Upgrad LLM

best way to fight against false domestic violence

LAWYER ADVOCATE NOT REQD BECAUSE I FIGHT MYSELF PARTY-IN-PERSON (aturchatur@yahoo.com)

In order to win the false Domestic Violence case on you, one needs to concentrate on few aspects. Read your wife's plaint again & again & also read DIR & also again & again read her CAW plaint & FIR Copy. And also read her 125/ Divorce/ RCR & other cases filed by her & if as a husband u have filed Divorce/RCR then read her reply/WS therein also again & again & again. Keep noting the contradictions because if the case is false then NO FALSE CASE ON EARTH is strong enough to NOT have contractions/ vacillating stand/ void for vagueness/ vendetta/ vengeance/ lego-technical fallacy.

Few helpful tools are:-

(A) RTI

(B) CrPC 91

(C) Lego-technical fallacy

(D) Perjury before WS or Perjury alongwith WS

(E) At least 30 or more Preliminary Objections (V.V.Imp)

(F) No Domestic Relationship Application in case she prepares Voter I.Card of that address

(G) Name Fraud Application in case she files case in her maiden name (Lego Technical Fallacy)


Total likes : 5 times

 
Reply   
 
Logical and Legal Advisor at Family Court

Kudos.....Bravo.....Applause.. Good work..


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 


LEGAL CONSULTANT

Nice peice of work by Atur Chatur for the husbands


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
LAWYER ADVOCATE NOT REQD BECAUSE I FIGHT MYSELF PARTY-IN-PERSON (aturchatur@yahoo.com)

Few of my friends have PM me regarding lego-technical fallacy. Let me post here itself.

 

LEGO-TECHNICAL FALLACY

I learnt this concept of technicality around 10 years back when I went for interview for permanent post in Deptt of Commerce in Zakir Hussain College (Evening), University of Delhi where a friend of mine but from ST community was selected for permanent post but his candidature was challenged because he had UGC (NET) in Commerce but his UG / PG was in Econimics. As a result despite completion of all the formalities his appointment was cancelled on technical grounds.

 

This posed not just technical problem for his appointment but also made his appointment if done legally invalid (invalid means fallacy).

 

REMEMBER:- If you find that a complaint can NOT stand due to lego-technical fallacy then within WS you need to challenge it as a preliminary objection. But before WS you need to write letter to seven authorities viz., 

(A) REG/VIG/HC

(B) CJ/HC

(C) CJI/SC

(D) DJ/FC (In Delhi the FC is at Dwarka)

(E) DJ/ District Court concerned

(F) Sessions Judge concerned (related to place where FIR is regd for 498a but this case is DV)

(G) MM concerned (i.e., the same MM with whom your beloved wifey placed her DV petition with)

 

AFTER EXACT 7 DAYS

(1) File RTI to (A) above and ask ATR on (A) i.e., ATR on that letter which you wrote 7 days back with the heading LETTER REQUESTING ACTION (ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT) as above.

(2) thru Second point of RTI ask the same questions which u put in that letter in (A) above

(3) Do the same to (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) above

CAUTION:- Do NOT even by mistake file affadavit alongwith the above 7 letters.

COVER UP

(i) In Preliminary Objection this point must be covered.

(ii) In preliminary Objection to her maintenance application u/s 23 also this point must be covered

 

IMPORTANT POINTS

(a) Do NOT get worried if any of all of the above 7 authorities does NOT give u favorable reply because YOUR POINT HAS BEEN RECORDED with all these authorities forcefully (vehemently) thru these 7 letters & 7 RTI''s

 

(b) If your wifey challenges this point in any of the judgments that you are filing baseless letters then also do NOT get dishearten. Just mention to her reply that, "THIS COMPLAINT IS NOT TECHNICALLY VALID AS PER LAW & is void-ab-initio due LEGO-TECHNICAL FALLACY" Push this point & let the MM pass the order which she will NOT. There are chances that judiciary might try to pass a mesage to MM to return her DV to her but by NOT letting u or world know that her plaint is being returned due to lego-technical fallacy.

 

(c) Even if after that you are harassed thru that DV for 5-7 years next then also need NOT worry if you are a fighter & u want a judgment for the nation because NOW whatever will be done to u will be wrong. Imn every reply do mention the point that this DV plaint suffers from Lego-Technical Fallacy.

 

ATUR CHATUR SUCCESS STORY

After more than one year of vehemently pursuing a CrPC 91 against the police I have succeeded.

This is NOT a success for me. This is the success for the nation. This is the success for men victims of false cases. This is also the success for those victimized by police atrocracies/ atrocities.

WHY THIS IS A SUCCESS?

This is a success because FIRST TIME IN HISTORY (at least as per my knowledge) CRPC 91 OF COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN ALLOWED.

Last year I was pressurized that CrPC91 is NOT a right of complainant to which I vehemently argued. As a result the police was told to file their reply. They NOT just filed reply but also did some mischief in the records & tried to make my complaint fall technically by NOT giving me any notice/ time for reply but since I am fighting PIP hence I understood their motive & filed a reply to MM next day which put even the MM in loop. After that I kept pressing CrPC 91 but with BLIND EAR being turned to it.

 

On third last date, I argued that police is sitting behind INVESTIGATIVE VEIL & NOT replying to CrPC 91 & also NOT allowing me to file RTI's in the name of investigation pending.

 

On second last date I pressed that CrPC 91 needs to be pressed. The MM told me that it is his discretionary right. I said, Sir, It is a shame for Indian Judiciary that A Terrorist like Abu Salem is being provided some information & when I who is ex-professor DU whose students have become lawyers & judges is being denied the same info. Then MM told me to wait., went inside his cabin came back & told me that he will decide CrPC 91 apne aap.

 

On last date, I told MM that please decide CrPC 91. He said it is my discretion. I told him, Sir, please mention it in the order sheet if it is rejected or allowed or even if it is your discretionary power. Then he stumbled. I told him, respected SIR you do NOT have rights or powers to hold CrPC 91 BEYOND 2-3 dates. It is against the law. He then tried to play the trick by asking me for some evidences against the police. I told I will give that in Evidence Stage. He then forcefully tried to dictate some order to his typist. I intervened,. Sir, this is illegal order. Please allow CrPC 91 or at least mention it,. He then got the hint & told me to write on a piece of paper the documents which I want thru CrPC 91. i TOLD , Sir pls forward the entire CrPC 91. He still forced me to write. I wrote the whole but requested him to attach the copy of original CrPC 91 with it to make it lego-technically valid. He agreed & moved my CrPC 91 application. ONE MORE THING I TOLD HIM that the FIR against me suffers from lego-technical fallacy & it is vengeance/ vendetta because after I requested for FIR against DCP under RTI act then just after 11 days FIR was registered against me. They did FIR against me in urgency because if they waited another 7 days then reply to my other RTI's would have been difficult for them & by registering FIR against me they replied INVESTIGATION PENDING SO CAN'T BE PROVIODED INFO

 

FRIENDS PLEASE PRAY FOR ME

After the success I will post my real name & real case number as that will help men victims. Whatever the result I will post after 6-8 months for sure because at least it will help other MM's to allow COMPLAINANT'S CrPC 91 AGAINST POLICE which is rare.

 


Total likes : 5 times

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

You are giving training to advocates to handle the issues, right?

 
Reply   
 

Atul, our best wishes to you. Looking forward to more such posts from you. Certainly you are capable of handling your case on your own.

 

Humble request -- Legal experts should appreciate (or ignore) rather than going on an ego trip.


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

respected hon'ble atur chatur sir, i found your blog http://documentsmisplacedbycourt.blogspot.in really helpful to help overcome gender bias. i want to know whether i go through a lawyer or party in person will bear better results against a biased judge.


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
Instructor @ Calcutta (rockysmith4calcutta@gmail.com)

Thanks Mr. Atur Chatur for this nice post.

 

Adding also my posts with Mr. Atur Chatur.

 

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Why-speedy-trial-and-perjury--124820.asp#.VbzYZbOqqkp

 
Reply   
 
LAWYER ADVOCATE NOT REQD BECAUSE I FIGHT MYSELF PARTY-IN-PERSON (aturchatur@yahoo.com)

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

 

 

The Hon’ble court cannot create its own procedure for grant of relief if notice to respondent/husband is already issued & that respondents evidences are duly taken up by this Hon’ble Court & weighed & considered before passing any order/s under the Act.

Reference be had from: Case Number: CRL.RP 815/2009 Judge(s): JAWAD RAHIM Petitioners: KRISHNAMURTHY NOOKULA

Respondents: SAVITHA Y Date of Judgment: 9-Dec-2009 also available at link:- http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/500665/2/CRLRP815-09-09-12-2009.pdf  In Karnataka, this judgment has to be followed by all lower courts & this judgment reflects totally the LAW POINTS which can’t be ignored by any trial court of the country in cases which come under the purview of the said Act. This judgment is requested to be used as a precedent as it is of another High Court and some major extracts of the judgment read as follows:-

“Section 28(1) clearly says that all proceedings under DV Act will be as per Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).  It also allows the court to lay down its own procedure but only for sub-section 23(2) which relates to grant of ex-parte order.  So court cannot create its own procedure for grant of relief if notice to respondent/husband is already issued.”

 

“The learned Magistrate issued prior notice to the petitioner herein and therefore the order comes within the ambit of sub-section (1) of Section 23 and it is not an ex-parte order referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 23. Once sub-section (2) is inapplicable then sub-section (1) of section 28 applies and necessary procedure prescribed by the Cr.P.C. is to be followed. The legal consequences are that the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of cases depending upon the nature of offence and punishment prescribed becomes applicable and that procedure has to be followed.”

 

“Reference to section 28 is therefore necessary which provides for procedure. Section 28 reads thus:

"28. Procedure – (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.”

 

“The next question is, which of the procedures prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for conduct of trial has to be applied to an enquiry under the Act. The Code prescribes different procedures for trial of summons cases and warrant cases. It depends on the nature of offence committed and the punishment prescribed by the Indian Penal Code or other law for the time being in force. In other words it is severity of the punishment which determines the procedure, whether it should be a summary trial to be conducted as a summons case or a trial applying the procedure for warrant cases depends upon the punishment prescribed. The provisions of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act make contravention of the orders passed under the Act punishable as an offence under Section 31 of the Act. To try a person for contravention of any of the orders passed (interim or final) under the provisions referred to above, Section 31 of the Act would apply. It postulates, a breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under the Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either descripttttion for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both. Thus, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment upto one year or fine upto Rs.20,000/-. Undoubtedly, the procedure prescribed for the summary trial, that is, summons case, has to be followed. Consequently, it was to be held that the procedure to conduct an enquiry for action under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act applicable is by the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (summons case) as the punishment prescribed under Section 31 is only up to one year. This is as envisaged under Section 28 of the Act.”

 

NOTE:- The above Preliminary Objection means that the MM can NOT pass ex-parte orders without allowing husband to give his evidences in case he has chosen to send summons to the husband. By way of the above preliminary objection you are teloing the bare LAW POINT to the MM that he is NOT authorized/ empowered to go beyond the law & the law says that he has to follow CrPC if he himself has chosen to send summons/ notices to respondents & wait for their say. Now, if the husband presents in DV then this Preliminary Objection must be there in WS.

NOTE:- This preliminary objection will NOT work for those against whom ex-parte orders have been passed before issuing of summons to him.

 

TECHNICALITY:- Since the MM has chosen to send you summons instead of passing any ex-parte it in itself means that he himself might have found your wife's petition to be NOT SO STRONG. Further, if the MM gives the first date of more than 90 days then that also means he feels the case NOT STRONG ENOUGH because if the case would have been strong then he would have passed ex-parte orders on seeing the condition of the woman & would also have moved the case into fast track mode. Remember that, the DV Case is meant to be Fast Track Case and all woman courts are meant to be fast track technically. 

 
Reply   
 
LAWYER ADVOCATE NOT REQD BECAUSE I FIGHT MYSELF PARTY-IN-PERSON (aturchatur@yahoo.com)

MULTIFARIOUS LITIGATIONS CAN'T STAND TOGETHER TECHNICALLY

 

If Wife files 498a on Husband, In-Laws & separate living relatives then technically she can file  498a because IPC sections are involved. However, if she wants relief under DV then she should NOT file 498a & the reason is technicality. But if she wants to harass u through multifarious litigations then she herself gets entangled in technicality.

HOW?

If she files CAW then that means she wants to live with u but feels insecurity wrt her life/ limbs so she choses the route of CAW which is meant for VOLUNTARY & RECONCILIATORY. But instead CAW is chosen as an intimidatory/ mediatory/ divorce/ extortion/ relate type which falsify the basic purpose of setting up of CAW.

 

Now after CAW but before FIR if she files Divorce then technically the FIR is NOT made out because Civil Curt is bigger than Criminal Court & if a lady has sought Divorce under Civil then this proves that she herself wants to get out of the relationship i.e., something is wrong with her.

 

Now, if FIR is registered but before FIR (and after CAW) she files DV then that means she wants to harass u because names of even the distant living relatives has been put in the DV plaint hence technically DV is NOT applicable on those who did NOT share domestic relationship.

 

But if she does NOT write the names of separate living relatives in DV then this proves contradictory statements by her in CAW/FIR and DV.

 

NOTE:- Technically she should NOT write the names of separate living relatives in DV if she wants ex-parte relief u/s 23(2) of DV i.e., immediate relief under DV

 

However, if she writes the names of separate living relatives in DV & even then the MM gives her favors/ gifts u/s 23(2) then that means the MM has NOT implemented application of his intelligent mind as the plaint does NOT stand technically in DV.

 

Technically, in such cases the MM under the law is under legal obligation to either throw her DV plaint (Nip-It-In-The-Bud) or move as per CrPC procedures & issue summons/ notices to accused/ respondent. And once CrPC starts then husband gets a right to present his evidences i.e., draconian 23(2) is NOT applicable now. Also read above Preliminary Objection (PO) which is normally NOT required as the MM is under legal obligation to act under the law but if you write that PO then that means the MM has to write on order sheet why he chose to aply 23(2) without waiting for evidence/s of husband when notice has already been issued to husband by MM.

 

Extract from above PO

It also allows the court to lay down its own procedure but only for sub-section 23(2) which relates to grant of ex-parte order. So court cannot create its own procedure for grant of relief if notice to respondent/husband is already issued.

 

Remember, NO FALSE CASE ON ENTIRE GLOBE IS STRONG ENOUGH to put a victim of false cases in jeopardy. You just need to understand the law & technicality. Goto my top-most post on page 1 of this thread to know why & how.

 

Friends, It's been over 10 years since DV came into force & many husbands are still suffering. It's time for all men victims of false cases to wake up & understand the technical aspects and do write your WS/ Drafting/ Applications yourself keeping the technicality in mind because DV can be very easily countered with technicality alone so keep reading my next posts & after every post read the top-most post by me & link it up with any of my posts to understand the technical aspects indepth.

 

Best Wishes & Happy Fighting false cases & SOCIAL STIGMA on u & family !!!

ATUR CHATUR


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x