Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Supreme court and karnataka High Court gives refuse to entertain legal Terrorists

Karnatka High court refused to entertain 498a terrorists and Supreme court agreed to it in 4121/03 deceded in mid 2005 in historic decision signalling that no longer that courts will watchand allow obviously innocent people to be harassed under the 498a law.

Close on heels of its famous Legal Terrorism judgment Supreme court upheld this unique judgement

Lighter moments happened when the plea was made that it is not dowry harassment but a sowry harassment case. Regret that Sowry harassment didn't find mention

Mahesh Tiwari a supreme court lawer says that now such is going to be a feature in near future where in judicially rare cases would now start to be quashed and with the recent recantation in the famous incest rape case the courts will now be cautious on prosecuting cases merely on statements of the complainant and would demand concrete evidence.

Anthony a law student in bangalore says that merely because it is difficult to prove what happens behind 4 walls is not a justification to prosecute cases on mere statements.

Some interesting excerpts from this judgement

But in cases where in the allegations of dowry demand and the dowry harassment are made by an aggrieved wife , if the complaint itself shows that the demand was not for dowry and the alleged dowry harassmet was not dowry harassment but a material dispute , the courts can certainly interfere
13. In light of the principles mentioned above , I have carefully gone through the complaint and have considered teh submissions of both the learned advocates. . The complaint itslef shows that the marriage was performed in XXXXX in 1999. and though the complaint has alleged that form the day of the marraige itslef the harassment by mother in law started , what type of harassment given has not been stated and it also appears to be absurd to say that the mother in law harassed daughter in law when according to the complaint for about 31/2 years from the date of marraige , the mother in law dod not reside with the newly married couple. Therefore the cllegation of the complainant will have to be considered carefully.

Furthur absurdity can be seen

28. As regards to the alleged beating of the respondent number 2 by teh petioner no 2 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petioners that it is absurd even to think that an old lady of 65 years would beat an independent minded educated young lady who also happens to be a state cricket player. I refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the truthfullness or otherwis eof hte matter

and furthur

Before Considering the matter , the principles required to be considered a prayer for quashing the F.I.R will have to kept in mind . The Supreme Court inthe case of State of Karnataka Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 S.C 604 disapproved the tendency in scuttling investigation and observed as follows. but observed that where in allegations made in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and improbably on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused , then also intervension by court is also permissable.


Post a Comment

<< Home