Best way to fight against false 498a

Instructor @ Calcutta (rockysmith4calcutta@gmail.com)

Another thing, proving adultery is very heard.

 
Reply   
 
 


Instructor @ Calcutta (rockysmith4calcutta@gmail.com)

Any Query/Doubts for the bellow topic? : -

 

Please be handsome, smart, good looking and look for a good unmarried girl and start leave-in relationship until you get divorce.

 

I would like to argue on this with learned members also. :P

So learned members, please feel free to argue with me on this.

Lets start !

 
Reply   
 
Jr. Officer

My idea is that SC granted only Unmarred couples (Both Boy/Girl) to Live-in-Relationship. Can the Ex-wife represent the relationship in the court as Adultery against her ?

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

I read somewhere on net sometime back, A man married an unmarried girl but no photos. She lived with him as wife. It is hell difficult for her to prove that they are living conjugal life unless she enters their bedroom so better lock the bedroom . . .  haha

 

This man then also wrote something like:- It's your life. You decide what you want to do.

 

Also check some fighting tactics hints if any might suit you. 

http://socialstigma1.blogspot.in/2014/10/social-stigma-rti-3.html

http://socialstigma1.blogspot.in/2014/10/social-stigma-rti-2.html

 

Disclaimer:- Personal Opinion only.

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

I Found the Fourth One also by God's grace. Friends, kindly offer inputs & try your best to end false cases thru perjury.

 

CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25-1-2010

Sunny Bhumbla .........Appellant Vs

Shashi .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008 Annexure P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division) Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved under Section

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights leaving the parties to bear their own costs and

rejected the application moved under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and

circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted with great eloquence that after the

respondent admitted in her cross-examination about her employment, salary and inheritance of the landed

property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated 27.8.2008 solemnly affirming therein that she had

inadvertently not mentioned about the source of income as well as employment in the earlier affidavit dated

14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for initiating

proceedings against the respondent for submitting a false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 before

the learned trial Court, in order to get more maintenance from the appellant. The learned trial Court had

assured the appellant that his said application shall be decided alongwith the main case. While deciding the

main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that "in support of her claim for

interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent/applicant had made certain

assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had apparently been done by her in a deliberate

manner. Consequently even an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of her

having submitted a false affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on 3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did

not press her claim for interim maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the aforesaid

lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the

hope that sooner or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young couple

may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view

to avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false

affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent."

It is further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent has used the false

affidavit in the judicial proceedings. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating, forging and

perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court in not initiating the

proceedings under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.

CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions.

A careful perusal of the observations rendered by the learned trial Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned

judgment would reveal that there is not even a shred of reference to the application moved under Section 195

read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons have been apportioned for not initiating the

action on the basis of the alleged affidavit. The said application having been moved under the provisions of

the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be disposed of separately. It was not desirable on the part of

Sunny Bhumbla vs Shashi on 25 January, 2010

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1512317/ 1

the learned trial Court to decide the said application in a slip shod manner by making mere passing reference

to the alleged affidavit. In the application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit,the

inquiry has to be held whereas in the present one, the impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether or not

inquiry was held. There is specific procedure which is to be followed while disposing of an application moved

under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as

under:-

"340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195--(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or

otherwise any Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be

made into any offence referred to to in cl (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been

committed in or in relation to to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a document

produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4 such Court

may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.

(a) record a finding to that effect.

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence

is non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that

Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application

for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within

the meaning of sub-section (4) of Sec.195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed (a) where the Court making complaint is a High

Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint.

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court, and

(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 5 Sec.195."

A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial Court has given a go by to the

provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is

depreciable. The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or

allowed, if so for which reasons. In consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court is directed to

decide the application under discussion in accordance with law. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(HARBANS LAL)

JUDGE

January 25, 2010

RSK

NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No

http://www.aturchatur.blogspot.com



Attached File : 950094431 perjury first decide - sunny bhumbla vs shashi on 25 january, 2010.pdf, 950094431 perjury first decide - syed nazim husain judgment.pdf downloaded 138 times
 
Reply   
 
LAWYER ADVOCATE NOT REQD BECAUSE I FIGHT MYSELF PARTY-IN-PERSON (aturchatur@yahoo.com)

Sunny Bhumbla judgment (CORRECT & WORKABLE) printout version is here again. Thanks again to him who sent me this thru email.



Attached File : 90129126 perjury first decide - sunny bhumbla vs shashi on 25 january, 2010.pdf downloaded 117 times
 
Reply   
 
Instructor @ Calcutta (rockysmith4calcutta@gmail.com)

@ Mr. NATARAJAN IYER,


1) To charge on Adultery (IPC 497), girl should be married. Right ?

2) To charge on bigamy (IPC 494 & 495) marriage needs to be properly solemnize. Right ?


And what I have advised?

Live-in relationship is legal in India if and only if the girl is unmarried ;)


So how this can be chargeable on aforesaid IPCs ? :P

 

Any more argument on this tropic ?

 
Reply   
 
Manager

Hi,

Thanks for the valuable information. Here I would to get an expert advise.

The fact is that one of our shop worker's wife has filed a dowry case498A, 323 and 3/4 D.P. Act] against him (husband), his father (father-in-law), his mother(mother-in-law) and my father (shop owner where her husband works). I have attached the FIR


This is false dowry case all to gather. I don't why they involve my father's name in the FIR. Though as per IPC 498A applies only to the husband and his relative. My father is not his relative by any means. Her husband was working at my father's shop. The police inspector is not ready to remove my father's name from this case.

Can someone please advise what we should do to get out of this case.

I would be very grateful to you.

thanks and regards

Jitendra



Attached File : 20150425235401 445691363 fir.pdf downloaded 82 times
 
Reply   
 
tutor

Namaste to all experts,

i want to file perjury against my wife as his statement in sec 09 decision in 2010 and her evidence in march 2015 also with her mother contradicting, some of her statement she herself denied which she excepted in sec 09 during her evidence ,

note that section 09 is in husband favor,

now guide me when to file perjury either wait to get complete all evidence or file now... almost two main witness including SHO left which strategy will be better work ?

please do guide..

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu