Sec.498 A, Sec.4 of Dowry Act and Domestic Violence Act - the A.P.High court gave certain guide lines - investigation must be verified by an officer not below the rank of DSP - for deleting the name of falsely named accused in charge sheet permission of S.P. necessary - on immediate complaint of either party wife or husband - both parties should be asked to undergo counselling before the expert counsellors and their report may be made as part of record and SP in consultation with District legal services authorities may prepare panel of counsellors - except in serious offences - no arrest should be effected for mere dowry harassment with out permission of S.P. - No harassment by police and no force for compromise - Magistrate too has to examine the grounds of remand other wise , accused should be released on bail on personal bonds - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS



   In the light of the above discussion, the following
guidelines have been issued.

a)      A fair and dispassionate investigation should be
conducted.  After completing investigation, the
same should be verified by an officer not below
the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

b)      During the course of investigation, if the
investigating officer is satisfied that there is false
implication of any person in the complaint then
he may delete the names of such persons from 
the charge sheet after obtaining necessary
permission from the Superintendent of Police or
any other officer equivalent to that rank.

c)      As soon as a complaint is received either from
the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the
husband that there is every likelihood of him
being implicated in a case of dowry harassment,
then, both the parties should be asked to
undergo counselling with any experienced
counsellor or counsellors.  The report of such
counsellors should be made as a part of the
report to be submitted by the investigating
officer to the Court.

d)      The Superintendent of Police, in consultation
with the Chairman, District Legal Services
Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors
and such panel of counsellors along with their
address and phone numbers should be made   
available at all the police stations.

e)      Normally, no accused should be arrested, where 
the allegation is simple dowry harassment.  If
the arrest is necessary during the course of
investigation, the investigating officer should
obtain permission of the Superintendent of
Police or any other officer of the equal rank in
metropolitan cities.  If arrest is not necessary,
the police may complete the investigation and
lay charge sheet before the Court without
arresting the accused and seek necessary orders
from the Court.  However, in the case of dowry
death, suspicious death, suicide or where the
allegations are serious in nature such as
inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer
may arrest the accused.  However, the
intimation of such arrest should be immediately
sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police
who may give necessary guidance to the 
arresting officer.

f)      No accused or witness should be unnecessarily 
called to the police station and as soon as the
purpose of summoning them to the police station
is over they should be sent back.  There should
not be any unnecessary harassment to any
person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto
complainant or to the relatives of the husband.

g)      The higher police officers should see that the
parties do not make any allegations that they are
forced to come to any settlement in police
stations against their wish.  However, this does
not mean that the police officers should not
make any effort for amicable settlement.

h)      The advocates have to play their role in trying to
unite the families.  They must act as social
reformers while dealing with these kind of cases,
particularly, where the couple have children.
Even when an accused is produced before the
Magistrate, they should examine the matter
judiciously and consider whether there are valid
grounds for remanding the accused to the
judicial custody.  No accused should be
remanded to judicial custody mechanically in
routine manner.  If the Magistrate feels that the
accused cannot be released after taking bonds,
necessary orders may be passed accordingly. 

   The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is
requested to issue necessary instructions to all the
concerned in this regard.

      In the instant case, having regard to the allegations
made against the petitioners and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

      In the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall
be enlarged on bail on their executing a bond for a sum
of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each with
one surety for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the
arresting officer, Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad.

      Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more