Of the 75 or so dowry cases examined, only five resulted in a conviction
Posted by 498A_Crusader on December 5, 2007
TRUTH FROM HORSE MOUTH
Truth About Dowry Law and Its Misuse << click here
By Rebecca Ruiz – WeNews correspondent
BANGALORE, India (WOMENSENEWS)–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 fear that their husbands or in-laws will burn or strangle 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 fine clothing, it has increasingly come to be seen as a payment to her husband and his family that reinforces or improves their financial and social standing. Abuse 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 uniform 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 abuse, “but you have to think about what both parties want.”
Part of Overall Antiviolence Effort
Rangajura is part 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 have 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 true 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 station 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 police stations in Tamil Nadu. She says the stations give women a safer, more comfortable place 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 bill 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.
Authority Figures and Counselors
Part authority figure 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 police officers,” Natarajan says. “Women will threaten their husbands with going to the police and it’s effective.”
In 1990 the federal government created the National Commission for Women to ensure progress 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 commission often see it as a middle ground between reporting a dowry crime at the local police 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 police stations has left some victims feeling betrayed, says Ranjini Srikumar, temporary chair 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 station) keeps the record and then they won’t continue to harass because it’s on file.”
Detecting the Warning Signs
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 escalate to murder: “The husband won’t buy his wife proper clothes, won’t give her food, will beat her and threaten her.”
When a husband is asked to appear in her office as part of the investigation, Siddamma says she tries to restore the bond. “When you took your husband or wife,” she says, “you took him or her to look after. I tell them that marriage is more important than dowry.”
However, she says some cases must be referred to the police.
Gouramma Venkata Ramana is a staff 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 come forward with complaints of abuse. “The police are given training to see that while dealing with family matters, they ought to make 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 help.”




gopelalwani said
Illegal Arrest and False Criminal Framing of USA Citizens in India under section 498A.
To:
ALL CONCERNED AND
1) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
2) Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India
3) Ministry of Law And Judiciary, Government of India.
4) Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi India.
5) Chief Justice Mumbai High Court, Mumbai India.
6) Embassy of India in USA Washington D.C.
7) Consulates of India in USA.
Dear sirs,
1. This matter is for your Information and further Investigation of Nagpada Police
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 Code.
2. The accused are US citizens against whom false criminal case was registered by Nagpada Police Station, without having Territorial Jurisdiction . The non bailable arrest 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.
3. The Police did not verify the allegations in the complaint, before registering the FIR.
The Nagpada Police Station did not verify 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
the accused without bail in this matter.
4. Neither any kind of Injury was alleged to have been inflicted upon the complainant nor
there was any proof of complainant having physically suffered and also that, there were
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.
5. Perusal of FIR No. 405/2002 dated 31-12-2002 and Remand Application dated
29-6-2003 filed by Nagpada Police Station and the other material on record at the court
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 court.
(a)The said FIR registered on 31-12-2002 stipulates that the complainant
Ms.LAVINA KRIPALANI was married to one Mr.Dinesh Lalwani on
17th NOVEMBER 2002 in India.
(b) While the Remand Application filed on 29-6-2003 stipulates that the complainant
Ms. KAVITA LALWANI was married to one Mr. Dinesh Lalwani in
FEBRUARY 2003 in India.
(c) The said FIR dated 31-12 -2002 stipulates that the complainant Ms. LAVINA,
secured the USA Visa FRAUDULENTLY on 6-12-2002 and departed from India
on 9-12-2002 and returned to India on 30-6-2003.
(d) Therefore the complainant MS. LAVINA KRIPALANI alias LAVINA LALWANI alias
KAVITA LALWANI could not have married in INDIA in FEBRUARY 2003 as the complainant was in USA during FEBRUARY 2003.The Remand Application dated
29-6-2003 filed by the said Assistant Inspector of Nagpada Police Station is therefore false.
The Police colluded with the complainant and maliciously framed the accused, mislead the court and misused Metropolitan Magistrates powers to arrest the accused without bail.
