Please help me

Page no : 2

John (Lawyer) 24 January 2010

hello sir

awaiting your response.

thanks

R.K.SUNDERRAJ (LAWYER HUBLI,KARNATAKA) 04 February 2010

Devajoythi Barman Sir's view which I also agree.

S.B.adil rahman (Legal Consultant ) 05 February 2010

Please read section 4 of Indian Penal Code 1860. I am sending you an extract and comments with relevant rulings from the book of IPC which may prove helpful to you ..

Sec 4. Extension of Code to extra territorial offences.- The provisions if this Code apply also to any offence committed by-

(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

(2) any person on any shop or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

Explanation.- In this Section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code.

Illustration

A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India at which he may be found.

CHARGE

I, (name is and office of the Magistrate) hereby charge you(name of the accused) as following:-

If in the place without of beyond India:-

That you being the citizen of India on or about the ……………….day of…………at with the intention of or with the intention of or with the knowledge that you will hereby commit the offence in ………….(name of place) without or beyond India (specify the place thereby committed the offence(name of the offence) punishable under Section 4,I.P.C and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge by the said court.

COMMENTS

Scope: Section 4, IPC defines the extra territorial application of the Code. Procedure for securing surrender is governed by the Extradition Act,1962.- Jugal Kishore More (1969)

3 SCR 320.

Section 4 does not apply where the offender is not a citizen of India.- Central Bank of India Ltd. V. Ram Narain,(1955)1 SCR 697.

Section 4 provides for the extra territorial operation of the Penal Code. Such operation is conditioned by the nationality of the offender- clause(1), or by the place of commission – clause(2). Under clause (1), the place of commission is immaterial provided the offender is an Indian citizen.

Citizenships is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Under clause(2) what is required is that the ship or aircraft, must be registered in India. Registration of ships is governed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.

Registration of aircraft is governed by the Indian Aircraft Act, 1934.

Illegal arrest: Even if a person is arrested outside India illegally for trial in India , the trial is not vitiated by the illegality of the arrest.-Vinayak D. Saarkar,1920 ILR 35 Bom 225(arrest alleged to be in violation of rules of Public International Law).

Basis of extra territorial jurisdiction: the most fundamental principle of extra- territorial jurisdiction is nationality . As early as the first authoritative commentator on jurisdiction, the Italian jurist Bartolus, himself a confirmed territoriality, it has been admitted that a state’s laws may be applied extraterritorially to its citizens, Individuals or corporations, wherever they may be found. See Bartolus on the conflict of Laws 51 (Beale trans. 1914).

. A much more controversial form of extraterritorial jurisdiction is the so called effects principle. Extraterritorial though it may be in practice, in theory the effects principle is grounded on the principle of territorial jurisdiction. The premise is that a state has jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct when the conduct has an effect within its territory.

The effects principle received its most notable enunciation in the Lotus case, where the permanent Court of International Justice was asked to decide whether Turkey had violated” the principles of international law” by asserting criminal jurisdiction over a French officer who had been navigating a private French vessel, when it collided with, and sank, a Turkish ship on the high seas.

Lotus case: The issue was one of extra territoriality because the Frenchman had at all times during the collision been on French territory, i.e. aboard the French ship, although damage had been inflicted upon Turkish territory, i.e. on the Turkish ship. The Lotus court adopted a strictly positivist view of international law, seeing it as a law entirely generated by the positive acts of states and emanating “from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted s expressing principles of law”.

Lotus case at 18: The permanent Court searched for “ a rule of international law limiting the freedom of States to extend the criminal jurisdiction of their courts to a situation uniting the circumstances of the present case” and, finding move, ruled that Turkey had not acted improperly either in seizing the French Officer or in trying him for violation Turkey had not acted improperly either in seizing the French Officer or in trying him for violation Turkish law while outside Turkish territory.

Lotus case at 33 : besides nationality and effects, there have been suggested and accepted from time to time a variety of other foundations for a state’s exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Three points should be mentioned here: the protective principle, the universality principle, and the passive personality principle. The protective principle provides that a state has jurisdiction to prescribe law with respect to “certain conduct outside its territory by persons not its nationals which is directed against the security of the state or a limited class of other state interests”.

However, you may consult a good and experienced criminal lawyer also for opinion.

Arup Kumar Gupta, Korba, Chattishgarh ((m)9893058429) 05 February 2010

1) Are these two, Pardeep & Paramjit, is brother and sister?

2) Both the marriages are registered in India.

3) Before your marriage took place it was decided and finalized by both the families that your wife Paramjit will be staying here in India itself, after marriage of course. - Was it a written agreement, or have some witness or evidence of it, in the form of letter etc?

4) FIR with the local police – this action is correct.

5) one from my sister and the second from my side, under the Hindu marriage act, section 9 in Haryana Court, India, dated 25 March 2008. Respondent :- my parents in law(USA), my grandparents in law(INDIA), my sister’s in law(USA), my brother in law(USA) Court issued notices for the above stated respondents but they did not accept these notices for several months. The notices which were sent to them were sent back to us stating that the address mentioned is incorrect. Then the court published information regarding this case in the newspaper, but in spite of this there was no response from them at all. Hence the court decided that they are X party.

- Where is your wife, in your respondent’s list? You can pray u/s 9 HMA, against your wife, and not anybody else.

6) Your grandparents in law have no relation with your parents in law, then how he submitted the USA court order? His statement and work (ie, submission of court order) are contradictory. grandparents in law, parents in law, and your wife have the relation and link.

7) your attached File : 30_30_john.zip unable to open. You may send it as a private message (send pm) to me.

8) Most probably they planed to snatch money from you by this way. If there is any record, you have, lodge a criminal case in this effect against your parent in law.

9) India is a sovereign country; your marriage was registered in india, Indian court is not bound to obey it – particularly where cheating is involved.

10) Please do the following two things.

(i) You do not know the whereabouts of your wife Mrs. Paramjit Kaur. You already filed FIR in this regard, charge your grandparent that they might have kidnapped your wife who likely wants to stay with her husband.Do a criminal case in this regard against your grandparent in law in this respect). Even you pray for Heavious Curpous at HC. Which means you start finding your wife first, after finding her ( might be in abord) ask in writing what is in her mind about you. Sec 9, rcr – let it going on. But check it that whether paramjit is respondent or not. If she is not then add her as respondent no 1 & if she is respondent, put her as respondent no 1.

ii) It seems to me that, Pardeep and Paramjit are brother and sister. Pardeep not doing her matrimonial duties. Sec 9 already against him, now complain police and thereafter court under 125 crpc for maintenance, by virtue of the power of this act, court and police will able to bring him at India. Serve notice through his grandfather ( who is in India ). Prepare a list of property of Pardeep at India.

Post here your activities.