tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post6159457123689826506..comments2023-12-27T15:02:41.953+05:30Comments on Fight against 'Legal Terrorism': Arrest guidelines in case of 498a(cognisable crimes)- Judgement -Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UPGokul Padoorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04812631793537894856noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-43292880282141228102016-01-25T13:55:29.024+05:302016-01-25T13:55:29.024+05:30this information is too helpfull and knowlagable. ...this information is too helpfull and knowlagable. & inspire all compitative exam students.<br /><a href="http://goo.gl/8CTnJy" rel="nofollow">MPSC Online Test Series </a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06472301262749048386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-10075206710135857742009-08-02T19:35:43.887+05:302009-08-02T19:35:43.887+05:30Even without written complaint am arrested in Apri...Even without written complaint am arrested in April 2005, this makes sense only, if police follows the laws, however this is definitely boon to fight with mis-user.<br /><br />This what happened in my case: http://apstatepolice498a.wordpress.com/BangaloreTesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02414275277530888891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-23158790487311246822008-06-21T03:06:00.000+05:302008-06-21T03:06:00.000+05:30For defending Cr.PC125(maintenance) you have a lot...For defending Cr.PC125(maintenance) you have a lot of citations, see these links. <BR/><BR/>All the major judgements/citations that you may need is here: www.mynation.net and http://www.498a.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=16&sid=1592eb0eed276fe804822de5daf4db2a .<BR/><BR/>Read the 498a Survival Kit for getting an overall idea of how to solve your legal problem: http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2007/07/01/the-498a-survival-kitGokul Padoorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04812631793537894856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-5077899408388978292008-06-19T08:35:00.000+05:302008-06-19T08:35:00.000+05:30Hi thanks for the information. can we have informa...Hi thanks for the information. can we have informational websites for "CrPc 125/maintenance cases. How to survive from them? thats a real frustration wen our money goes to such woman & child while we cant actually see them & enjoy fatherhood. its a request from a lot of harased husbands fighting CrPC125 & some of us paying maintenance from several months/yrsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-64245367669830700382008-06-19T03:43:00.000+05:302008-06-19T03:43:00.000+05:30Don't the magistrates know the basic of criminal l...Don't the magistrates know the basic of criminal law?<BR/><BR/> <BR/> <BR/>Dear sirs,<BR/> <BR/>In spite of the fact that no crime or part of crime was alleged in complaint, that <BR/>had taken place, within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station Mumbai. <BR/> <BR/>In spite of the facts in the complaint that the alleged offences were not committed on <BR/>the Indian soil by foreign nationals (US Citizens). <BR/> <BR/>In-spite of the prohibition by law for not proceeding against the accused in view of <BR/>Section 170, 177 Criminal Procedure Code, and section 188 criminal Procedure Code <BR/>r/w section 4 Indian Penal Code 1860. <BR/> <BR/>The non bailable arrest warrants were illegally issued against entire family of USA Citizens. <BR/>Airport Immigration Police were informed and posted with "look-out circular" naming all <BR/>members of US Citizen family. Two members of the family were arrested at Mumbai Airport<BR/>on June 29, 2003, while taking scheduled return flight to USA after a short visit to India. <BR/> <BR/>They were jailed in police remand custody for two days and there after detained in India for <BR/>15 days. The non bailable arrest warrants against remaining three members of the US Citizens <BR/>family are still pending for execution with immigration police at Indian Airports.<BR/> <BR/>The quality of a nation's civilisation can be largely measured by the methods it uses in<BR/>the enforcement of criminal law. Rule of law is an essential Feature of the constitution and <BR/>part of the basic structure .<BR/> <BR/>This case is classic case of police brutality and corruption.<BR/>This has reference to FIR No. 405/2002 dated 31. 12. 2002 registered at Nagpada Police Station<BR/>Mumbai, and case No. 631/P/2003 on the files of Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court Mazgaon<BR/>Mumbai.<BR/> <BR/>Thanking You,<BR/>Regards.<BR/>Gope Lalwani.<BR/>Pennsylvania USAgopelalwanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02904096655937405618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-54234062876453671232008-06-19T03:39:00.000+05:302008-06-19T03:39:00.000+05:30Don't the magistrate know the basic of criminal la...Don't the magistrate know the basic of criminal law? <BR/>Rule of law is an essential Feature of the constitution<BR/>and part of the basic structure. <BR/> <BR/>Dear Sirs,<BR/> <BR/>Two US Citizens were detained and arrested unaware on 29. 06. 2003, while boarding <BR/>the scheduled flight for returning to USA after a short visit to India; by Mumbai Airport <BR/> Immigration Police in Violation of Section 170 &177 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 <BR/> and Section 4 of Indian Penal Code 1860 r/w Section 188 Criminal Pr. Code 1973 of India.<BR/> <BR/>They were produced before Holiday Magistrate. who Illegally remanded them in police <BR/>custody in Violation of Section 167, 170 and 177 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and <BR/>Section 4 of Indian Penal Code 1860 r/w Section 188 Criminal Pr. Code 1973 of India.<BR/> <BR/>After 2 days of police custody they were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate<BR/>Mazgaon Court Mumbai on 01. 07. 2003. The honourable Magistrate Illegally proceeded <BR/>with the bail and other matter s in Violation of Section 170 &177 Code of Criminal <BR/>Procedure 1973 and Section 4 of Indian Penal Code 1860 r/w Section 188 Criminal <BR/>Pr. Code 1973 of India.Therefore the entire proceedings had no foundation. This is the <BR/>question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction. The entire proceedings by the honourable <BR/>Magistrate Mazgaon Court stand vitiated.<BR/>Don't the magistrate know the basic of criminal law? <BR/> <BR/>Subsequently Petition for Quash under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and <BR/>Article 226 of constitution of India was filed with Honourable Bombay High Court, <BR/>on behalf of accused being Criminal Writ Petition Nos 1558 and 1559 of 2003 praying <BR/>for quashing of complaint (FIR). The Petitions were rejected vide order dated 21. 01. 2003.<BR/>The Bombay High Court held that the prayers made in the Writ Petitions were premature <BR/>and all the pleas are open to petitioners in the event of charge sheet being filed by the police. <BR/> <BR/>An application dated 23. 03. 2004 in the Case No. 631/P/2003 was filed in <BR/>Metropolitan Magistrate's 15th Court at Mazgaon Mumbai, for "discharge" <BR/>on grounds of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code ead with Section 188 of <BR/>the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other grounds as follows:<BR/> <BR/>a. The prosecution was filed without obtaining the requisite sanction from <BR/> central government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, <BR/> as such the prosecution was bad in law. <BR/>b. Even if the entire contents of the FIR No. 405/2002 dated 31.12.2002 are <BR/> admitted for the sake of arguments, the said contents by any stretch of <BR/> imagination, does not constitute any offence under the Indian Penal Code <BR/> 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act.<BR/>c. The fact that the accused No.1 and the complainant were married in USA,<BR/> has been admitted by the complainant herself in the FIR whereas, the <BR/> complainant's other contentions that she was married with the accused <BR/> no. 1 first time in India is not corroborated or supported by any documentary <BR/> evidence, as any such document does not find any place in the charge-sheet <BR/> filed by police in the above case. Even if her contentions are accepted as true <BR/> that she married in India, then also "The marriage in India does not <BR/> constitute the offence under the Indian Penal Code and Dowry<BR/> Prohibition Act 1961.<BR/>d. The fact that even the marriage between accused no.1 and the complainant <BR/> solemnised and registered in USA, according to USA laws was dissolved by <BR/> the Judgement of divorce dated 01. 04. 2003, passed by the honourable <BR/> Judge Mr. Bradley Ferenz in the divorce petition filed by the accused no. 1 <BR/> against the complainant on 30. 07. 2002. <BR/>e. It was pertinent to note that as per her own complaint, the complainant had <BR/> returned to India on 28. 06. 2002, filed her Written Answers to the divorce <BR/> petition on 11. 09. 2002 but has lodged the complaint in the present case <BR/> on 10. 12. 2002 as an after thought.<BR/>f. It was also pertinent to note that even if the complainant had filed her complaint <BR/> against accused no.1 on 10. 12. 2002, in her Written Answers dated 11. 09. 2002<BR/> to the Divorce Petition, <BR/> the complainant had categorically stated in para no. 6 that <BR/> The Defendant has no grievances with her HUSBAND and very much wants <BR/> to continue, preserve and nurture her marriage and return to her Husband.<BR/>g. Thus, it can be seen that the complainant, when realised that she can not stop the <BR/> accused from obtaining divorce against the complainant and that she was not likely <BR/> to get any amount of money or property from him had filed the present complaint <BR/> against the the entire family as late as about six months after returning to India and <BR/> 3 months after after stating in her written answers<BR/> to the divorce petition that she does not have any grievance against her Husband. <BR/>h. The accused further stated that the accused, by virtue of being American <BR/> Citizens are foreign nationals. As per the provisions of section 4 of the<BR/> Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 188 of Code of Criminal Proceedure, <BR/> 1973, Your worship does not have the Jurisdiction to enquire into the <BR/> above case and to try the above accused.<BR/>j. In view of the above circumstances and the legal position, the accused pray that <BR/> your lordship may be pleased to order the above accused persons to be <BR/> Discharged from the above case.<BR/> <BR/>The honourable magistrate without entertaining the above application for 'discharge', <BR/>cancelled bail granted on 14. 07. 2003 and issued non-bailable arrest warrants on <BR/>8th April 2004 insisting presence of of the accused in the court. The bail proceedings<BR/>were conducted by the honourable Magistrate in violation of section 170 and 177 Code <BR/>of criminal procedure.<BR/> <BR/>The Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 2004 was filed by the advocate for <BR/>accused with the Bombay sessions court at Sewri Mumbai, against the said order <BR/>of the honourable magistrate cancelling the bail and issuing non-bailable warrants <BR/>without disposing the application for discharge made as per section 4 of Indian <BR/>Penal Code and section 188 of Criminal Pr. Code of India. The Honourable Sessions <BR/>Court was requested to examine the legality and propriety of the impinged order<BR/> issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Court.<BR/><BR/>The Revision Application was allowed and disposed on 28th May 2004.<BR/>The non-bailable warrants issued by the Honourable Magistrate were ordered to <BR/>stand cancelled. Honourable Magistrate at Mazgaon Court was advised to consider <BR/>the application for discharge, and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. <BR/>The Honourable Magistrate was further advised to give reasonable time to petitioners to <BR/>appear before him, keeping in mind that the petitioners were residents of USA, in case <BR/>the discharge application was rejected by him.<BR/> <BR/>The Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate, once again without considering and <BR/>deciding the application for discharge on 10th June 2004, and without examining the<BR/>legality and propriety of his actions; once again insisted on the appearance of the <BR/>applicants before him, as the applicants were allowed permission for 6 months, and <BR/>were ordered to return to India within 6 months vide his order dated 14th July 2003. <BR/>The honourable magistrate issued non-bailable arrest warrants on 8th April 2004 once <BR/>again insisting presence of the accused in the court. <BR/> <BR/>The Criminal Revision Application No. 6 of 2004 was filed by the advocate for accused <BR/>with the Bombay sessions court at Sewri Mumbai, against the said order of the <BR/>honourable magistrate cancelling the bail and issuing non-bailable warrants without <BR/>disposing the application for discharge made as per section 4 of Indian Penal Code <BR/>and section 188 of Criminal Pr. Code. and as directed by the Sessions Court at Mumbai. <BR/>The Honourable Sessions Court was requested to examine the legality and propriety of <BR/>the impunged order issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Court.<BR/><BR/>Even if contentions in FIR are accepted as true that complainant married in India, then <BR/>also The marriage in India does not constitute the offence under the Indian Penal Code <BR/>and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Court has no<BR/> "All India or All Maharashrta or All Bombay Territorial Jurisdiction". By no stretch of <BR/>reasoning the Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to hear and deal with the matter <BR/>of "discharge" under section 188 Criminal Procedure Code r/w sect 4 Indian Penal Code <BR/>on the ground of lack of jurisdiction alone, as no part of cause of action arose within the <BR/>Jurisdiction of Mazgaon Metropolitan court. Entire proceedings at Mazgaon Metropolitan <BR/>Court at Mumbai had no foundation. This is the question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction. <BR/>Don't the magistrate know the basic of criminal law? The Sessions court at Mumbai <BR/>aught to have considered and decided the case for Discharged as Metropolitan Mazgaom <BR/>Court had no territorial Jurisdiction accordance with Section 170 and 177 Criminal Procedure <BR/>Code to deal with the matter. Sessions Court ought to have used power of superintendence <BR/>over the sub ordinate courts. <BR/> <BR/>Dealing with Section 4 Indian Penal Code 1860, there was materials to show that the <BR/>accused are the citizen of USA . They have been visiting India on Visas issued by Indian <BR/>Government. They, thus, indisputably are not the citizen of India. They might have been <BR/>staying in India and having property and Investments in India, as has been contended by <BR/>the complainant, but it can not be denied and disputed that they are not the citizen of India.<BR/>If they are not the citizen of India having regard to the provisions contained in Section 4 of<BR/>the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the <BR/>prosecution taking cognisance of offence must be held to be illegal. In terms of Section<BR/>4 of the Indian Penal Code, the Indian courts will have jurisdiction to try an accused only if <BR/>the accused is a citizen of India even if the offence was committed outside India or by any <BR/>person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Neither of the <BR/>aforementioned contingencies is attracted in the instant case. Section 188 of the Code <BR/>of Criminal Procedure also deals with offences committed outside India. Clause (a) <BR/>brings within its sweep a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or by <BR/>a person, although not citizen of India when the offence is committed on any ship or <BR/>aircraft registered in India. <BR/>In view of the fact that the offence is said to have been committed in USA, the provisions of <BR/>the Indian Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to have any application.<BR/>In the constitutional scheme, all laws made by Parliament primarily are applicable only within the <BR/>country. Ordinarily, therefore, persons who commit a crime in India can be tried in place where the <BR/>offence is committed. <BR/> <BR/>The accused have fundamental right in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be <BR/>proceeded against only in accordance with law. The law which would apply in India subject <BR/>to the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal <BR/>Procedure is that the offence must be committed by foreign national within the territory of India. <BR/>If admittedly, the offence has not been committed by foreign national within the territorial limits <BR/>of India, then the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as also the Code of Criminal Procedure <BR/>would not apply. Being accused of committed offences outside India, the provisions of Section<BR/>4 of I.P.C. and Section 188, Cr. P.C. were fully attracted to this case.<BR/> <BR/>The Supreme Court of India has ruled in respect of the Similar Application made under <BR/>Section 188 Cr. P. Code 1973 and Section 4 IPC 1860.<BR/>http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=31538 <BR/>THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON 13th MAY 2008 .<BR/>IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl) No.6004 of 2006.<BR/>Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel.... Versus State of Gujarat & Anr. <BR/>The Supreme court of India Judgement says:- <BR/>"The proceedings were initiated illegally and without jurisdiction". <BR/>"In view of the fact that the offence is said to have been committed <BR/> outside India, the provisions of IPC or CrPC cannot have any application". <BR/> <BR/>Thanking You, <BR/>Regards.<BR/>Gope Lalwani.gopelalwanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02904096655937405618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-32668968917250569392008-06-19T03:35:00.000+05:302008-06-19T03:35:00.000+05:30The quality of a nation's civilisation can b...The quality of a nation's civilisation can be largely <BR/>measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement <BR/>of criminal law. Rule of law is an essential Feature of the <BR/>constitution and part of the basic structure .<BR/> <BR/>This case is classic case of police brutality and corruption.<BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/>Ms. Lavina Chatur Kripalani is an law attorney admitted to practice in Bombay. She came to <BR/>USA on Fiance K-1 Visa applied by her on 12. 07. 2001., to marry US Citizen.<BR/>Fiance Visa for six months was granted to her by the US Consulate in Bombay on 06. 12. 2001.<BR/>She was married in USA on 13. 02. 2002 in woodbridge NJ Court and subsequently she was <BR/>divorced on 01. 04. 2003 by order of the Superior Court Middlesex New Jersey USA Court. <BR/>Her father is also practising advocate at Bombay High Court Mumbai . <BR/> <BR/>While the divorce proceedings against her were in progress in USA, she realised that she <BR/>can not stop the petitioner from obtaining divorce against her and that she was not likely to <BR/>get any amount of money or property in settlement,she resorted to the misuse of the police <BR/>machinery in India, with oblique motives to bring pressures, wreak revenge and unleash <BR/>legal-terror. She filed complaint at Nagpada Police Station Bombay on 10. 12. 2002 making <BR/>allegations against each and every member of the family ( USA Citizens) alleging cruelty to <BR/>her in USA. The complaint was the Counter-Blast to the on going divorce proceedings in USA.<BR/> She did not disclose in the complaint, that there was divorce case pending against her in USA, <BR/>and the same was being contested by her and her lawyer father; in which they had demanded / <BR/>claimed US $ 200 Thousand (Rs. one crore) in settlement. No one of husband's family has been <BR/>spared and left out from being framed in this criminal case.<BR/> <BR/>Ms. Lavina Chatur Kripalani was residing at 12/36 Navjivan Housing Society Dr. D.B. Marg; <BR/>Mumbai within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station Mumbai, at the time of <BR/> lodging the written complaint under section 156 code of Criminal procedure 1973 of India.<BR/>Simple reading of the complaint lodged by Ms. Lavina Chatur Kripalani, on 10. 12. 2002 explain <BR/>that, no crime was alleged to have taken place within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police <BR/>Station Mumbai (India). The parties never married within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada <BR/>Police Station. The parties never visited or resided together within the territorial Jurisdiction of <BR/>Nagpada Police Station before their marriage nor after their marriage in USA. Marriage took place <BR/>in USA. Matrimonial home was in USA. The alleged crime of Cruelty was allegedly committed in <BR/>USA. No investigation was needed to come to the conclusion that part of crime was committed <BR/>within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station nor any where within the Territory of <BR/>India .Nagpada Police Station, registered FIR No. 405/2002 on 31. 12 2002 for the offences under <BR/>section 498-A, 406 r/w S. 34 I.P.C. and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. <BR/> <BR/>No enquiry or scrutiny or investigation was carried out by the police officers, as required <BR/>under Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, after registering the FIR. When an <BR/>information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the complaint <BR/>would be of secondary importance. The material and evidence collected during the investigation <BR/>by the police is important. FIR is not an encyclopedia of facts. The entire and complete facts <BR/>are to be collected by the investigating agency before taking action. The Police officer dealing <BR/>with the FIR did not determined the Territorial Jurisdiction in respect of alleged offences made <BR/>out in the complaint. The Police Officer Violated Section 170 and 177 Criminal Procedure Code <BR/>1973 and Illegally proceeded with the matter.<BR/> <BR/>The section 170 Criminal .Pr.Code 1973 specifically provides that if crime was not committed <BR/>within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the Police Station <BR/>stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime was committed. The law is that police can <BR/>register an FIR of commission of a cognisable crime ,but after registration of FIR, if on scrutiny or <BR/>investigation, it is found that crime was not committed within the jurisdiction of that Police Station <BR/>but was committed within the jurisdiction of some other Police Station, the FIR should be <BR/>transferred to that Police Station. However, if at the time of registration of FIR itself, it is apparent <BR/>on the face of it that crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the Police Station, the Police<BR/> after registration of FIR should transfer the FIR to that Police Station for investigation. Normally <BR/>a 'Zero' FIR is registered by Police in such cases.<BR/>Under section 177 of criminal procedure code 1973 of India, no part of cause of action arose <BR/>within the Jurisdiction of concerned court and Police Station where the complaint was filed.<BR/>Therefore the entire proceedings had no foundation. <BR/>This is the question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction.<BR/> <BR/>TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION <BR/>(Registration of FIR and Police / Court Jurisdiction)<BR/>Supreme Court of India had considered the question of registration of FIR at length and taking <BR/>note of different Sections of Cr.P.C. observed that the territorial jurisdiction was prescribed <BR/>under Sub-Section 1 of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to the extent that a Police Officer can investigate <BR/>any cognisable case, which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of <BR/>said Police Station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. <BR/>However, Sub Section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that proceedings of Police Officer <BR/>in any case cannot be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such Officer <BR/>was not empowered to investigate.<BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court further observed that Section 170 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that if, upon <BR/>investigation, it appears to the Officers In-charge of the Police Station that crime was not <BR/>committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the <BR/>Police Stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed. <BR/> <BR/>In spite of the fact that no crime or part of crime was alleged in complaint, that had taken place, <BR/>within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station and in spite of the facts that the alleged<BR/>offences were not committed on the Indian soil by foreign nationals and in-spite of the prohibition by <BR/>law for not proceeding further against the accused in view of Section 170, 177 Criminal Procedure <BR/>Code, and section 188 criminal Procedure Code r/w section 4 Indian Penal Code 1860 the non bailable <BR/>arrest warrants were illegally issued against entire family of USA Citizens. Airport Immigration <BR/>Police were informed and posted with "look-out circular" naming all members of US Citizen family.<BR/> <BR/>After about three months of the divorce granted by US court, my wife and son were detained and <BR/>arrested unaware on 29. 06. 2003, while boarding the scheduled flight for returning to USA after a <BR/>short visit to India; by Mumbai Airport Immigration Police; enforcing the Illegal Warrants of Arrest <BR/>issued and posted in Violation of Section 170 &177 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Section 4 <BR/>of Indian Penal Code 1860 r/w Section 188 Criminal Pr. Code 1973 of India.<BR/><BR/>Illegally arrested USA Citizens were produced before the Holiday Metropolitan Magistrate, and <BR/>Remand Custody Application dated 29. 06. 2003 was submitted by the Nagpada Police, stating that:<BR/>"The Arrested persons committed criminal offences against complainant for <BR/>fifteen days after her marriage in Mumbai during the month of February 2002 <BR/>and onward in New-york USA till 28. 06. 2002". <BR/>Where-as the accused were arrested at Airport, enforcing Illegal Warrants of Arrest stating that:<BR/>"The Arrested persons committed criminal offences against the complainant who married during <BR/>the month of November 2001 and then was mistreated in New York USA in the month of December<BR/>2001 onward till 28. 06. 2002". <BR/> <BR/>The USA Passports seized by the Police at Mumbai Airport earlier showed that the persons <BR/>arrested by the police, were never in India during the month of February 2002, according to Indian <BR/>Immigration Arrival/Departure stampings in passports.The FIR No. 405/2002 registered by Nagpada <BR/>Police also states that the Complainant was present in USA from 9th December 2001 till 28th June 2002. <BR/>Therefore the Remand Custody Application submitted to the Holiday Metropolitan Magistrate by <BR/>Nagpada Police Station is a deliberately and fraudulently engineered document to mislead the Holiday<BR/> Magistrate and secure Police Cusody of the accused fraudulently.<BR/> <BR/>Remand Custody Application is as under:-<BR/>Nagpada Police Station Mumbai.<BR/>Date:29-06-2003<BR/> <BR/>To.<BR/>Metropolitan Magistrate<BR/>15th Court,<BR/>Mazgaon,<BR/>Mumbai.<BR/> <BR/>Respected Sir,<BR/>I hereby report that the complainant herein Smt. Lavina Kripalani, age 30 years, residing <BR/>at Navjivan Society Dr. J.V.-----Road has filed her complaint with this Police Station that<BR/>She got married in India in February 2002 and when she was in India for 15 days her <BR/>husband Dinesh,Mother-in-law Indira Age 74 years) sister-in-law Poonam, and <BR/>brother-in-law Girish have mentally harassed and beat the complainant and that the<BR/>accused were frequently demanding the money saying that they did not spent money, <BR/>gave less dowry and demanded things, beat her and mentally harassed her. <BR/> <BR/>The accused being settled in America , there also beat the complainant and demanded <BR/>money. The complainant fed up with the mental harassment, she came back<BR/>to India in JUNE 2002 and she filed complaint in Nagpada Police Station vide <BR/>C.R.No. 405/2002 u/s 498A, 406, 34 of IPC and section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.<BR/> <BR/>As the Accused, being settled in America, hence at the time of lodging the complaint, <BR/>they could not be found in India and therefore information was given to the Airport <BR/>Branch against the accused and their names were given to the look out cell.<BR/> <BR/>Accordingly as per the information of Airport Branch, Police of Nagpada Police Station <BR/>were sent to Airport and from their the Accused were taken n possession and as they <BR/>were wanted in the said offence.They were arrested on this 29th June 2003 at 10.00 hrs.<BR/> <BR/>The said Accused other relatives, sister-in-law of the complainant, father-in-law and <BR/>brother-in-law, are to be arrested in the above said offence and to investigate the case <BR/>and the statements of the witnesses are to be recorded.<BR/> <BR/>And therefore praying for grant of Police custody of the above said Accused.<BR/> <BR/> Yours faithfully<BR/> Sd/-<BR/> Assistant Police Inspector, <BR/> Nagpada Police Station <BR/> Mumbai.<BR/>Round Seal Of <BR/>Nagpada Police Station.<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>The Holiday Magistrate at Metropolitan Court failed to apply his mind properly at the stage of <BR/>scrutiny and nor the requirements of law were correctly and responsibly followed by him before <BR/>proceeding with the matter. Honourable Holiday Magistrate failed to apply his mind on the <BR/>contradictory statements made by the Police in the Remand Application and FIR No.405/2002 <BR/>registered by Police. He even did not care to read and understand the case and simply took the <BR/>text from the Police.Honourable Holiday Magistrate even did not determine his own territorial <BR/>jurisdiction to deal with the matter, in view of section 167, 170 & 177 Criminal Pr. Code 1973 and <BR/>Section 4 Indian Penal Code 1860.<BR/> <BR/>Honourable Holiday Magistrate Illegally approved and ordered Police custody of the Illegally <BR/>arrested persons in violation of Section 4 Indian Penal Code and section 170 &177 Criminal <BR/>ProcedureCode 1973 and without any consideration for falsely engineered evidence in the <BR/>Remand Application Falsifying FIR No. 405/2002 dated 31.12. 2002.<BR/>The Remand Application accepted without application of mind by the Honourable Holiday<BR/>Magistrate, allowing Police Custody of the accused also does not establish that the alleged <BR/>offences took place, and were committed within the Territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police <BR/>Station and thus within the Territorial Jurisdiction of Holiday Magistrate.<BR/>The Remand Custody Application submitted by the Police to the Holiday Metropolitan Magistrate <BR/>was deliberate and fraudulently engineered document to misguide the court and fraudulently <BR/>secure the police custody of the accused illegally for the ulterior motives. Manipulations and <BR/>interpolations in the Remand Application are crystal clear on the part of the Nagpada police <BR/>officer. The learned Holiday Magistrate Mazgaon Court has proceeded to take cognisance <BR/>without applying his mind, just like putting a rubber stamp on it. By no stretch of reasoning <BR/>the Metropolitan Holiday Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the matter. <BR/>The proceedings initiated against the accused were liable to be dismissed on the ground of <BR/>lack of jurisdiction alone, under section 177 of criminal procedure code 1973. No part of <BR/>cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of Mazgaon Metropolitan court where the Police <BR/>Custody Remand Application was filed by the Nagpada Police. Therefore the entire <BR/>proceedings had no foundation. This is the question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction. <BR/>Don't the magistrate know the basic of criminal law? Judges have to be responsible, when <BR/>they pass orders. They must be aware of its consequences.<BR/> <BR/>Neither the Nagpada Police Station informed the USA Consulate that the USA citizens were <BR/>arrested by them. Nor the higher authorities in the state of Maharashtra and Ministry of External <BR/>Affairs were informed about the arrest of foreign nationals in violation of Section 4 Indian Penal <BR/>Code 1860 by the Nagpada Police Station. No permission was obtained from higher authorities<BR/>as required by the Section 188 of Indian Criminal Procedure Code 1973.<BR/> <BR/>While in Police custody the accused were taken at their property situated at Versova, Andheri <BR/>West Mumbai, having territorial jurisdiction of Versova Police Station and Andheri Metropolitan <BR/>Court in violation of section 166 Criminal Pr. Code 1973, for search of the premises.The search was<BR/> illegally carried out by Nagpada Police Station without having territorial jurisdiction vide section <BR/>170 Criminal Procedure Code and also without the knowledge or the permission of the the Police <BR/>Station having territorial jurisdiction. Nothing was found during search. The search was carried <BR/>out by Nagpada Police Station in spite of the fact that the FIR No.405/2002 registered by Nagpada <BR/>Police Station does not show any particulars of properties stolen /involved and the values of the <BR/>same at serial 9 and 10 of the said FIR. Nor the complainant has claimed any involvement of any <BR/>property lying at the said premises in her complaint.<BR/> <BR/> After obtaining Police-Custody of accused illegally and fraudulently from Holiday Magistrate<BR/>they were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate 15th court Mazgaon Mumbai, after 2 days <BR/>of Jail on 01. 07. 3003. The honourable Magistrate without ascertaining his territorial jurisdiction , <BR/>proceeded with the matter, in spite the fact that the said court had no jurisdiction to try the offences <BR/>as the cause of action did not accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station,<BR/>under Section 170 & 177 Code of criminal Procedure, while dealing with the FIR. No crime has been <BR/>alleged to have been committed within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. No investigation <BR/>was needed to come to the conclusion that part of crime was committed within the Jurisdiction of <BR/>Nagpada Police Station or within the Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai. <BR/>Under section 177 of criminal procedure code 1973 no part of cause of action arose within the <BR/>Jurisdiction of concerned Court where the complaint was filed by police. Therefore the entire <BR/>proceedings had no foundation. This is the question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction<BR/>The proceedings were initiated illegally without any scrutiny, responsibility and without jurisdiction <BR/>and without respect for law by the Honourable Magistrate Mazgaon Court. Therefore the impugned<BR/> judgements and orders delivered by the said court cannot be sustained.<BR/> <BR/>Nagpada Police Station in spite of seizing USA Passports from the accused, falsely and <BR/>fraudulently submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mazgaon Court, that the accused <BR/>were Indian Citizens, holding Indian Passports. Nagpada Police further submitted to the court <BR/>that the accused were residing in USA as such holding USA permanent resident "Green Card". <BR/>The Nagpada Police Station requested to the Magistrate to order to the accused to surrender <BR/>the Indian Passport and USA Green-Card to the Police.<BR/> <BR/>The bail order is as under:- <BR/> <BR/> MEMO Mumbai, Dt. 1/7/2003<BR/> TO:<BR/>The Inspector of Police.<BR/>Nagpada Police Station.<BR/>Mumbai.<BR/> <BR/>You are hereby informed that the accused No. 1 Dinesh Gop Lalwani and accused No. 2 <BR/>smt Indira Gop Lalwani who were arrested by your police station in C.R. No. 405/2002 of <BR/>the offence punishable U/ sec 498(a), 406, 34 I.P.C r/w 4 Dowry Act are ordered to be <BR/>released on execution of P. R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one of sureties in the like <BR/>amount with a condition to attend police station every day from 10.00 a.m to 12.00 noon <BR/>until further orders.<BR/> <BR/>Accused are ordered to surrender their Passport and Green Card (in original) with I.O.<BR/> <BR/>Accused are further directed not to leave the limit of Mumbai without prior permission of <BR/>court till further orders.<BR/> <BR/>Option of cash bail of Rs. 20,000/- each is allowed in lieu of solvent surety.<BR/> <BR/>This is for your information and compliance condition.<BR/> <BR/> By order<BR/> SD/-<BR/> Judicial Clerk,<BR/> Metropolitan Magistrate's<BR/> 15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.<BR/> <BR/><BR/> <BR/>The Illegally arrested US Citizens were released on bail after execution of P. R. Bond of <BR/>Rs. 20,000/- each with one of sureties in the like amount with a condition to attend police <BR/>station every day from 10.00 a.m to 12.00 noon until further orders.<BR/>Accused were ordered to surrender their Passport and Green Card (in original) with I.O.<BR/>Accused were further directed not to leave the limit of Mumbai without prior permission of <BR/>court till further orders.<BR/> <BR/>The accused attended Nagpada Police station daily between 10.00 A.M. to 12.00 Noon as <BR/>ordered by the court. Accused submitted an application to the concerned Magistrate on <BR/>14 .07. 2003 for return of their USA Passports and permission to leave India. The request <BR/>was granted and the USA Passports were returned on furnishing additional cash security <BR/>of Rs. 10,000/-each against receiving Passports from Nagpada Police Station.Accused were <BR/>permitted to leave India for six months and directed to report their where abouts to Nagpada <BR/>Police Station within that period of six months.Attendance conditions imposed in bail order <BR/>were vacated.<BR/> <BR/>The Court Order is as under:-<BR/>RETURN OF PASSPORT & PERMISSION TO GO BACK TO U.S.A<BR/>AND CANCELLATION OF ATTENDANCE.<BR/> <BR/>NOTICE NO: 103/N/2003 and Mumbai, Dated 14th July 2003.<BR/> 104/N/2003<BR/> <BR/> C.R. No. 405/2002<BR/>M E M O:<BR/> <BR/>The Inspector of Police, Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai is hereby informed that on application made by <BR/>Smt. Indira Gope Lalwani in Notice No. 103/N/2003 and Dinesh Gope Lalwani in Notice No. 104/N/2003 for <BR/>return of Passport bearing No. 95443898 of U.S. Passport and Passport bearing No. 112524200 of U.S.Passport <BR/>and permission to go back to U.S.A. and cancellation of attendance. The said Passports are lying in your custody. <BR/>This Court has passed the following order:<BR/> <BR/> O R D E R<BR/>"Notice No. 103/N/2003 & 104/N/2003 and prayer made therein of both<BR/>the accused is hereby allowed. They are permitted to leave India".<BR/> <BR/>Senior P. I. of Nagpada Police Station is hereby directed to hand over the original <BR/>Passports of both applicants /accused by retaining xerox copies on record.<BR/> <BR/>Both applicant/accused are hereby directed to keep their advocate on record to present <BR/>them in court on each and every date until further orders. Failing which, necessary action <BR/>will be taken against both the applicant/accused.<BR/> <BR/>Applicant/Accused are hereby directed to furnish additional surety or cash security of <BR/>Rs. 10,000/-each against receiving Passports from Nagpada Police Station.<BR/> <BR/>Applicant/Accused are permitted to go abroad for six months and directed to report t<BR/>heir where abouts to Nagpada Police Station within that period of six months.<BR/> <BR/>"Attendance conditions imposed in bail order are vacated".<BR/> <BR/>You are therefore directed to comply above orders.<BR/> <BR/> BY ORDER<BR/> ROUND SEAL SD/-<BR/> METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE<BR/> 15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai.<BR/>TO:<BR/>The Inspector of Police<BR/>Nagpada Police Station Mumbai.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Metropolitan Magistrate while passing above orders releasing USA Passports did not even <BR/>review his own earlier order, directing to the Police to take possession of Indian Passports <BR/>and USA Green Cards from the accused. Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate even did not<BR/>ascertain the non compliance of the said Judicial orders, and the reasons for the non-compliance <BR/>of taking possession of Indian Passports and USA Green Cards.<BR/>Therefore the above order returning USA passports confirms that the concerned Honourable <BR/>Magistrate was very well aware that the accused were USA Citizens and their USA Passports <BR/>were in possession of Nagpada Police, and allowed the police to mislead the court and deny the <BR/>possession of USA passports.<BR/> <BR/>Metropolitan Magistrate's failure to ensure effective implementation of his bail orders requiring <BR/>the surrender of Indian passports and Green Cards by the accused, to the Nagpada Police Station,<BR/>after falsely determining that accused were Indian Citizens and subsequently ordering to return <BR/>the USA Passports to the accused, and recognising the Foreign nationals not being Indian nationals <BR/>by the same Judge, proves hand and glove conspiracy and speaks volumes of unlawful conduct by <BR/>law enforcers in India. The laws and Judicial System have been completely violated, short circuited, <BR/>sabotaged and made irrelevant in this matter. <BR/>The Orders/ judgements have been passed in a mechanical manner, without applying mind to the <BR/>facts of the case made in the FIR No. 405/2002. Had the Presiding Officer scrutinised even the <BR/>F.I.R. he would have learnt that no offence had taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of <BR/>Metropolitan Court at Mazgaon Mumbai India.<BR/>Malpractices, Manipulations and Mala fide on the part of the Nagpada Police Officer stands proved.<BR/>In view of the above manipulations by the Police officer and non application of mind firstly by the <BR/>learned Holiday Magistrate, and secondly by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th court <BR/>Mazgaon the criminal proceedings stand vitiated.<BR/> <BR/>Supreme Court of India had considered the question of registration of FIR at length and taking <BR/>note of different Sections of Cr.P.C. observed that the territorial jurisdiction was prescribed <BR/>under Sub-Section 1 of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to the extent that a Police Officer can investigate<BR/>any cognisable case, which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of <BR/>said Police Station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. <BR/>However, Sub Section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that proceedings of Police Officer <BR/>in any case cannot be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such Officer <BR/>was not empowered to investigate.<BR/>The Supreme Court further observed that Section 170 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that if, upon<BR/> investigation, it appears to the Officers In-charge of the Police Station that crime was not <BR/>committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the <BR/>Police Stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed. <BR/><BR/> <BR/>Illegally arrested and prosecuted accused in India reached back in USA; after fifteen days of <BR/>harassment, agony and extortion by the police and judicial system in India.gopelalwanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02904096655937405618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31618463.post-62024974665381812042008-05-25T06:55:00.000+05:302008-05-25T06:55:00.000+05:30Stupidlawvictim,You need to read A Guide TO Surviv...Stupidlawvictim,<BR/>You need to read A Guide TO Surviving IPC 498A fully again.<BR/>The powers of the CAW cell are covered. You must also read this judgment by Justice Dhingra which very clearly states that the CAW cell proceedings are VOLUNTARY !!!<BR/>http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/delhi-hc-no-coercive-action-can-be-taken-by-the-caw-cells/<BR/> OR <BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2gf5wo<BR/>You should also know that if you stand up with the judgment of Joginder Kumar VS State OF UP, the police will think twice about arresting your parents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com