhyut Chakraborty, saying he didn't molest or threaten the victim.

Chakraborty, who was working as an honorary director on deputation in Gandhi Bhawan, was accused of molesting an employee of the Bhawan. Subsequently, the police filed an FIR.

Once the probe got over, a chargesheet was filed in the court which revealed that the investigating officer conducted several inquiries with different staff members of Gandhi Bhawan tea vendors and other witnesses available outside the Bhawan to find out the truth. The IO submitted in the chargesheet that not even one witness was found who could support the allegations levelled by the victim and said no evidence could be found against the professor to warrant his arrest. However, keeping in view the complaint made by the victim, the IO left it to the court to issue summons to Chakraborty if needed.

HC was surprised to note that despite no evidence, the police was reluctant to file a closure report. The court next turned its attention to the inquiry report of Delhi University that had examined the complaint of the woman. It revealed that on the day of the alleged incident, Chakraborty found all employees missing from Gandhi Bhawan even though lunch break had long got over. This infuriated him and he scolded the employees including the complainant, ordering them not to come to office for a month. The IO seconded the inquiry of DU and added that when the victim was being scolded, she kept saying "sorry sir''.

This convinced HC that after being scolded by Chakraborty, the victim levelled the allegation of being molested and granted him the relief.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-quashes-FIR-against-DU-professor/articleshow/6686402.cms#ixzz11xaPwDpN

Relief to woman booked in dowry prohibition case

Relief to woman booked in dowry prohibition case

Abhinav Garg, TNN, Apr 11, 2010, 05.19am IST

NEW DELHI: At a time when there is a new trend of courts booking the woman and her kin for giving dowry, the Delhi high court has stayed one such FIR lodged against a woman and decided to examine the law in this regard.

Justice Vipin Sanghi recently stayed an FIR registered on the orders of a magistrate against one Payal and her family for allegedly giving dowry in her marriage. Payal had been pursuing a dowry harassment case against her husband in the court.

However, taking a strict view of her admitting in the FIR that she and her parents gave a substantial dowry amount to the husband's family, additional chief metropolitan magistrate Sanjay Bansal had slapped dowry prohibition sections against Payal and her family too.

This prompted her to approach HC for relief, through her lawyers Vijay Aggarwal and Rakesh Makhija. They argued before HC that a court can't book a victim of dowry harassment under the Dowry Prohibition Act as this is explicitly barred in the Act itself. Seeking relief, the lawyers further claimed the lower court went beyond the law to slap another FIR against the girl and her family.

Pointing to section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act the advocates for Payal argued before HC that a girl's statement she had been forced to give dowry can't be held against her or her family to book her under the act as here the woman is the victim.

Payal got married in Nov 2006 and according to the FIR two years later the husband dropped Payal with their few months old son at her parental home. Though he had promised to take them back to his house he never appeared, that led Payal to lodge a complaint with the Crime Against Woman Cell. Later, efforts at mediation having failed, a case under the the Domestic violence Act was also lodged against the husband.

But to Payal's utter shock, the lower court said being an educated woman she should have shown a better judgment than to agree to give dowry and invoked sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her. The HC is expected to specify the law once it delivers a judgment on her petition.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Relief-to-woman-booked-in-dowry-prohibition-case-/articleshow/5783454.cms#ixzz10HTXf6wc

Bahu (Daughter inlaw) in dock after Sasur (Father inlaw) commits suicide – Delhi HC

Bahu (Daughter inlaw) in dock after Sasur (Father inlaw) commits suicide – Delhi HC

22 Sep 2010

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday issued a notice to a woman accused of driving her father-in-law to commit suicide.
Justice S N Dhingra issued the notice on an appeal filed by the Delhi police through its prosecutor O P Saxena challenging the woman's acquittal by a trial court.

In its appeal, police decried the approach of the trial court, which even while recording that the woman abused and harassed her husband and her in-laws, refused to read any intention in her to drive the father-in-law to commit suicide.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Woman-in-dock-after-kin-commits-suicide/articleshow/6603746.cms#ixzz10FoG88jI