web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: June 2020

Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 11 October 2000

Posted on June 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 11 October 2000

Citations: [2000 AIR SC 3214], [2000 CRIMES SC 4 79], [2000 CRLJ SC 4604], [2001 BOMCR CRI SC 81], [2000 AIR SC 3692], [2000 SCALE 6 697], [2000 JT SUPP 1 422], [2000 SUPREME 6 586], [2000 SCC 8 740], [2001 SCC CRI 87], [2000 ACR SC 3 2553], [2001 CGLJ 1 53], [2001 PLJR 1 112], [2001 UC 1 79], [2001 LW CRL 1 1], [2000 CRILJ 4604], [2001 ALT CRI 1 40], [2000 JT SUPPL SC 1 422], [2000 ALD CRI 2 843], [2000 SUPP SCR 3 658]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445635/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad81e4b014971141183f

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Ors Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs State of Telangana on 4 January 2018

Posted on June 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Baseless case against Secretary to Government LV Subrahmanyam was quashed by AP High Court.

Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs State of Telangana on 4 January 2018

 


Citations: [

Other Source links:

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Landmark Case Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs State of Telangana | Leave a comment

Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr on 07 March 2011

Posted on June 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After failure at Delhi High Court here, Supreme Court dismissed the SLP summarily. Sad!

Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr on 07 March 2011
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr | Leave a comment

Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Basing on the Pooja Saxena case here, Parents of women who were alleged to have committed the crime of giving dowry were let free.

Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 2130], [2016 DLT CN B 229 30]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134987777/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e42ee56109277ee48517

https://www.quickcompany.in/judgements/judgement-7b760d46-8b0b-48bd-9a45-794161ac3e2c

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases | Leave a comment

Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Because of the allegation of Dowry giving are made by married women, husbands are resorting to these kind of hyperbolic tricks which fall flat on their face. Instead of hitting at the root cause, peripheral aspects are stroked only to be later quashed like this.

Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013

Citations: [2013 KCCR 4 3137], [2013 AKR 4 454], [2014 ILR KAR 199], [2013 SCC ONLINE KAR 5387], [2013 AIR KANT R 4 45]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56094831e4b01497112656fb

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140258661/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/viral-goda-viral-dhulia-others-v-virag-r-dhulia-another/DDF53

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Mrs-Viral-Goda–Viral-Dhulia-and-Others-Versus-Virag-R-Dhulia-and-Another-2013-07-25


Upon filing SLP before Supreme Court, it was dismissed summarily with the following Order.

Delay condoned.
Heard. We find no merit in the case.
The special leave petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid in favour of respondent no. 2 within eight weeks.

Virag Dhulia Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 14 Feb 2014

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148303036/

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia | Leave a comment

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows:

From Para 2,

2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 224/1995. Chinna Chowk Police laid a charge-sheet against him, his parents and three sisters for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”. A single charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was framed against petitioner and A-2. After conclusion of trial and before judgment, the learned Magistrate framed separate charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against petitioner and A-2 and recalled P.Ws. 1 to 3 and cross-examination them. During their cross-examination, P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitted that they had given Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and presented gold jewels worth Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and his father. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 4073/1998 before the Trial Court under Section 319, Cr.P.C, to implead P.Ws. 1 to 4 as accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, to be tried along with the other accused in the case, since both the giver and taker of dowry are equally liable for punishment under the Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application against which petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No. 15/1999 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision  holding that P.Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be tried as accused in the same trial as they are protected under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is as against the order of dismissal of the revision, A-1 filed the present petitioner to quash the said order.

From Para 7,

7. A plain reading of the above provision would go to show that giving or taking of dowry as well as abetment of giving or taking of dowry is an offence punishable under the Act. On the basis of the statements made before the Court by P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitting that they gave dowry, can they be tried as accused in the same trial, is the question.

From Para 10,

10. If P.Ws. 1 to 4, who were examined as witnesses, are added as accused and arrayed in the list, of the accused persons, the proceedings in respect of them shall have to be commenced afresh and thewitnesses reheard. It means they have to give evidence against themselves, which is not permissible under law. Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offenceshall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This protection is available to the person accused ofan offence not merely with respect to the evidence to be given in the Court-room in the course of trial butis also available to him at the previous stages, if an accusation has been made against him which might, in the normal course, result in his prosecution. It follows that the protection is available to a person againstwhom the formal accusation has been made though the actual trial may not have commenced as yet andif such an accusation relates to the commission of an offence which in the normal course may result in prosecution. In view of the above provisions, the witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 4, cannot be arrayed as accused along with petitioner and others in the same proceedings. If the Court wants to proceed against the persons of giving dowry, then it has to resort to the provision under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon its own knowledge, or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or other relative of such person or by any recognized welfare institution or organization.

Further Section 7(3) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the timebeing in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

Fundamental mistake in this case is, why police are NOT booking the Dowry givers asmushas Dowry takers in the FIR? Because in some States, Police circulars were issues precluding the Dowry givers from prosecution. So Police themselves decided that Dowry givers are not to be booked, which is totally contrary to what is said in Section 3(1).

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Citations: [2004 DMC 2 49], [2003 ALD 2 91], [2003 ALT CRI 2 253]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f83ce4b0149711141d5d

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91122848/

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases | Leave a comment

Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice NN Tiwari had held as follows (without any legal basis):

From Para 6,

6. Learned Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the ground for assailing the impugned order by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and baseless. From the allegations made in the complaint, it is evident that the accused persons were demanding dowry and torturing the complainant for not bringing the dowry as desired by them. The petitioner is wrongly interpreting the presents given by the parents of the complainant, as dowry, which does not come within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been submitted that nothing new has come in course of the inquiry or trial or there is nothing in the evidence on record to suggest that any such offence has been committed by the father of the complainant and learned Court below considering the provisions of law including the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act has rightly rejected the petitioner’s petition.

From Para 10,

10. The petitioner has sought prosecution on the basis of the statement of giving dowry by the father of the complainant. From perusal of the statement made in the complaint, I find no such incriminating statement of voluntarily giving dowry for marriage. The statement regarding giving presents ‘UPHAR’ does not come within the ambit of definition of dowry. Moreover, the father of the complainant is an aggrieved person from whom dowry was being demanded. Such aggrieved person is protected under Section 7(3) from prosecution under the Act.

 

Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (LQ Ver)

Citations: [2008 SCC ONLINE JHAR 385], [2009 AIR JHAR R 1 856], [2009 CRI LJ NOC 614 159], [2009 JLJR 1 432]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea832d607dba377ff107fd

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Ram-Gopal-Sah-Versus-State-Of-Jharkhand-2008-12-03

Posted in High Court of Jharkhand Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand | Leave a comment

PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After losing out (didn’t lose the case but didn’t get opportunity to argue in-person) in an earlier attempt here, I decided to take Writ Petition route as I am (along with my parents!) one of the affected person of this biased implementation of a convoluted interpretation of section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1986). Also, decided to decentralize my PIL prayers.

So picked up this prayer from earlier attempt and worked on writing the WP.

Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, such that there is no ambiguity to them whether to prosecute the Dowry givers under section 3 of DP Act read with section 7 of DP Act and no discrimination is made between Dowry Giver and Dowry Taker, under Section 3(1) of DP Act, in similar fashion as that of made by Bangladesh.

Key Point

Shouldn’t all Dowry givers be booked and prosecuted as per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (as amended from time to time) or not?

 

Arguments – Counter Arguments

 

Another simple point from the Bare Act itself.

 

Prayer

Prosecute Dowry Givers u/s 3(1) without protecting them u/s 7(3) = Article 14 and 21 compliance

Alternatively, strike down words ‘Gives’ and ‘abets to give’ from section 3(1) = ultra-vires to Article 14 and 21 compliance and contrary to legislative intent

Either-way, I win!

Full prayers from the Writ Petitions:


All the cited case laws are listed here.

  • Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003 (AP HC)
  • Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (Jharkhand HC)
  • Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 (Delhi HC)
  • Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012 (Delhi HC)
  • Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012 (AP HC)
  • Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013 (Kar HC)
  • Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016 (Del HC)

ACTION STARTS:

WP (in the name of my parents, and not in my name) is filed on 14-09-2021. WP No. 20594 of 2021 (WPSR 27260/2021). Here is the affidavit.

Writ Petition seeking direction against misinterpretation of Sec 7(3) of DP Act 1961 3.5 ONLY AFFIDAVIT

Case Details


Filed a memo with additional information on 17-09-2021:

MEMO for Extra Info

Order Passed on 20-09-2021

Initial hearing before admission on 20-09-2021. Notices issued to the Respondents. Government Advocates take notice and sought 4 weeks time to file Counters.

Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 20 Sep 2021

 Next Date of Hearing : 13-12-2021

  1. The case was transferred from Court-14 to Court-1, since there is a question of law involved.
  2. It is almost 90 days from the date of issue of notices to Government advocates but I am still waiting for the Counters to be filed by them. I suspect, they will continue to seek additional time. Let’s see how this gamble goes on…

Since the petitioner is questioning the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Registry is directed to post the matter before the appropriate Bench as per roster.

2 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 13 Dec 2021

 Next Date of Hearing : 16-12-2021

  1. My Advocate took two weeks time.

On the request made by Ms. Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for the petitioners, post this case after two weeks.

3 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 16 Dec 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 30-12-2021

Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court-1 took up only part of the Causelist and rest of the cases, including mine, was not listed. No future date known.


Next Date of Hearing : 13-06-2022

Since 4 months, not a single listing was possible. Frankly, not asked/mentioned/represented appropriately by the advocate. Will wait out the Vacation period for High Court and then get the advocate changed to… myself. Hence filed the NOC obtained from previous advocate and my vakalat. (Expense: Rs.300/-)


Next Date of Hearing : 14-06-2022

I am the new Advocate for this Writ Petition.

Updated on eCourts Website…

‘

Updated on eCourts app…

 

Updated on AP High Court Case Status website…


Next Date of Hearing : 23-06-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready. Gathered up courage (my first time facing a High Court judge, that too Chief Justice!) and stepped up to the mike. Cleared my throat and uttered few words.

—————————————
Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021.
CJ: What is the urgency?
Me: The matter was not listed after Dec 2021.
CJ: We have around 2.5 lakh cases pending, some for much more time than that. (Don’t know if he is proud/sad about this). Again what is the urgency?
Me: The matter pertains to critical question of law regarding Dowry Prohibition Act
CJ: No urgency. Mention rejected.
—————————————
What do I do next?

Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

Going to take a different plea for urgency.

– Court-14 issues Notices to the Respondents on 08-09-2021.
– Government Advocates take the notice and seek 4 weeks time to file Counters on same day.
– Court-14 transfers the Writ Petition to Court-1 since there is a question on the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 on 13-12-2021.
– Lapse of 120 days on 06-01-2022
(as per amended Rules 12(i)(a) and 12(ii) of AP HC Writ Proceeding Rules 1977)
-[12(i)(a) Every Respondent in every Writ Petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any Writ Petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter appearance and file a Counter Affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event not later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice in the Writ Petition or the Service of Rule nisi on the said Respondent”.]
-[12(ii) “No counter affidavit filed beyond one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party or parties in the Writ Petition shall be received or be used at the hearing of the Writ Petition unless the Court grants leave to file counter affidavit beyond the stipulated period, subject to such terms as the Court may deem fit.”]
– Till date none of the Respondents filed any Counter so I can submit to Court-1 to strike out the defence of the Respondents and pass orders  in the Writ, as the Hon’ble Court finds appropriate.
  • Union of India
  • State of Andhra Pradesh
  • Director General of Police
  • Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Ongole

On Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready.

—————————————
Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021 and Notices were issued also.
CJ: What is the urgency?
Me: The respondents have not filed any Counter Affidavits till date. As per Writ Rules, only 120 days time is given to respondents to file their Counter Affidavits but in this case already 320 days elapsed.
CJ: If we go by Rules, I will have to dismiss many petitions. May be in future, you will be respondent. What to do then? (Don’t know how Petition can be dismissed for fault of Respondent?). Again what is the urgency?
Me: (silent)
After lunch time, I get to know that my Court Slip/Mentioning was rejected by CJ. Again.
—————————————
Here is the rejected Court slip.
What do I do next? God knows!

Next Date of Hearing : 05-08-2022

Since I was not in a habit of checking the listing of my cases (officially just two; for one, CJ doesn’t see urgency, for another, File not available at AP HC), I totally missed to appear before the Court in which this case got listed miraculously. Also since it was my 40th birthday, I had reached my home town in the morning of 5th August.

See the time at which I received the SMSs (I got them after the business of the Court ended)

[Note: Filed RTI application to AP HC, asking for the number of Writs for which Counter was NOT filed within 120 days. Interesting reply awaited!]

2022-08-05 Listing of 20594 of 2021

Here is the order passed. Not sure if Counter is filed by the Respondent No.1 (Union of India)

4 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 05 Aug 2022

Next Date of Hearing : 30-09-2022

The matter came before Justice AV Sesha Sai and Justice D Venkata Ramana. Just before lunch, the case was called up and I and Sridevi madam pushed for admission of case and disposal of IA.No. 1 which is stay petition. The case was directed to be listed after vacation.

Next Date of Hearing : 10-05-2023

The previous couple weeks went in roaming around couple of high-headed posting clerks in Criminal Posting Section. I had to move a Court slip the previous day for the case to be listed today. Thanks to those who helped me.

The Division bench comprised Justice U Durga Prasad Rao and Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao. When my name was called out, I was trembling. For fear of sabotaging everything that I worked on for over 5 years. The short interaction went fine, as follows.

UDPR J(smiling): So husband is seeking prosecution of In-law?
Sandeep: No your honor, his parents are seeking prosecution of the parents of their daughter-in-law

UDPR J: Those giving dowry are to be prosecuted by law under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961?
Sandeep: Yes your honor

UDPR J: Is there any case law on this aspect?
Sandeep: Yes your honor, the case laws are annexed

Other side was directed to come prepared on next date (Section 3, 4 of DP Act) and next date was granted for 15-06-2023. Finally for Counters and for hearing (and disposal, hopefully!). No stay was granted on Trial Court proceedings.

5 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 10 May 2022

As usual the SMS Alert came at 4.15 PM


Next Date of Hearing : 15-06-2023

Again 3 weeks of time is given.

6 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 15 Jun 2023

Next Date of Hearing : 5-07-2023

The Petition was not listed. Reason: The Judges were busy with interviewing the prospective Junior Civil Judges!!!


Next Date of Hearing : 25-07-2023

After waiting for the petition to be listed for over 2 weeks, I mentioned the matter before the Division Bench. It was directed to be listed on 27 July 2023. Yipieeeee!


Next Date of Hearing : 27-07-2023

Again 2 more weeks of time given, on Respondent’s request and the judge denied stay on trial Court proceedings. But Judge said since there is possibility of wide implications, he wants the Respondents to file Counters. Finally. I agreed.

No Order was passed though.


Next Date of Hearing : 11-08-2023

It was directed that the WP be listed on 23-08-2023 (Landing of Vikram on the Lunar south!). Again 2 weeks time given, inspite of saying finally for Counters, thrice. Bench orally indicated that they want to learn the views of Advocate General.


Next Date of Hearing : 23-08-2023

Came rushing to Mangalagiri but the WP was NOT listed. So I decided to mention it on 24-08-2023.


Next Date of Hearing : 24-08-2023

Interesting date… I mentioned the matter (out of list!) and the Bench said we will hear the views of AG today. So I had to wait until item 14 when learned Advocate General (AG) would present his arguments in a matter, after which the bench sought the views of AG. At that moment, a battery of 20+ advocates gathered around the bench. Each of them expressed varied views and they laughed it out. I had to keep my cool. The matter is listed (compulsory) for 08 Sep 2023.

2023-08-24 Court slip - Compulsory Listing on 08 Sep 2023

List of mentions…


Next Date of Hearing : 08-09-2023

Due to change in roster, this case got transferred to Court-1. I mentioned the case before Court-1 and it was directed to be listed shortly.


Final Outcome : 26-09-2023

The case is dismissed. Awaiting Order copy. Judges raised these points…

I – There can be only two possibilities: Dowry giving is a crime or not
J – No, Why only two?

