(1) Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the
State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
IPC 354C – Voyeurism
Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the
perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
Explanation 2.—Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.
C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018
Another judgment from Erstwhile High Court of AP which rapped on the knuckles of the JMFC who dismissed the Discharge petition filed u/s 239 CrPC, where there were no specific allegations on the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that at the time of marriage of the complainant with the Accused No.1, the petitioner was 12 years old. No specific allegations are made against the petitioner, either in the charge sheet or in the statement of list of witnesses, except ominous allegations that the petitioner being sister of A.1, also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be maintained.
7. The learned public prosecutor appearing for the respondent state, fairly conceded that no specific allegations are made against the petitioner except a vague allegation that the petitioner also demanded for additional dowry.
8. Having heard both the counsel and from the perusal of the material on record, particularly, the charge sheet what all that is stated against the petitioner herein is that A-1 to A-4 demanded LW.1 to get additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs for doing business and demanded LW1 to sign on diverse papers to enable the A.1 to marry another girl. In fact no specific dates, month or year have been mentioned. The said allegation is as vague as possible.
Now Start music…
9. In the recent times, various complaints are being lodged for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in which, whether any allegation is made out or not, all the family members are being roped in as accused only for the purpose of harassing the innocent family members whereby forcing them to come to terms.
10. From the above, this Court is of the opinion that when no specific allegations are made against the petitioner who is the sister of A.1, the continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process of the Court, apart from putting the petitioner to undue hardship of facing the trial. As such, this court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in declaring the discharge of the petitioner.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79415399/
State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020
Supreme Court has held that Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission’s decision to postpone local body elections cannot be faulted with. Rest of the points adjudicated are in the below Disposal Order.
Citations: [(
Other Source links:
Comments made by various State actors on State Election Commissioner Shri Dr. Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar on March 15, 2020 (and later) are available here.
After watching the theatrics, come back and go through following content.
Then SEC sent a letter to Central Home Minister seeking protection for self and his family from the State Chief Minister and his goons.
AP State Election Commissioner wrote a letter to center and requested security with central force. Isn’t shame to AP Police and Govt? @PMOIndia @rashtrapatibhvn Please intervene & impose president rule in Andhra. No democracy in AP. @umasudhir @vasudha_ET @nistula @RatanSharda55 pic.twitter.com/U5vRvFTUHc
— Sai Bollineni ™ (@saibollineni) March 18, 2020
Here is the Full letter in PDF.
After all this nonsense, the incumbent AP Govt make this move here.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020
In this case, AP High Court has directed that State Election Commission take steps to remove the colours painted on the Panchayat buildings before Elections can be conducted. State Government lead by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, had painted the colours of their Party on the Panchayat buildings making a loss to the tune of allegedly over 1000 Crores (estimate only) to the exchequer. Now for removal also more funds will be spent. What a mockery of public and public funds!!!
Hopefully, the idiotic voter of AP would be rejoicing now for the quandary of public exchequer which is funded by levying taxes on these very same sheeple !!!
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
State of AP dragged it’s feet to Supreme Court on the above judgment and got this in return…
To attack this judgment, AP Government took this step here.
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
Ishwar Patange Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 March 2020
Bombay High Court held that since there is no natural calamity, there is no need to postpone, elections for Cooperative Societies.
Citations: [(
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Kishansing Tomar Vs Municipal Corp of Ahmedabad and Ors on 19 October 2006
In this landmark judgment, Supreme Court held that State Election Commission (SEC) is a Constitutional body and invariably, State Governments should support State Election Commissioner in conducting free and fair Local body elections. It also held that State Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds and not yield to situations created by vested interests to postpone elections. It is stated that except in exceptional circumstances of man-made calamities such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities, Election Commission would be justified in delaying the Election Process.
In this direction, it is necessary for all the State governments to recognize the significance of the State Election Commission, which is a constitutional body and it shall abide by the directions of the Commission in the same manner in which it follows the directions of the Election Commission of India during the elections for the Parliament and State Legislatures. In fact, in the domain of elections to the Panchayats and the Municipal bodies under the Part IX and Part IX A for the conduct of the elections to these bodies they enjoy the same status as the Election Commission of India.
From the reading of the said provisions it is clear that the powers of the State Election Commission in respect of conduct of elections is no less than that of the Election Commission of India in their respective domains. These powers are, of course, subject to the law made by Parliament or by State
Legislatures provided the same do not encroach upon the plenary powers of the said Election Commissions.The State Election Commissions are to function independent of the concerned State Governments in the matter of their powers of superintendence, direction and control of all elections and preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats and Municipalities.
Article 243 K (3) also recognizes the independent status of the State Election Commission. It states that upon a request made in that behalf the Governor shall make available to the State Election Commission “such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the
State Election Commission by clause (1). It is accordingly to be noted that in the matter of the conduct of elections, the concerned government shall have to render full assistance and co-operation to the State Election Commission and respect the latter’s assessment of the needs in order to ensure that free and fair elections are conducted.
Also, for the independent and effective functioning of the State Election Commission, where it feels that it is not receiving the cooperation of the concerned State Government in discharging its constitutional obligation of holding the elections to the Panchayats or Municipalities within the time
mandated in the Constitution, it will be open to the State Election Commission to approach the High Courts, in the first instance, and thereafter the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ directing the concerned State Government to provide all necessary cooperation and assistance to the State Election Commission to enable the latter to fulfill the constitutional mandate.
Citations: [(2006) 8 SCC 352], [2006 (9) JT 320], [2006 SCR SUPP 7 454], [2007 AIR SC 269], [2006 SCALE 10 438], [2007 BOMCR SC 4 414], [2006 AIOL 715]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1736371/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae35e4b01497114132f5
Couple of election-related judgments here and here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
State of AP Vs Pinninti Appalareddi on 27 February 2020
Citations: [
Other Source links:
State of Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020
Single-judge bench of Bombay High Court highlighted the grounds on which a Legal terrorism was intended to be unleashed on an innocent family u/s 498A IPC, and thwarted it royally.
From Paras 9 and 10
9 Admittedly, complainant (PW-1) led a very happily married life with accused no.1. Their date of marriage is 27th June 1990 and PW-1 left the matrimonial home on 28th March 2001. As per PW-1, accused was given lot of gold, household appliances and Rs.50,000/- within three months of her marriage, which means that these things were given in the year 1990. There is no explanation as to why the complaint was then lodged only on 4th January 2002. According to PW-1, accused no.1 demanded Rs.1 lakh when he saw the retirement benefits cheque in the hand of her father and her father retired on 28th February 2001. The complaint has been lodged on 4th January 2002. The delay is not explained. Moreover, complainant left the house leaving behind her children, who were on the date she left the house were 9 years and 6 years, respectively. PW-1 never filed any custody petition or any petition for divorce. PW-1 filed maintenance petition on 10th March 2003. The delay again has not been explained.
10 It is settled law that delay in lodging the complaint cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint. At the same time, delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory. If prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay, the delay could be fatal to prosecution.
From Para 11,
11 In this case, there is not even an attempt by the prosecution to explain the delay. It appears that PW-1 had no problems living alone with her
parents but when PW-1 heard from her father that accused no.1 has married accused no.5 (which again has not proved), PW-1 decided to teach accused no.1 a lesson. It is unfortunate that in matters like this even the family members are getting dragged. Prosecution should refrain from dragging allfamily members unless there is enough specific evidence against the family members otherwise provisions of Section 498-A will unfortunately bemisused as a weapon.
Finally, in Para 15,
15 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured their acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting the accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE BOM 331]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63867796/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e5cd685cfc07432f89ed3dc
B.S.Neelakanta and Anr Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 04 December 2013
AP High Court has rightly held the various counts of errors committed by the Trial Court magistrate in dismissing a Discharge Petition filed u/s 239.
Citations: [2014(1) Law Summary (A.P.) 266], [2014(1) ALD (Crl) 611 (AP)], [2014(2) ALT (Crl) 237 (AP)]
Other Source links:
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.