(e) After the wait of nearly six months after the Illegal Arrest of USA Nationals on
29-6-2003 the Nagpada Police Station filed the charge-sheet in DECEMBER 2003,
with the said court without any investigation report enclosed with the said charge sheet.
6.Police is the first organ of criminal justice system. Public at large has first brush with criminal justice system at Police Station. Corrupt Police Officials at Police Stations make a kill of the Criminal Justice System and shake the faith of the public. Police is considered protector of people and society.Corruption cannot be considered as a trivial crime, more so, when officials in police department indulge in corruption.Those who are responsible for proper running of criminal justice system and those who are indulged into the corruption, the authorities should take serious view after considering the evidence of misconduct, 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 down 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 matter 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,
209, 211, 219, 220,of the criminal procedure code of India 1973. The High Court Delhi on 5th October
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 bench 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 & abuse of executive powers.
These orders speaks volumes about the integrity and expose extraneous considerations by the concerned magistrate.
(a) The Bail order MEMO dated 1st July 2003 (Exhibit-C) ordered the Nagpada Police Station to release
the Accused on bail on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/ each with one of sureties in the like amount with a condition to attend police station every day from 10.00 A.M. to 12 Noon till further orders.
The said bail order further directed the accused to surrender their Indian Passports and Green Cards
(in origin) with I.O (falsely branding the accused persons as Persons of Indian Origin residing abroad).
In spite of the fact, and the best knowledge of the police and honourable court 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.
(b) As soon as the DEMANDS were met during the daily attendance at Nagpada Police Station from
10.00 A.M.to 12.00 Noon, the Arrested persons were RECOGNISED AS USA CITIZENS, and the Notice No.103/N/2003 and 104/N/ 2003 dated 14th July 2003 were issued by the same Metropolitan Magistrate (Exhibit-D) ordering the return 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:
1. Return of Passport bearing No. 95443898 of U.S. Passport and Passport bearing No. 112524200 of
U.S.Passport. The said Passports are lying in your custody.
2. Senior P. I. of Nagpada Police Station is hereby directed to hand over the original passports to
accused by retaining copies on record.
3. Accused were directed to furnish additional surety or cash security of Rs. 10,000/- each against
receiving USA Passports from Nagpada Police Station.
The Supreme Court on Friday 16th November 2007 waived red flag against corruption
in Judiciary and refused to show any leniency to the dismissed Magistrate. The Supreme
Court not only talked tough, but meant it for the corrupt and deadwood in the Judiciary.
The magistrate of Ferozepur Jhirka, granted bail to an accused who surrendered before him
even though the case was registered by Gurgaon Police. “How can the magistrate assume
Jurisdiction of another magistrate”? asked the bench.”Assuming Jurisdiction of another
magistrate, what else could be inferred except extraneous considerations”? remarked the Bench.
10.The said FIR was filed at the instance of Ms. Lavina Kripalani, residing at 12/36 Navjivan Co-op
Housing Society, 9th Floor Dr. D.B. Marg Mumbai,under sections 498(A), 406, 34 of IPC read with
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. at Nagpada Police Station Mumbai. The perusal of FIR would
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
to cruelty at matrimonial home in New-York USA. The copy of Complaint is enclosed as Exhibit-A.
11.The perusal of FIR complaint Exhibit-A would show that the alleged marriage was Neither solemnised
within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police 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 Police Station. Therefore the registration of FIR at Nagpada Police station
and further proceedings at Mazgaon Mumbai Metropolitan court 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 cause.
13.No where in the FIR she has stated that any part of alleged offence was committed at Nagpada Mumbai.
Neither alleged marriage took place within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. Neither she
resided along with her husband within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada police station at any time after her
marriage, nor the alleged cruelty had taken place within the jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. She
filed the FIR with Assistant Police Inspector Nagpada alleging that she was now living within the
jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station.
14.The Territorial Jurisdiction is prescribed under sub-section (1) to the extent that the officer can
investigate any cognisable 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
officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one
which such officer 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.
Section 170 specifically provides that is, upon an investigation, it appears to the officer in charge of
the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the
forwarding of the accused to a magistrate, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a
Magistrate empowered to take cognisance 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 case which required investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or
investigate it.