J – Have you followed Sakiri Vasu Vs State of UP
I – Yes, sent representations to SHO, DGP, Home Secretary
J – Nope, that is not sufficient compliance

I – My prayer is to interpret the provisions of DP Act and declare that Dowry giving is a crime
J – We do not do that kind of declaring a provision.
I – You can do that on a petition, such as this.
J – Nope

I – Three is no protection to dowry givers even u/s 7(3) of DP Act
J – They are aggrieved persons


Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows in one of the shortest and cleanest Judgments I have read:

From Para 5,

5. Under Section 3 of the Act if any person, after the commencement of this Act gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable. It does not contemplate a demand or coercion or threat made by one person to another for the purpose of giving or taking dowry. Therefore, this provision makes it clear that giving or taking of dowry by any person is an offence. But Section 7(3) of the Act reads that  notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act. Therefore, Section 3 of the Act is controlled by cl. (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Ordinarily, the person  aggrieved by the offence is the person directly affected or injured. The person aggrieved by the offence is the accused in C.C.No.95 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, but not the complainant or the witnesses. Therefore, statement made by a person aggrieved by the offence is any one of the accused, but not the complainant. Hence, Section 7 (3) of the Act has no application to the present facts of the case. In this view of the matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012

Citations:

Other Source links:

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Justice K C Bhanu Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted | Leave a comment

Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Delhi High Court judgment where a certain conclusion is made without basis. Just an earlier judgment is cited as support even that one lacks justification. Funny.

From Para 8,

8. It is thus evident that Section 7 (3) is a non obstante clause and will thus prevail on any other law for the time being in force and a statement made by a person aggrieved by the offence under this Act shall not subject him to prosecution under this Act. Thus the decision of this Court in Neera Singh (supra) is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reasons that the provisions of DP Act 1961 were not subject matter of the dispute before the Court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case and thus, this Court did not take into consideration the provisions under Section 7 (3) of the DP Act.

From Para 9,

9. Further there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner being the father of the victim girl was not an
“aggrieved person”. Section 7(3) of the DP Act bars cognizance of a complaint against the person aggrieved by the offence. It cannot be said that only “aggrieved person” would be the victim girl. Even the father of the victim girl, who was made to give dowry, would be an aggrieved person. Similar view has been taken in Ram Gopal Sah v. State of Jharkhand, II (2009) DMC 844.

No one explains how/why should the Dowry giving criminals (as per Sec 3(1) should be protected from prosecution along with their daughter, who can be considered an aggrieved person!!!

 

Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012

Citations: [2012 AD DEL 3 186], [2012 DMC 2 134], [2012 SCC ONLINE DEL 1261]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160230226/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/yashpal-kumar-v-bhola-nath-khanna-another/73202

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e75e4b014971117c483


 

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Kulvinder Singh Gehlot Vs Parmila on 22 Aug 2023 September 24, 2023
  • Judgments on Transfer Petitions September 23, 2023
  • Implementation of A4 paper usage in District Courts in Andhra Pradesh September 22, 2023
  • Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 September 18, 2023
  • Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 September 15, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023 (3,082 views)
  • Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023 (2,106 views)
  • Rakesh Raman Vs Kavita on 26 Apr 2023 (1,657 views)
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 (1,619 views)
  • Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023 (1,464 views)
  • Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors on 18 May 2023 (1,312 views)
  • Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 (1,214 views)
  • Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 (1,201 views)
  • Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 (1,130 views)
  • Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023 (937 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (352)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (344)Landmark Case (330)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (285)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (229)Work-In-Progress Article (217)1-Judge Bench Decision (187)Sandeep Pamarati (91)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (86)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (56)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (52)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (38)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Advocate Antics (35)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (656)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (300)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (161)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (113)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (94)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (58)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (43)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (42)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (20)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • Anuj Rathi on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • ShadesOfKnife on Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022
  • HARPREET KAUR on Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary

Archives of SoK

  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (100)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • MIA (Miami) on 2023-10-10 October 10, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Oct 10, 03:30 - 10:00 UTCSep 12, 05:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MIA (Miami) datacenter on 2023-10-10 between 03:30 and 10:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • ORD (Chicago) on 2023-10-05 October 5, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Oct 5, 03:00 - 10:00 UTCSep 26, 15:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ORD (Chicago) datacenter on 2023-10-05 between 03:00 and 10:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • AKL (Auckland) on 2023-10-03 October 3, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Oct 3, 12:00 - 20:00 UTCSep 26, 02:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AKL (Auckland) datacenter on 2023-10-03 between 12:00 and 20:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 113.161.143.117 | S September 29, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 15 | First: 2021-09-10 | Last: 2023-09-29
  • 165.56.11.54 | S September 29, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4 | First: 2023-08-25 | Last: 2023-09-29
  • 141.98.6.218 | S September 29, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 68 | First: 2023-09-18 | Last: 2023-09-29
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1104 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel