Justice Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji fined 25K INR to be paid to the Respondent, due to the delay tactics employed by Petitioner/her Advocate in dragging on the case…Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh on 09 Mar 2010
Delhi High Court held this interesting point on discharge an accused.
CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020
71. In view of above facts discussed, the settled law is that if the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge, as the case in hand is.
Other Sources :
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.
In this case, Single Judge discussed the admissibility of evidence in cases filed in Family Courts u/s 14 and also dispelled the false notion that if a spouse obtains an evidence illegally (by installing a CCTV in this case), such act would not be violative of the other spouse’s right to privacy. And also nothing in Constitution of India prohibits such evidence.Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020
Honey trapper tried her best to trap this man as he denied to pay her Five Lakh Rupees. Delhi High Court prima facie concluded that the man needs to be protected from Arrest, so granted Anticipatory Bail to the man. All know that, this false case will be dismissed. And no action will be taken against the real abuser of law.Kapil Gupta Vs State on 23 Sep 2020
Justice JR Midha of Delhi High Court revised the template affidavit to be filed by the parties in a matrimonial case for fixing maintenance.
From Para 85,
Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 06 August 2020
85. These modified directions/guidelines shall apply to all matrimonial cases including cases under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 125 Cr.P.C; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Earlier template is issued in this order here.
The Case Index is available here.
Delhi High Court has opened it’s proceedings to Public in a structured manner via this Circular.DHC Notice - Public viewing of court proceedings
DHC has issued these Rules on 01 June 2020.High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 Notification on 01 June 2020
Here are Comprehensive guidelines issued in December 2019.Comprehensive Guidelines Mutual Legal Assistance on 17 December 2019
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:
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:
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,
Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
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.
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
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.