15.The law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is that in the event of the investigating officer arriving
at a conclusion that crime was not committed within his jurisdiction, the FIR should be forwarded to the
Police Station having the jurisdiction. However, the police officer cannot refuse to register the FIR in
respect of a crime which require investigation.
16.The parties never married in India and never lived in Mumbai India after their marriage in USA.
Marriage took place in USA. Matrimonial home was in USA. The alleged crime of Cruelty was
allegedly committed in USA. No investigation was needed to come to the conclusion that part
of alleged crime was committed within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station.
The said FIR should have been transferred it to the Police Station if any;where the offence was
alleged to have been committed.
17.Normally in all such cases, zero FIR is registered at a Police Station and FIR is transferred to the
concerned police station where crime is committed. Though there is no illegality in registration of
FIR, but retaining of this FIR with Nagpada Police Station raises doubt about bonafides of In- charge
of Nagpada Police Station.
18.This attitude of the Nagpada Police is surprising. Such registration of FIR only seems to be result of
some pressure or as a result of consideration and needs an enquiry to be conducted as to what was
the reason for the SHO for obliging with the registration of FIR at Nagpada Police Station and not
transferring the same to concerned area police station when no offence was committed at Nagpada
Police Jurisdiction.
19.Complainant says, that her marriage was solemnised on 17.11.2001 and she fraudulently secured
USA visa, 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
taken by Nagpada Police station against the complainant nor the matter was reported to the Indian
passport authorities regarding fraudulent and misuse of Indian passport by the complainant.
The Nagpada Police Station deliberately did not enter the Passport Number of the complainant
in the FIR no 405/02 at serial no.6 which is a mandatory requirement of law.
20.It is settled law that police cannot encroach upon the liberty of any body without following due
process of law and without there being sufficient and cogent material showing, prima facie,
involvement of the accused. Yet Non-bailable arrest warrants were issued and posted at Mumbai
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
on furnishing the bail and there after illegally detained in India for 15 days.
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,
who is also practising Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa vide Registration
No. 957 MAH/1485/1986. They both submitted to US Court Jurisdiction; being the competent court
under which the parties were married to entertain matrimonial disputes. They both participated in
divorce proceedings.
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 bring pressures, wreak revenge
and unleash “Legal Terrorism”.
She filed false criminal complaint in December 2002 at Nagpada Police Station Mumbai India making
false allegations against each and every member of the family and alleging cruelty to her in US. While
her counter reply to pending divorce proceedings does not contain those false criminal allegations.
The complaint in India was the Counter-Blast to the divorce petition pending before the US court.
She did not disclose in the police complaint that there was on-going divorce proceedings pending in
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
12th July 2001; which was received by her on 6th December 2001 from US Consulate in Mumbai.
She falsely stated in the complaint that she married in India with a Green Card holder Indian citizen
and named all the members of of the US citizens family as Indian Citizens residing in US.
She stated in the complaint that she fraudulently obtained US Visa and travelled to US.
She did not disclose to US divorce court, that she had filed a criminal complaint in India and obtained
Non-bailable Arrest Warrants and got posted at Air-ports in India.
She testified in divorce matter in the US Court, that no other proceedings in the said matrimonial matter were pending else where. She had also sought help 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 case of Lavina Kripalani was based on Blackmail and
Extortion. The Divorce was granted by the US court after trial.
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 arrest of foreign Nationals by the local Police.
Relevant Judgements of Supreme Court of India
and other High Courts in India.
Jurisdiction Case No. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P (Crl.) No.1266 of 2007
Date of Decision: 10.10.2007
Sonu and others versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
JUDGEMENT
FIR was filed by the complainant under sections 406/498A at PS
Malviya Nagar, while perusal of FIR would show that no
offence was committed within the jurisdiction of NCT of
Delhi. Respondent-wife alleged that petitioners subjected
her to cruelty at matrimonial home in Patiala (Punjab).
Marriage in this case was solemnised in U.P. Neither the
marriage was solemnised in Delhi nor the offence was committed
in Delhi. The registration of FIR in Delhi at PS Malviya Nagar
was contrary to the provisions of sections 177 and 181 (4) of
the Cr.P.C.
No where in the FIR she stated that offence was committed in Delhi.
She filed the FIR with PS Malviya Nagar alleging that she was now
living at Hauz Rani within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar.
In (1999) 8 SCC 728 Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
and another, the question of registration and investigation of an FIR
lodged at the place of residence was dealt with and considered by the
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court made the following observations:-
” 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 ground that
Delhi Police Station did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence”.
“From the discussion made by the learned Judge, it appears that learned Judge 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 Section
498-A IPC arose at Patiala. In our view, the findings given by the High Court are,on the face of it, illegal
and erroneous because:
(a) The SHO has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any
cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged.
(b) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction.
(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 Code and to forward the case 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 investigate any cognizable offence. It reads as under :
Section 156 ——–Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case ?
(1) any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order
of a Magistrate, investigate 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 proceedings of a police officer in any such case shall at any
stage be called in question 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 officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such
officer 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. Section 170 specifically provides that is, upon an investigation, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a magistrate, such officer 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 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 case which required investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or
investigate it.
The law laid down by the Supreme Court is that in the event of the investigating officer arriving at a conclusion that crime was not committed within his jurisdiction, the FIR should be forwarded
to the PS having the jurisdiction.
However, the police officer cannot refuse to register the FIR in respect of a crime which requires
investigation.
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 even 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 of
FIR, 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 Station at Patiala (Punjab) where offence was committed.
******************
Jurisdiction Case No. 2
Y. Abraham Ajith and others Versus Inspector of Police 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. Code
before CHENNAI High Court, Saying that:”The Saidapet Chennai” magistrate had no
Jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint, even if the allegations contained in the complaint their in are accepted in Toto. According to the applicants, no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the
SAIDAPET CHENNAI(MADRAS) JURISDICTION.
The petitioner’s case was that, “All the allegations made in the complaint
took place at Nagarcoil (Madras state)therefore the courts in Chennai
(Madras state) did not have Jurisdiction to deal with the matter”. The
approach of Chennai High Court in this matter was also found erroneous by supreme court.
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 part of the cause 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 Court
had no Jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
********************
Jurisdiction Case No. 3
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.
**************
Jurisdiction Case No 4
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 COURT AT HYDERABAD. Therefore the mahila court has no Jurisdiction to try the offences as the complaint does not disclose prime facie offence within
the Jurisdiction of the Mahila Court at Hyderabad.
**************
Jurisdiction Case No. 5
Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)*
Facts
The appellant was married with respondent at Delhi on 09.12.1990.
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 demand against her husband 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 entertain and investigate, the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant because the the alleged caused of action for the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code arose at Patiala
*************************
Jurisdiction case No.6
LUCKNOW HIGH COURT
Judgement in February 2006.
A division bench of the high court comprising Justice Bhanwar Singh and
Justice JM Paliwal quashed the entire criminal proceedings pending against
an assistant income tax commissioner, Sanjiv Yadav, for dowry harassment.
The bench passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by
Dharam Raj Yadav (Sanjiv’s father) and others for quashing the
charge-sheet while treating it to be a petition under Section 482 Cr PC.
It may be recalled that the proceedings against Sanjiv was initiated on the
basis of an FIR lodged by his wife Dipti Yadav on January 11, 2005 alleging
harassment for dowry.
After going through the material on record, the bench observed that the investigating
officer had acted in a malafide manner and had manipulated things to mislead the court
of the additional chief judicial magistrate as well as this court.
The bench further remarked that the additional chief judicial magistrate had
also acted without application of mind in taking cognizance of the matter as
the Lucknow court had no jurisdiction to deal with the offence alleged to
have been committed in Jaunpur, Sultanpur, Gorakhpur etc.
Jurisdiction Laws
156. Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable cases.
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate 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 case shall at any stage be called in question 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.
168. Report of investigation by subordinate police officer.
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. Release of accused when evidence deficient.
If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient, evidence or reasonable round 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 evidence is sufficient.
(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer 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 station 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 appear to such officer 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 prosecute or give evidence (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against the accused.
