2-month reprieve from arrest for hubby, kin in dowry case
NEW DELHI: In an important decision, Supreme Court on Tuesday adopted Allahabad HC's two-year-old guidelines directing police not to arrest a husband or his relatives for two months from the date of his wife lodging a dowry harassment case under section 498A of the IPC while asking an IPS woman officer to apologise through newspaper publications the harassment she inflicted on her estranged husband and his relatives.
A bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih gave this ruling while drawing up an amicable settlement between 2022-batch IPS officer Shivangi Bansal nee Goel and her husband in exercise of its exclusive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve their marriage.
While drawing up the settlement, SC said, "The guidelines framed by Allahabad HC in impugned judgment dated June 13, 2022, in Criminal Revision No.
1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to constitution of family welfare committees for safeguards regarding misuse of section 498A, IPC, shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities."
SC said the apology was needed because of the cases filed by her "...the husband remained in jail for a period of 109 days and his father for 103 days, and the entire family suffered physical and mental trauma and harassment. What they have suffered cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner". However, "It shall not ever be used against Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel before any court of law, administrative/regulatory/quasi-judicial body/tribunal against her interests now or in the future, " it added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Malegaon verdict on July 31: Recalling the 2008 bombing and the case against the accused
On Thursday (July 31), a special court in Mumbai will pronounce its verdict on the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit are among the accused. In one of the country's longest-running terror cases, seven accused have been on trial on charges including murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the anti-terrorism law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Ahead of the judgment, this is a recall of what happened in Malegaon, and the major milestones in the 17-year journey of the case. The blast on September 29, 2008 A bomb went off at a chowk in Malegaon, a town known for its powerloom industry, about 100 km northeast of Nashik in Maharashtra. It was Ramzan, the holy month of fasting in Islam, and the blast, which took place in an area with a large Muslim population, killed six people and injured 100. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which took over the investigation from the local police, suspected that the improvised explosive device (IED) had been planted on an LML Freedom motorcycle. It was suspected that the conspirators had consciously chosen the month of Ramzan and the eve of Navaratri to carry out the bombing, intending to cause communal rifts and endanger the internal security of the state. The ATS claimed that the registration number of the motorcycle that was found at the site of the explosion – MH-15-P-4572 – was fake, and that its engine number and chassis number had been erased. The motorcycle was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Nashik for restoration of the erased numbers. The ATS alleged that the owner of the bike was Pragya Singh Thakur alias Sadhwi Poornachetanand Giri, and arrested her on October 23, 2008. Thakur's arrest and interrogation, the ATS claimed, led it to the other accused. The agency said that it had intercepted phone calls of suspected persons. Calls between Lt Col Purohit and retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay were under scrutiny. Upadhyay and Sameer Kulkarni were arrested on October 28. By November 14, 2008, a total of 11 persons had been arrested. Among them was Purohit, who was arrested from the premises of the Army in Colaba in South Mumbai. The accused claimed that they were illegally detained by the ATS before being produced in court, and that they had been tortured in custody. In November 2008, the ATS invoked stringent sections of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) against them. They were accused of having formed an organisation named Abhinav Bharat, which was an organised crime syndicate. In its chargesheet filed on January 20, 2009, the ATS named the 11 arrested persons as accused, and another three as wanted accused. The accused were charged under the IPC and UAPA. The ATS claimed that the accused had discussed targeting Muslims as revenge against terrorist acts by Muslim men. It was also alleged that the accused had discussed working towards 'Aryawart' or a Hindu rashtra with its own Constitution and flag, and a 'government in exile'. According to the ATS, the conspiracy had begun from January 2008, and meetings were held at a number of places including Faridabad, Bhopal, and Nashik. The ATS claimed that Thakur had promised to provide people to carry out the bombing, and funds were raised through Abhinav Bharat. RDX, the plastic explosive used in the IED, was procured by Purohit from his posting in Jammu and Kashmir, and the bomb was assembled at the house of the arrested accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi, the ATS claimed. It was alleged that the explosive device was fitted on the motorcycle by Chaturvedi and another accused, Ramchandra Kalsangra, after which the vehicle was parked at the spot. NIA finds gaps in ATS investigation In 2011, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the federal investigation agency that was set up after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Even as the NIA continued with its investigation, the accused approached courts challenging the invocation of MCOCA against them, under which their confessions were recorded. In its chargesheet filed on May 13, 2016, the NIA dropped the charges under MCOCA, saying that the manner in which the organised crime law was invoked by the ATS was 'questionable'. The ATS probe, it said, was filled with 'lacunae', and of the 11 individuals arrested by the agency, evidence existed against only seven, and against the two wanted accused, Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. The NIA said that the motorcycle registered in Thakur's name had been in the possession of Kalsangra, who was using it well before the blast. It also said that since MCOCA was not applied, confessions made under the Act, including a statement where it was claimed that Thakur had asked a co-accused to call Purohit to arrange for explosives, were inadmissible as evidence. Most of the ATS's case against the accused relied on confessions, and the NIA said that the confession of Chaturvedi was an 'outcome of torture'. It also said that due to the passage of time, no additional evidence could be recovered from the spot. The NIA re-recorded the statements of some witnesses before magistrates, citing inconsistencies in the ATS probe. Witnesses who the ATS had claimed were present in meetings in Bhopal and Faridabad where discussions on revenge and the blast were allegedly held, told the NIA that they were not present at these purported meetings, and did not hear any such talk. One of the main allegations in the NIA chargesheet was that the ATS had created false