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

Author: ShadesOfKnife

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


Final Judgment
Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 26 Sep 2023

Next Steps

I am looking at the following next steps and discussing them with relevant people (first finding them)…
1. SLP at SCI
2. New PIL at any other HC, with limited prayer, to avoid reasons given by APHC
3. File a PIL directly at SC under Article 32
4. Mystery remedy…
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 | 2 Comments

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 or Per Incuriam 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

Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dhingra held as follows

From Para 4,

4. A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance. It only enables the Magistrate to pass a maintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws. While, the Act specifies the duties and functions of protection officer, police officer, service providers, magistrate, medical facility providers and duties of Government, the Act is silent about the duties of husband or the duties of wife. Thus, maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by husband to the wife. Under prevalent laws i.e. Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C – a husband is supposed to maintain his un-earning spouse out of the income which he earns. No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage. If the husband was BSc. and Masters in Marketing Management from Pondicherry University, the wife was MA (English) & MBA. If the husband was working as a Manager abroad, the wife with MBA degree was also working in an MNC in India. Under these circumstances, fixing of maintenance by the Court without there being even a prima facie proof of the husband being employed in India and with clear proof of the fact that the passport of the husband was seized, he was not permitted to leave country, (the bail was given with a condition that he shall keep visiting Investigating Officer as and when called) is contrary to law and not warranted under provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

From Para 5,

5. We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed. As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow from the parents and maintain wife. The parents had done their duty of educating them and now they cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife as both are grown up and must take care of themselves.

From Para 6,

6. It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence. Marriages do fail for various other reasons. The difficulty is that real causes of failure of marriage are rarely admitted in Courts. Truth and honesty is becoming a rare commodity, in marriages and in averments made before the Courts.

Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010

Citations: [2010 DRJ 118 385], [2010 DLT 171 644], [2010 RCR CRI 7 1287], [2010 AD DEL 7 615], [2011 CIVCC 1 209], [2010 DMC 2 574], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 2912], [2011 ILR DEL 1 58],

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d69e4b0149711179b26

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra PWDV Act Sec 23 - Interim Maintenance Order Set Aside Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr | 2 Comments

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Read through the Para 11 of this Delhi High Judgment to learn how NOT to draw conclusions from thin air u/s 482 CrPC proceedings.

11. The above observation of this Court obviously is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reason that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 were not the subject-matter of the dispute before the court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case. Moreover, in the aforesaid judgment, the Court has not taken into account the protection given to a victim of offence of dowry demand as provided under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, in my view the above referred judgment is of no avail to respondent No.2. Further, on perusal of FIR No.232/2009, it transpires that as per the allegations in the complaint made by the petitioner, the demand for dowry was made by the father of respondent No.2 at the time of engagement ceremony of the petitioner when he allegedly asked the father of the petitioner to concede to his demand for dowry, failing which he would call off the marriage. From the aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the petitioner and her parents were confronted with the unenviable situation either to concede to the demand or face the loss of honour of their family in the society, and if under that fear, the petitioner and her parents conceded to the demand for dowry, they cannot be faulted as they were victims of the circumstances. Given the aforesaid facts, Section 7(3) comes to the rescue of the petitioner and in terms of the aforesaid provision, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Crux of the failed justice: Clearly from the highlighted portion of the judgment itself, one can understand the conclusion arrived by the Judge is based on the unproved allegations in the complaint which got carried as-is to the FIR. This also goes to show that the Judge has pre-judged that the allegations were true despite the fact that said allegation of demand for dowry is to be punished under Section 4 of DP Act 1961 and this being a Criminal Statute required such allegations to be proven in a Criminal Court trial with evidence. This was given a total bypass possibly in an successful attempt of harmonious interpretation but alas totally contrary to the legislature intent which being that Dowry givers are to be punished. Despite writing that Sec 7(3) gives protection only to the aggrieved person (who made the complaint) her parents are also extended protection from prosecution, which is squarely ultravires to provision, statute and legislature intent and most importantly to Principles of natural justice. Precluding the criminal who allegedly committed the crime of giving dowry even before such fact is proved in a Court trial is travesty of justice.

 

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Citations: [2011 CRIMES 1 378], [2010 JCC 4 2780], [2011 AD DEL 1 359], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 3652]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61656909/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d12e4b0149711178c8d


Further story here.


Index of DP Judgments is here.

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 or Per Incuriam PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr | Leave a comment

Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma on 01 June 2015

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma on 01 June 2015
Posted in High Court of Himachal Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma | 2 Comments

Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu Vs Nooty Sindhu Sharma on 01 June 2020

Posted on June 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Order, AP HC held that, u/s 22 of Hindu Marriage Act, parties are prohibited from disclosing any information regarding the proceedings between them under HM Act and there is a penalty levied in case of this violation. This section is the protection given to parties for right of privacy during such proceedings.

Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu Vs Nooty Sindhu Sharma on 01 June 2020
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act Sec 22 - Proceedings to be in Camera and may not be Printed or Published Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu Vs Nooty Sindhu Sharma Right to Privacy | Leave a comment

Umedsinh P Chavda Vs UOI and Ors on 11 June 2020

Posted on June 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Rs. 5 Lakhs was the exemplary cost laid upon the Petitioner of the PIL.

Umedsinh P Chavda Vs UOI and Ors on 11 June 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links:

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged PIL - Frivoluos Umedsinh P Chavda Vs UOI and Ors Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

High Courts of India

Posted on June 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are the websites of High Courts in India. Wiki page with more details here. The link from eCourts project is here. The link on the newly launched (Dt: 29-08-2020) eCommittee website is here.

State High Courts

All are accessible from here.

