Anonymous
30 January 2011 at 18:26
A 72 yrs. mother filed a case u/s 12 and 23 of PWDV Act against her son and daghter-in-law ( both 50 yrs. old)abeted by her daughters who want to grab the property jointly owned by mother and her late husband.
In the complained she said she didn't have any source of income and on the stage of starvation. She demanded Rs 27,000 monthly as maintenance and Rs. 5.00 lakhs as compensation for cruelty.
The mother is already getting pension from Govt. of India Rs. 8,500/- per month having a fixed deposit worth over Rs. 6.00 laks and five saving bank accounts with over Rs. 4.00 lakhs balance.
she suprressed these facts before the court and committed perjury. On the other hand the son filed application U/S 340 Cr.P.C.for prosecuting the complainant and the Abettor daughters U/S 182,193,211of IPC. On the same the lady magistrate who seems to be very biased an Interim Protection Order based on the a false complaint made to Police that the Respondents have assaulted the complainant without giving chance of hearing to the Respondents and WITHOUT A REPORT FROM THE CONCERNED p.s.
Sec 32 (2) od the Act states that on the Sole Testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that the breach of Interim Protection Order have been committed. IS THIS SECTION UN CONSTITITUIONAL.Can a Magistrate pass an order order taking cognizance without conducting trial on the sole testimony of the so called "aggrieved person whose entire entire affidavits U/S 12 and 23 in under challenge u/S 340 Cr/P/C.
If the section is unconstitutional then where it can be challenged.In High Court or Supreme Court.
The Respondents have challenged the impugned Interim Protection in Session Court,but the ASJ didnot stay the impugned order and also seems to be baised by simply considering that a 72 yrs. old women cannot do any wrong. The Appeal is pending and the notice is being issued to the State and the complainant.
Kindly advise on challenging the section 32(2). Is there any precedent or citation on it.
Dharmender
30 January 2011 at 12:13
Hello.. My wife has filed DV act case against me on Nov 2007. It is still pending in the case as she is delaying it. Even the court staff is also helping her to delay the case. She is just using the case to harras me as I have to travel 250 Km to appear on every date for the case.I dont have any lawyer as her uncle dont allow any lawyer to fight my case by his influence and links.
How can I get my case over. How could the trail be made speedy. I want to get out of this damm case. She does not want to continue the case as she does not have any documentary proof to prove any cruelty has happend with her
I have already filed counter affidavit. Her evidences and cross questioning is over. My evidences are also over. I have appealed in Session Court against the illegality in case.Session court has directed the lower court to allow me to have an argument why this case should not be continued but the court staff is giving such dates that there has been no arguments from past 6 months
Member (Account Deleted)
30 January 2011 at 12:04
MURDER OF MAHARASHTRA GOVT SENIOR OFFICER BY BURNING HIM ALIVE BY POURING PETROL/KEROCINE BY CRIMINALS AT MANMAD,MAHARASHTRA.
BY THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN PROTESTED BY ALL MAHARASHTRA GOVT OFFICERS AND STAFF.THIS WAS THE ARTICLE IN LATEST NEWS PAPERS.SOME ACCUSED WERE ARRESTED AND SOME ARE ABSCONDING.THE CONCERNED STAFF WHO ARE WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT SHOULD BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO GIVE STATEMENT AS WITNESSES FOR PUNISHING THE ACCUSED.THE INVESTIGATING AUTHORITIES SHOULD TAKE PRECAUTION TO RECORD THE STATEMENTS OF EYE WITNESS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE SO THAT SUBSEQUENTLY DUE TO PRESSURE OR THREATS THEY SHOULD NOT TURN HOSTILE.CHARGESHEET WILL BE FILED AND CASE WILL BE COMMITED TO THE COURT OF SESSIOS.ACCUSED WILL BE PUNISHED AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW -INDIAN PENAL CODE SEC.302 AND OTHER PROVISIONS.
BUT IT MAY KINDLY BE NOTED THAT THE INNOCENT FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE OFFICER WHO WAS MURDERED BY BURNING,SHOULD BE HELPED URGENTLY BY COMPENSATING THE LOSS TO THE FAMILY BY THE CONCERNED MAHARASHTRA GOVT AND CENTRAL GOVT AUTHORITIES,MINISTRIES AND ALSO ALL MAHARASHTRA GOVT STAFF AND ALL WELLWISHERS OF THE FAMILY SHOULD FINANCIALY HELP THE DEPENDENT FAMILY MEMBERS OF SAID MAHARASHTRA GOVT.OFFICER WHO WAS KILLED WHILE PERFORMING HIS DUTY.
WITH BEST REGARDS TO ALL CONCERNED.
KINDLY COMMENT.
NANDKUMAR B.SAWANT,M.COM.LL.B.(MUMBAI),ADVOCATE
Om Prakash Dhusia
30 January 2011 at 07:38
Hi, learneds, there is a concept of CERTIORARI applied in the criminal jurisprudence.Is it applicable in the Indian Courts?Kindly opine.
Anonymous
30 January 2011 at 03:25
Since I am just a lay man, I want to know the difference between DEPOSITION and TESTIMONY.For me DEPOSITION is the statement of PW recorded or reduced into writing by the police u/s 161 CrPC during investigation of a criminal case. Whereas TESTIMONY is the statement before court by the same PW under oath during trial of that investigated case.Now if PW narrates contrary to what was written by police u/s 161 and prosecution neither declares him HOSTILE nor CROSS-EXAMINES him, so how can trial judge treat this TESTIMONY of PW, NON-ADMISSIBLE since that favored the accused?And if so, which of the statement would be treated ADMISSIBLE as evidence against accused?Can the trial judge form his own FANTASY to convict the accused?Does that amount to BIASED towards accused?And if that so,APPEAL to higher forum is only the remedy or some other recourse is available in the Indian Law?
Anonymous
30 January 2011 at 02:38
Could any expert shed light on:the difference between deposition and testimony in a criminal jurisprudence?Because in Hindi or Urdu parlance it is commonly called BAYAN or the STATEMENT.As for me DEPOSITION is the statement of PW under 161 CrPC to the police reduced into writing, whereas TESTIMONY is the statement of PW, under oath in the court written by the court official and which can be termed as EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF.But when PW testifies contrary to DEPOSITION and PW is neither declared HOSTILE nor subjected to CROSS-EXAMINATION by prosecution and in turn becomes favorable to accused, can that be treated NON-ADMISSIBLE by the trial judge as being favorable to the accused? What can be the basis for NON-ADMISSIBLE by the trial judge?Can the judge build his own FANTASY?What would be the justification for NON-ADMISSIBILITY?
Anonymous
30 January 2011 at 01:36
When the cheque is genuine, signature on the cheque is genuine, and the amount has been transferred can a bank freeze the account of the receiptant on the basis of verbal request of the person who originally gave the cheque. There was no stop PAYMENT, NOR COURT DIRECTION.
Anonymous
29 January 2011 at 23:04
I have to enhance the interim maintenance receiving at present.Under what section can I file enhancement of interim maintenance received under section 125 CrPC
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Fake marlist admssion recommeded by University
A student saught admission in an institution on the basis of reccomendation of University and the sanme University subsequently asked institution to file a complaint against the said student for submission of fake marklist.
The case u/s 420, making Institution as complaintant/witness is pending since 1993 and officers concerned of the institutions have retired after giving their witness in the case.
However, the lawyer from accused is every time demanding the prsence of these officers and the PP states that the witness is over and is opposinng.
The question is, how long it can be prolonged like this. The reitred office bearers have already finished their part and therefore can the Megistrate conclude on the basis of eveidence on record?