(3) If the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in the bond, such court shall be held to include 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 deliver a copy thereof to one of the persons who executed it, and shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his report.
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.
Section 188 of Cr. P code bars taking cognisance of any of these offences
without the approval of the central government.
482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make 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.
Full Text of the Complaint registered under “FIR”
( EXIHIBIT – A )
Translation of complaint (originally in Marathi) lodged on
December 10, 2002 and registered by assistant Inspector
of Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai under
FIR No. 405/02 dated December 31, 2002.
STATEMENT
Date: 10/12/2002
Smt. Lavina Chatur Kripalani, age 30 years, occupation- housewife
residing at 12/36 Navjivan Co-op Housing Society, 9th Floor Dr. D.B.
Marg Mumbai.
———————————————-
By remaining present in person, I state that I reside at the
above mentioned address with my parents. I have completed “Law
Education” and “Shipping Management Course” and at present I am
getting training in the subject “Event Management” at S.N.D.T. college.
My marriage was solemnised in accordance with customs of
Sikh community with the consent of my parents with shri Dinesh on
17.11.2001 at Laxmi-Narayan Temple Khar Mumbai.
Whatever presents that were received by me at the time of
marriage were kept in a bag by my father and when the marriage
ceremony was over, my father asked my mother-in-law to take the
said bag along with her. And at that time my mother-in-law asked
“Are you giving Dowry ? If so, we will go away from the marriage
ceremony.”
There after we were in Mumbai itself. On 19.11.2001,we went
to reside at my husband’s house at Yari Road Versova, Mumbai and
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
mother-in-law, sister-in-law and two sisters of my mother-in-law.
My mother-in-law’s mother welcomed me there as the
new daughter-in-law and voluntarily presented to me cash
amount of Rs. 5000/-. After waiting there for a short time
myself, my husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law went
to Versova and on reaching there, my mother-in-law asked
as to why I had accepted Rs. 5000/- from her mother and
further said that we had not given any money at the time of
marriage and because of it she was disgraced and so
saying she snatched from me the said amount. Immediately
There after she showed me a list in which presents and cash
amounts received by my husband from his relatives at the time
of marriage were listed and said to me, “See how much money
my relatives have paid. While coming to America you must
come with the presents and money. Marriage of my daughter
was performed with pomp and singing and dancing but you
people have not spent any money as per our expectation”.
There after I was in India with my husband up to 02.12.2001
and at that time I often told my husband that his mother was
taunting me from time to time and by citing examples of some
relatives, she was saying that we have not incurred much
expenditure at the time of my marriage and there upon my
husband used to say that what his mother was saying was
correct.
As my husband has settled down in America, he wanted to go to
America and as he was working on the post of a director in
Information Technology Company in America, he wanted to remain
present there and accordingly he left for America on 2.12.2001.
At that time I said to him that let me come with you but he
said that since he was holding a green card, if I go to
America as his prospective wife, visa can be obtained quickly.
Therefore I decided to go to America later on. I received a visa
for going to America on 06. 12.2002.
However as my birthday was on 9.12.2001, I wanted
to celebrate in India only and accordingly my parents
celebrated my birth day on 8.12.2001 and I left for
America on 9.12.2001 along with all the possible presents
and US $ 700. My husband and mother-in-law had come to
receive me at the airport at Newark, New Jersey America.
There after all of us went to my husband’s residence.
On that day even though they knew that it was my birthday,
I was given only good wishes and birth day was celebrated
in a very simple manner.
Prior to going to America, I had gone with my husband to
Rajasthan for Honeymoon. At that time we had purchased
some paintings and “Kambal”. My Mother-in-law had asked
me to bring the same and therefore I removed the same from
bag and handed over to her.
On 10.12.2001 , my mother-in-law said the gift items which
were brought by me were trivial and presents given to me by
my relatives were not brought and because of it she talked
with me in filthy language and abused me. When I informed
my husband about this incident on 11.12.2001 he ignored the
same. As I was mentally upset, I had not prepared any thing
to eat at home and when I asked my mother-in-law whether
I could go out for eating, she said that my parents had not
taught me any thing and abused me in a very loud voice.
When I lifted the telephone to inform my husband about this
incident, she snatched the phone from my hands and
threatened me. At that time I immediately forcibly contacted
the police there and in a short while a police officer came there
and before I could explain any thing to him, at the behest of my
sister-in-law my Mangalsutra was handed over to my sister-in-law
at the instance of the police officer. On the same day, my
sister-in-law went to my husband’s office and brought him to the
house and he and other occupants of the house threatened and
scolded me. There after I was being harassed continuously.
On 20.12.2001 my sister-in-law left her house in America and
came to reside with her husband at my husband’s house, and
my sister-in-law said a number of times, that I had not brought
any thing with me at the time of marriage and my mental torture
was started.
As my brother-in-law was residing with my husband, he also
frequently used to taunt me and cause me mental torture.
In this way when I was in America, all the occupants of the
house started causing me physical and mental torture for one
reason or the other.
When I was residing with my husband in America, my husband
had repeatedly asked me to sign some agreement which he claimed
were required as per practise in America and when I informed my mother
about it over the phone and asked her whether I should sign on the
agreements, she always told me not to sign and therefore I refused to sign
on the said agreement. My husband got annoyed because of it and abused me.
Thereafter he pressurised me through my mother-in-law and
brother-in-law and I was told that if I do not sign the agreement
I will not be able to get wedded legally in America and therefore
out of fear, I have signed the said agreement.
In America also, my marriage was solemnised as per their
customs on 13.02.2002. in the court at wood bridge Township,
New Jersey.
Even after the said marriage and even though I had signed the
agreement, my husband, sister-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law continued my mental torture and I was told not to use any thing from the
house and was being abused for any trivial reason.
The house in America in which we were residing was sold on
15.06.2002 and a new house was purchased at Belle- Mead, New Jersey
and when we were residing there my father-in-law came there from India on
21-06-2002 and started residing there.
My mother-in-law, sister-in-law,husband and brother-in-law told
him exaggerated stories about me and he also started abusing
me and from there he contacted my father in India over the phone,
abused my father and told him,”You take away your daughter
immediately”
Because of this I had a break down and I got mentally upset in
America and on the doctor’s advice I started consuming
anti-depression pills. Thereafter on 28.06.2002, I was sent to
India against my will in Air India plane and since then and till this
date I am residing with my parents.
In view of the above, I am lodging a complaint against my
mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and husband
that they caused me physical and mental torture because of the reasons
that my parents had not given any money and gifts to them at the time of
marriage and by taking away the presents received by me at
the time of my marriage and my mangalsutra forcibly from me,
they have committed breach of my trust.
My above statement has been recorded on a computer,
read over to me in Marathi and interpreted to me in Hindi
and find it to be correctly recorded.
Sd/ Lavina Kripalani
Before me.
Sd/- Tanaji Surudkar
Assistant Inspector of Police
Nagpada Police Station Mumbai.
THE CASE STATUS-CUM-POLICE REMAND CUSTODY
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY NAGPADA POLICE STATION
( EXHIBIT – B )
Nagpada Police Station Mumbai
Date:29-06-2003
To.
Metropolitan Magistrate
15th Court,
Mazgaon,
Mumbai.
Respected Sir,
I hereby report that the complainant herein Smt. Lavina
Kripalani, age 30 years, residing at Navjivan Society Dr. J.V.—–Road
has filed her complaint with this Police Station that She got
married in India in February 2002 and when she
was in India for 15 days her husband Dinesh,Mother-in-law Indira
(Age 74 years) sister-in-law Poonam, and brother-in-law Girish
have mentally harassed and beat the complainant and that the
accused were frequently demanding the money saying that they did not spent
money, gave less dowry and demanded things, beat her and mentally harassed
her.
The accused being settled in America , there also beat the complainant and
demanded money.
The complainant fed up with the mental harassment, she came back
to India in JUNE 2002 and she filed complaint in Nagpada Police
Station vide C.R.No. 405/2002 u/s 498A, 406, 34 of IPC and section4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
As the Accused, being settled in America, hence at the time of lodging the
complaint, they could not be found in India and therefore information was
given to the Airport Branch against the accused and their names were given
to the look out cell.
Accordingly as per the information of Airport Branch, Police of Nagpada
Police Station were sent to Airport and from their the Accused were taken
in possession and as they were wanted in the said offence.
They were arrested on this 29th June 2003 at 10.00 hrs.
The said Accused other relatives, sister-in-law of the
complainant, father-in-law and brother-in-law, are to
be arrested in the above said offence and to investigate
the case and the statements of the witnesses are to be recorded.
And therefore praying for grant of Police custody of the above said Accused.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
Assistant Police Inspector,
Nagpada Police Station
Mumbai.
Round Seal Of
Nagpada Police Station.
BAIL ORDER (EXHIBIT-C)
MEMO Mumbai, Dt. 1/7/2003
TO:
The Inspector of Police.
Nagpada Police Station.
Mumbai.
You are hereby informed that the accused No. 1 Dinesh Gop Lalwani and accused No. 2 smt Indira Gop Lalwani who were
arrested by your police station in C.R. No. 405/2002 of the
offence punishable U/ sec 498(a), 406, 34 I.P.C r/w 4 Dowry
Act are ordered to be released on execution of P. R. Bond of
Rs. 20,000/- each with one of sureties in the like amount with a condition to attend police station every day from 10.00 a.m
to 12.00 noon untill further orders.
Accused are ordered to surrender their Passport and Green Card (in original) with I.O.
Accused are further directed not to leave the limit of Mumbai
without prior permission of court till further orders.
Option of cash bail of Rs. 20,000/- each is allowed in liew of solvent surety.
This is for your information and compliance condition.
By order
SD/-
Judicial Clerk,
Metropolitan Magistrate’s
15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.
RETURN OF PASSPORT & PERMISSION TO GO BACK TO U.S.A
AND CANCELLATION OF ATTENDENCE.
( EXHIBIT-D )
NOTICE NO: 103/N/2003 and Mumbai, Dated 14th July 2003.
104/N/2003
C.R. No. 405/2002
M E M O:
The Inspector of Police, Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai is hereby informed that on application made by Smt. Indira Gope Lalwani in Notice No. 103/N/2003 and Dinesh Gope Lalwani in Notice 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 Court has passed the following order:
O R D E R
“Notice No. 103/N/2003 & 104/N/2003 and prayer made therein of both
the accused is hereby allowed. They are permitted to leave India”.
Senior P. I. of Nagpada Police Station is hereby directed to hand 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 court on each and every date untill further orders. Failing which, necessary action will be taken against both the applicant/accused.
Applicant/Accused are hereby directed to furnish additional surety or
cash security of Rs. 10,000/-each against recieving Passports from Nagpada Police Station.
Applicant/Accused are permitted to go abroad for six months and directed to report their where abouts to Nagpada Police Station
within that period of six months.
“Attendence conditions imposed in bail order are vacated”.
You are therefore directed to comply above orders.
BY ORDER
ROUND SEAL SD/-
METOPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.
TO:
The Inspector of Police
Nagpada Police Station Mumbai
I SHALL BE PLEASED TO FURNISH FURTHER INFORMATION IF SO REQUIRED.
YOUR RESPONSE IN THE MATTER SHALL BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED.
THANKING YOU,
REGARDS.
GOPE LALWANI.
611 Cambridge Place.
New Britain Walk
CHALFONT,
PENNSYLVANIA PA 18914
gopelalwani @yahoo.co.in
darth vader said
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 purpose 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 live 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 come 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 – harass men.
Most modern women seem to have outgrown their inward looking traditions that have made them look 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 reveal 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 point 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 culture. 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 save the country from societal crisis.”
One-sided laws, like the anti-dowry provision in section 498-A, which the Supreme Court 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 will have to manage an unbelievably huge social security burden. 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 look to the West to understand India.
Rajesh said
This disgusting abuse of 498a will not stop till all MEN in society go underground and start butchering feminist scoundrels and their supporters.
People who say its ok to have 98% abuse to benefit 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 found 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.
Thanks,
Rajesh
bhoopathy said
I agree with you rajesh.
Bhoopathy