  1. Andhra Pradesh (Formation)
    • Case Status
  2. Arunachal Pradesh (Gauhati High Court – Itanagar Bench) – Foundation Stone laid for Own High Court Building here.
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  3. Assam
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  4. Bihar
    • Case Status
  5. Chhattisgarh
    • Case Status
  6. Goa
    • Case Status
  7. Gujarat
    • Case Status
  8. Haryana
    • Case Status
  9. Himachal Pradesh
    • Case Status
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  10. Jharkhand
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  11. Karnataka
    • Case Status
  12. Kerala
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  13. Madhya Pradesh
    • Case Status
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  14. Maharashtra
    • Case Status
  15. Manipur
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  16. Meghalaya
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  17. Mizoram
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  18. Nagaland
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  19. Odisha
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  20. Punjab
    • Case Status
  21. Rajasthan
    • Case Status
      • Case Status (on eCourts – Jabalpur Bench -Principal seat)
    • Case Status
      • Case Status (on eCourts – Jaipur Bench)
  22. Sikkim
    • Case Status
  23. Tamil Nadu
    • Case Status (on eCourts – Madras Bench – Principal seat)
    • Case Status (Both Madras and Madurai Benches)
  24. Telangana
    • Case Status
  25. Tripura
    • Case Status
  26. Uttar Pradesh
    • Case Status
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  27. Uttarakhand
    • Case Status (on eCourts)
  28. West Bengal
    • Case Status
    • Case Status (on eCourts – Original side)
    • Case Status (on eCourts – Circuit Bench – Jalpaiguri)

Union Territories

  1.  Andaman and Nicobar Islands
    • Case Status
  2. Chandigarh
    • Case Status
  3. Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
    • Case Status
  4. Delhi
    • Case Status
  5. Jammu and Kashmir
    • Case Status (on eCourts – Jammu Wing)
    • Case Status (on eCourts – Kashmir Wing)
  6. Ladakh
    • Case Status
  7. Lakshadweep
    • Case Status
  8. Puducherry
    • Case Status

 

Finally, the Supreme Court website is here.

  • Case Status

 

And eCourts Project came up with a Case Law Repository and designed a search feature here.

Posted in LLB Study Material | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ncbn

N Chandrababu Naidu

Verified account @ncbn ·
2 Oct

A heartfelt thank you to Anant Ambani Ji for coming forward to establish the Indian School of Agriculture in Rayalaseema, Andhra Pradesh.

Your commitment to empowering our farmers, strengthening agriculture and transforming Rayalaseema into a global horticulture hub is deeply

Reply on Twitter 2105992083903553676 Retweet on Twitter 2105992083903553676 1202 Like on Twitter 2105992083903553676 12388 X 2105992083903553676
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
m9news_

M9 NEWS

Verified account @m9news_ ·
2 Oct

నన్ను "ఆంధ్ర బిడ్డ"గా భావించండి!

Chandrababu Naidu garu.. Andhra Pradesh కోసం నేను ఏం చేయాలో చెప్పండి

- #AnantAmbani @ncbn

Reply on Twitter 2105911996160077995 Retweet on Twitter 2105911996160077995 1683 Like on Twitter 2105911996160077995 13030 X 2105911996160077995
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
telugu360

Telugu360

Verified account @telugu360 ·
2 Oct

నన్ను ఆంధ్ర బిడ్డగా భావించండి: అనంత్ అంబానీ

“Chandrababu Naidu Garu, today, I request you to treat me as a son of Andhra and direct me on how I can contribute to your beautiful state.”

#AnanthAmbani #Chandrababu

Reply on Twitter 2105912917908676893 Retweet on Twitter 2105912917908676893 1565 Like on Twitter 2105912917908676893 18868 X 2105912917908676893
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
iloveindia_007

I Love India ✌️

Verified account @iloveindia_007 ·
2 Oct

వెళ్ళోస్తాను బాబుగారు,ఆశీర్వదించండి🙏🙏....
సభ మొదలైన దగ్గర నుంచి వీడ్కోలు సమయం వరకు దాదాపు రెండున్నర గంటలు పైగా బాబుగారితో కలుపుకోలుగా,మర్యాదపూర్వకంగా మసలుకుంటూ ఆహూతులందరి మనస్సులు గెలిచిన"అనంత్ అంబానీ"గారు🥰🥰

Reply on Twitter 2106000399140532673 Retweet on Twitter 2106000399140532673 197 Like on Twitter 2106000399140532673 1603 X 2106000399140532673

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court: PF and employee share-plan deductions cannot shrink the income used to assess child maintenance September 29, 2026
  • Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019 September 24, 2026
  • Video Conferencing Links of District Judiciary of Andhra Pradesh September 24, 2026
  • Practical Solutions Inc Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 19 Jan 2026 September 24, 2026
  • Md. Mashood and Ors Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Feb 2026 September 24, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (2,101 views)
  • How Courts Quash Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial FIRs - Case Study (1,572 views)
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,184 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,071 views)
  • Application for Modification of Bail Conditions – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (945 views)
  • Myth vs Reality: Bail in 498A Cases – Legal Position Explained (931 views)
  • Exemption Application Under Section 205 CrPC – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (889 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (876 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (808 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Criminal Writ Petition Before a High Court (770 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (446)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (431)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (389)Landmark Case (387)1-Judge Bench Decision (376)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (302)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (767)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (190)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (85)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (54)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy

Archives of SoK

  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • 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 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • 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 (97)
  • 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
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • DEL (New Delhi) on 2026-10-29 October 29, 2026
    Sep 17, 17:11 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in DEL (New Delhi) datacenter between 2026-10-29 21:00 and 2026-10-30 01:00 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 in the affected region. For PNI / CNI […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.185.160.147 | SD October 5, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 19 | First: 2026-08-02 | Last: 2026-10-05
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 2482 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel