Male
Member Since Jan 13 2005
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A IPC TO UNLEASH "LEGAL TERROR"
May 1 2008 | Views 400 |
Comments (1)
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A IPC TO UNLEASH "LEGAL TERROR"
AND ALSO PRACTISE BLACK-MAIL&nb...
Expand
MISUSE OF SECTION 498A IPC TO UNLEASH "LEGAL TERROR"
AND ALSO PRACTISE BLACK-MAIL FOR EXTORTION
AT THE COST & EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EXCHEQUER.
This 498A girl is a lawyer, working as law officer in shipping companies,
previously at Mumbai and now at Dubai. Father of the girl is also practising
advocate in Mumbai. Daughter and Father Duo are registered with
Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa. Presently she is law executive
with Gulf Agency Co (Dubai) L.L.C, Gacworld shipping Co; Dubai.
Pending divorce proceedings in US, in which she had demanded $ 200,000
( Rs. Eighty Lakhs approximately ) alimony; She and her father resorted to the
misuse of the police machinery in India, with oblique motives to bring pressures,
wreak revenge and unleash legal terrorism. She filed criminal complaint making
allegations against each and every member of the family alleging cruelty to
her in USA. The reply to divorce matter submitted by her to US court did not
contain those allegations.
The false complaint under Sections 498A , 406,34 of IPC read with section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in December 2002 was the Counter-Blast
to the on-going divorce petition filed in July 2002 against her in USA.
She neither disclosed in the FIR, that there was divorce case pending in USA, which
was being contested by her at the time of registering the complaint; nor the Court in
USA was informed, that the criminal case was filed by her in India in respect of the
said divorce matter.
Divorce was granted by the US court in April 2003. No alimony was ordered.
Both father-daughter duo were named, "Blackmailers and Extortionists" by the court.
No claims of alimony were accepted, in view of prenuptial agreement executed dy
the parties before the marriage was solemnised in USA.
The decree of divorce was received and acknowledged by her on 15th April 2003.
She did not appeal to US court, nor moved any Indian court to set aside divorce
decree passed by the US court.
Three months after the divorce granted by US court, my wife and son, both USA
citizens were arrested unaware at Mumbai Airport by the police on 29th June 2003,
while returning to USA after short visit to India. They were Jailed for two days and
produced before the metropolitan magistrate. However they got the bail, and
received back their seized passports with permission to return to India within six
months. They reached back in USA on 14th July 2003; after fifteen days of
harassment, agony and extortion by the police and judicial system in India.
The criminal writ petition No. 1559 of 2003 for Quash of FIR was filed by the
Advocate for accused in Bombay High Court in December 2003.
The Judges advised to the lawyers appearing from both sides for compromise.
She demanded Rs. Six Lakhs as full and final settlement, which was accepted by
the petitioners to get rid of the false prosecution and to avoid exorbitant legal expenses
including frequent overseas travels from USA to India to fight the Evil.
The draft agreement of settlement based on the true facts of the case was prepared
by the advocate for petitioners; which was rejected by her, saying that "It will haunt
her rest of her life, as it proved the misuse of police & judicial machinery ".
Having failed to arrive at the mutual settlement by the parties, the court rejected the
petition on 21st January 2004 ordering that "the petition is premature and all the
pleas are open to petitioners even after the charge sheet is filed by the police".
Subsequently, the application for discharge of the accused in the case
No. 631/P/2003 was filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate's 15th court at Mazgaon
on 23rd March 2004, seeking discharge, as per the provisions of section 4 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 188 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973.
The honourable magistrate without rejecting the above application for discharge,
issued non-bailable warrants on 8th April 2004 insisting presence of of the
accused in the court.
The Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 2004 was filed by the advocate for
accused with the Bombay sessions court at Sewri Mumbai, against the said order
of the honourable magistrate cancelling the bail and issuing non-bailable warrants
without disposing the application for discharge made as per section 4 of Indian Penal
Code and section 188 of Criminal Pr. Code of India. The Honourable Sessions Court
was requested to examine the legality and propriety of the impunged order issued by
the Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Court.
The Revision Application was allowed and disposed on 28th May 2004.
The non-bailable warrants issued by the Honourable Magistrate were ordered to
stand cancelled. Honourable Magistrate at Mazgaon Court was advised to consider
the application for discharge, and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
The Honourable Magistrate was further advised to give reasonable time to petitioners to appear before him, keeping in mind that the petitioners were residents of USA, in case
the discharge application was rejected by him.
The Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate, without considering and deciding the
application for discharge on 10th June 2004, and without examining the legality and
propriety of his actions; once again insisted on the appearance of the petitioners before
him, as the petitioners were allowed permission for 6 months, and were ordered to return
to India within 6 months vide his order dated 14th July 2003.
The prosecution in fact, suffered from legality and propriety in respect of Territorial
Jurisdiction as laid down in Section 170 Cr. P. Code 1973.
The Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate proceeded with the matter in spite the fact
that the said court had no jurisdiction to try the offences as the cause of action did
not accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station vide Section
170 Criminal Procedure Code. The notification for Look-out-notice (L.O.C.) to
Airport immigration Police, the arrest of the accused at Mumbai Airport on
29th June 2003 and Remand Police Custody of accused granted by holiday Magistrate were without Territorial Jurisdiction, and Illegal.
Similarly search carried out at the property of the accused at Versova Andheri
by the Nagpada Police station without territorial Jurisdiction, with the knowledge
of Honourable Magistrate Mazgaon Metropolitan Court was illegal and
shameless abuse of law. Section 170 Cr. P Code 1973 renders the bail
proceedings and other judicial orders, including permission to leave India
for the period of six months issued in the matter by Honourable court as illegal
and abuse of law.
According to FIR, no crime has been alleged to have been committed within the
Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. The parties never married within the Jurisdiction
of Nagpada Police Station. The parties never visited or resided together within the
Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. No investigation was needed to come to the conclusion that part of the alleged crime was committed within the Jurisdiction of
Nagpada Police Station or within the Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai.
The Criminal Revision Application No. 6 of 2005 was once again filed in the Mumbai
Sessions Court, against the order of Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate,Mazgaon
Court. Complainant's father appeared in the court and requested to the Judge to help
reach settlement between parties out side the court. This was agreed by the petitioner's
advocate and he negotiated with her father. Both lawyers prepared terms and conditions
for final settlement as follows:-
1. AGREED that the Petitioner No.1, Mr........., residing at ....., New Jersey, U.S.A.
upon signing of these consent terms shall pay Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.Six Lacs only) or
its US$. equivalent, in full and final settlement of the Complaint to Ms ......, residing
....... Mumbai – 400 008.
2. AGREED that the Complainant and her family members are hereby unconditionally
withdrawing all the allegations made by them against the Petitioners and their family
members i.e. Mr......., Mr. ....... and Ms ...... in C.C. No.631/P/2003 arising out of
F.I.R. No.405/02 of Nagpada Police Station and pending in the file of the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, which is the subject
matter of the present Petition.
3. AGREED that the Complainant and her family members do not have any claims
against the Petitioners and their family members and that the Complainant and her
family members will not make any claims in the future for any monetary relief or
otherwise on any account against the Petitioners and their family members
including claim for permanent alimony.
4. AGREED vice-versa that the Petitioners and their family members also have no claims
against the Complainant and her family and that the Petitioners and their family members
will not make any claims in the future for any monetary claim or otherwise on any account
against the Complainant and her family members.
5. AGREED that the Complainant and her family members will at no time in future, hold out
in the Court of law or any other authority or in the public, that any marriage between the
Petitioner and Complainant was solemnised in India.
6. AGREED that the Complainant participated in the K-I (Fiancee) Visa process since
July, 2001 and voluntarily went to the US Consulate in Mumbai on 6th December 2001,
to obtain the Fiancee Visa.
7. AGREED that the Prenuptial Agreement dated 5-2-2002 was signed at New Jersey
(U.S.A) by both the Petitioner No.1 and the Complainant voluntarily without any kind
of pressure from either party.
8. AGREED that the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and the Complainant was
solemnised in Woodbridge, State of New Jersey, U.S.A. on 13-2-2002.
9. AGREED that on 1st April 2003, the Petitioner No. 1 and the Complainant were
ordered and adjudged that they are each divorced from the Bond of Matrimony and
the marriage between them was dissolved by the order of the Superior Court,
Chancery Division of the State of New Jersey (U.S.A).
10. AGREED that the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and the Complainant was not
10. AGREED that the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and the Complainant was not
solemnised on 17th November 2001 in India and that they never resided together as
husband and wife in India.
11. AGREED that the Complainant and her family members shall consent and give their
no objection for the discharge of the Petitioners and their family members in C.C.
No.631/P/2003 arising out of F.I.R. No.405/2002 and further if necessary, shall
jointly apply for quashing of aforesaid C.C. No.631/P/2003 arising out F.I.R
No.405/2002.
12. AGREED that the Complainant has in her possession all her personal effects, including
wedding gifts and other gifts received during her marriage and that the Petitioners and
their family members have not retained any of her belongings and gifts.
13. AGREED vice-versa that Petitioner No.1 has in his possession all his personal effects,
including wedding gifts and other gifts received during his marriage and that the
Complainant and her family members have not retained any of his belongings and gifts.
14. AGREED that the Complainant was never subjected to mental or physical cruelty by
either the Petitioners or their family members and that no dowry demands were ever
made or any dowry or gifts ever taken from Complainant and her family members by
Mr....... or Mr........or Mr. ........or Ms. ...... or Ms.... and withdraws all such
allegations made against the Petitioners and their family members in C.C. No.
631/P/2003 arising out of F.I.R. No.405/2002.
15. AGREED that Complainant withdraws all allegations made by her against the
Petitioners and their family to the US Consulate and US Immigration and
Naturalisation Service. Complainant undertakes not to use her past relationship with
Petitioner No. 1 and his family to process her pending application for US permanent
residence (Green Card.)
16. AGREED vice-versa that Petitioner No.1 also withdraws all allegations made by him
against the Complainant and her family to the US Consulate and US Immigration and
Naturalisation Service.
17. AGREED that the Complainant and her family members have no grievance against
the Petitioners and their family members and will not in future initiate any legal
proceedings, either civil and/or criminal against the Petitioners and their family
pertaining to the subject matter of C.C. No.631/P/2003 arising out of F.I.R.
No.405/2002.
18. AGREED vice-versa that the Petitioners and their family has no grievance against the
18. AGREED vice-versa that the Petitioners and their family has no grievance against the
Complainant and her family members and will not in future initiate any legal
proceedings, either civil and/or criminal against the Complainant and her family
pertaining to the subject matter of C.C. No.631/P/2003 arising out of F.I.R.
No.405/2002.
19. AGREED that the Petitioner No.1 and Complainant will not establish any contact
and will not interfere in the lives of each other or their family members.
Accordingly the document on Stamp paper was prepared and sent for the petitioner's signatures and notarisation of documents by the Indian Consulate in New York .
The documents were completed and returned to Mumbai to be forwarded to Dubai for
her signature and notarisation by Indian consulate at Dubai. She refused to sign the
documents saying that terms of settlement will not be safe for her.
Her father has thereafter withdrawn his court appearance from the case saying that
he can not do any thing better for her. This was in August 2005. Thereafter there
was no further progress in the matter as she had been obtaining adjournments with
excuses from time to time through her mother, who was divorced by husband twenty
years ago..
Unable to get further adjournments from the session's court, She came from Dubai,
and personally attended the court and presented alternative draft of agreement as
under:-
1. Mr. ..........(Accused) has agreed to pay Rs.6 Lakhs to Ms.........(Complainant)
by way of full and final settlement to put an end to all disputes and differences
between them.
2. Ms..........(Complainant) shall ensure that the proceeding arising out of C.R.
No. 405/05 of Nagpada Police Station shall be closed and shall cooperate through
her Advocate in order to ensure that the proceedings are closed/dropped/put an end
to in respect of the said C.R. against Mr...........(Accused) and his family members.
3. Pursuant to these Consent Terms, there are no claims whatsoever from the side of
either of the parties against each other.
4. It is agreed that all complaints/applications/proceedings against either of the parties
will be withdrawn/put an end to and none of the parties will resort to any litigation's
either in India or United States of America or any other part of the world arising out
of the present dispute in future.
5. It is agreed that Mr............(Accused) and Ms. ..............(Complainant) were
married and subsequently divorced on 1st April, 2003 by the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Family Part Docket
No: FM-12-0292-03F.
6. It is clarified that the marriage between the parties is dissolved and not in subsistence.
Both parties have no claim and grievances of any whatsoever against one another and
are free to get re-married, if they so desire.
7. It is hereby agreed by and between the parties that the entire disputes between the
parties and their families and all others involved whether directly or indirectly out of
the matrimonial dispute between Ms.......(Complainant) and Mr. ........(Accused) is
hereby settled and no further proceedings shall be initiated in any court of Law/forum
out of the same whether Civil/Criminal or otherwise or out of the present consent terms
contents thereof which are agreed by both parties to be challenged in any court/forum
by way of appeal/revision/otherwise. These consent terms are entered in to voluntarily
by the parties.
Settlement as per above has been signed and the payment by
Demand Draft has been acknowleged by the complainant before Honourable Judge Sessions Court Mumbai. The Original Document
of settlement has been kept with case records by the honourable court.
The court advised to the petitioners to file criminal writ petition at
Bombay High Court for Quash. The matter has been adjourned to
19th May 2008 in Sessions Court Mumbai .
The Criminal Writ Petition for quash has been filed at Bombay High
court on 16th April 2008.
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.
THE MEN TORTURED IN THE HANDS OF WOMEN/WIFE
NOWADAYS men are tortured in the hands of women by misusing newly formulated laws specially designed only for women. The law makers fully forgetting the constitutions article 14 which says all men and woman are equal before law or say equality before law. This article 14 giving equal strength to man and woman but formulating new law for women so for no law formulated by the law makers for men. Why?
A fine case of one Mr. Rathinasabapathy who was married with Rajeswari of Howrah at Pondicherry on 4th June 2003 started their life initially at Pondicherry latter after five months shifted to Bangalore where he was employed. The husband arranged job for his wife and he had given her all possible freedom which include to visit her parental house, to wear the dresses she feel convenient. But his all these freedoms and love showered towards the wife resulted in one fine day with hand cuffs of iron. Do you believe? YES THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The husband who once tried his best to keep his wife happy meted the cruelty by the same women. The husband arranged all physical mental pleasures for his wife but not fulfilled one demand which is affecting his parents, unmarried brother and sister. The wife demand for separate dwelling that too in such a place the language of which is a strange thing to the husband and leaving the old aged sick parents here all alone was not welcomed by the husband and which only resulted in iron hand cuffing like a herded criminal and lying in illegal custody for eight days.
The wife and her parents even not intimated him the child birth and somehow when he come to know the child birth he requested to send a snap of the child which was also not heard. For the new born the father send some gift which was also returned by the wife and her parents. Their cruelty reached at Himalayan peak when she lodged a complaint using the weapon of dowry and domestic violence act (DVA) and several other criminal section against husband and in-laws, the in-laws who never interfered her life. The question is if she really met cruelty by the hands of husband and his relatives why she had not opted to file a complaint in the jurisdiction police station which was only in walkable distance. She opted to file complaint in the Howrah police station and filed a divorce under section 13a and succeeded to get an expartee decree within 3 months of filing which is very impossible as per marriage law. The husband had not given time to file counter or for a counselling. When husband was attending for maintenance case and came out of the court he was arrested and handcuffed and remained in the custody for eight days and ninth day presented before the judicial magistrate and then kept one day in judicial custody and latter bailed out. The wife atlest shown curtsy by not opposing the anticipatory bail of in-laws.
The women how she forget the sweetness of togetherness, how she forget the sweet face of her husband which is now also in front of her in the form of child.
THE MEN WAS CRUSHED IN THE HANDS OF WOMEN. The men who is a M.Sc., M.Phil., earning sufficiently was now staring the sky with no hope for justice. His parents are weeping and sister, brother still in a stage of shock.
The reward paid by the wife to her husband is the only result of misusing of newly formulated laws. The court at Howrah which have no jurisdiction neither to try the suit for divorce nor for the criminal offence as the couple married at Pondicherry and last resided place at Bangalore, where both of them were employed and as such alleged offence held in Bangalore. So the decree which is passed by the Howrah Court is improper and the complaint also liable to be quashed. But these all will happen in future.
Wake and do something for men otherwise similar trouble tomorrow you also have to face. For this not only togetherness of men required but the togetherness of women also required.
Thanks,
M. Rathina Sabapathy
9894669932
sabapathy68@rediffmail.com
Pondicherry
Reply | | Report Abuse