evidence to implicate the accused, and had illegally entered the house of Chatuvedi in Deolali, as was noticed by two Army officers. What court said on Thakur, Purohit, others Despite the NIA's pitch to drop Thakur as an accused, the special court hearing the case said there was prima facie evidence to put her on trial. Even though the NIA chargesheet claimed there was no witness or other proof to show her involvement in the conspiracy, the court said that it was difficult to accept Thakur's claim that she had no connection with the blast. On Purohit, a military intelligence officer, the court said that a conclusion could not be drawn that he had participated in the alleged conspiracy meetings ahead of the blast in the discharge of his duty and with the permission of his superiors, as he had claimed. On December 27, 2017, the court accepted the NIA's contention that MCOCA cannot be invoked in the case. It said that the seven accused – Thakur, Purohit, retired Major Upadhyay, Kulkarni, Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, and Sudhakar Dwivedi – would face trial under UAPA, IPC, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The court also said that two other accused, Rakesh Dhawde and Jagdish Mhatre, would face trial only under the Arms Act, 1959, in Pune, and three others would be discharged for lack of evidence, as proposed by the NIA. How the trial of the accused progressed The trial began in December 2018. The ATS, the previous probe agency, did not have a say in the proceedings, but the prosecution relied on documents and evidence collected by both the ATS and the NIA during the trial. More than 30 witnesses who were cited in the chargesheet passed away before they could depose before the court. The prosecution examined 323 witnesses and cited technical evidence including Call Data Records and voice samples. Thirty-four of the witnesses turned hostile. The testimonies of these witnesses mainly related to Purohit and the alleged conspiracy meetings. These witnesses denied having participated in or heard any discussions by the accused about the conspiracy to carry out a bomb blast. Some of the accused also alleged that they had been coerced, illegally detained, and threatened by the ATS into giving false statements naming certain persons. In its final arguments, the prosecution submitted that there was evidence in respect of Call Data Records, and forensic evidence to show that the explosive device had been planted in the LML motorcycle. There was also evidence to show the presence of the accused at the places where the conspiracy meetings had taken place, and other documentary proof. The accused claimed that with witnesses turning hostile, the conspiracy was not proven at all. The accused also claimed that a mob of 15,000 had 'manipulated' the crime scene. Police officials deposed that a mob, angry about the attack, had gathered and stones were thrown at the police. Lawyers for the accused claimed that the mob was 'motivated', and had 'attempted to screen the real culprit'.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ED filed closure reports in 49 PMLA cases over last 10 years: Govt in Parliament
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) over the last 10-and-a- half years, has filed closure reports in 49 cases before special courts meant to try anti-money laundering crimes, the government informed Parliament on Tuesday. The agency secured eight conviction orders involving 15 people from the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) courts between 2015 to June 2025, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary said in a written statement furnished in Rajya Sabha . He was asked about the details of all cases lodged by the ED since 2015 where charge sheets have not yet been filed in courts, trial of the accused has not started and prosecution has been closed by the federal probe agency. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Physiotherapist: The Fastest Way to Overcome Knee Pain and Swelling Wellnee Undo "During the period from 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2025, the Directorate of Enforcement has taken up 5,892 cases for investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002," the minister said. In these cases, 1,398 prosecution complaints including 353 supplementary charge sheets have been filed before the respective special courts under PMLA, he said. Live Events Out of these, so far, the special courts have framed charges in 300 prosecution complaints including 66 supplementary charge sheets, Chaudhary said. "As on 30.06.2025, the PMLA special courts have convicted 15 persons in 08 conviction orders in these cases," he stated. The reply did not specify the reasons for filing of the closure reports by the ED. According to the scheme of PMLA, money laundering cases are only registered after taking cognisance of a predicate offence or primary case booked under various sections of the IPC or BNS and other laws. The courts have held that if the primary case falls before a court of law, the PMLA case will automatically go away.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Bengaluru Ex Top Cop Won't Be Reinstated In Same Position: Karnataka Minister
Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara on Tuesday said that the former Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayananda, whose suspension has been revoked by the government along with three other police officers, will not be reinstated in the same position, and will be given a post equivalent to his ranking. The Karnataka government on Monday revoked the suspension of four police officers, including Dayananda, who were suspended in connection with the June 4 stampede outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium here, which left 11 people dead, pending the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The officials whose suspensions were revoked are IPS officers: B Dayananda - Additional Director General of Police and Shekar H Tekkannavar - Superintendent of Police. Also, two Karnataka State Police Service officers: C Balakrishna - Dy SP and A K Girish - Police Inspector. However, the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash - Inspector General of Police, stands as proceedings related to his case are currently underway in the Karnataka High Court, official sources said. According to the government order, the suspension has been revoked as both the Judicial Commission and Magisterial committee have completed their inquiry into the stampede incident and submitted their reports to the government, and the officers also have submitted representations requesting to revoke their suspension. They have been reinstated into service with immediate effect, pending the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as per rules, it said. "The report (of judicial commission) was discussed in the cabinet and after the discussion, the cabinet had taken a decision to reinstate them and continue the inquiry (departmental inquiry) against them. So accordingly, they will be reinstated and inquiry will be continued," Parameshwara said. Speaking to reporters here, he said, "One official (Vikash) had gone to CAT, hence he has not got this opportunity. In case directions come to reinstate him or any other directions, it will be considered." Vikash had challenged his suspension before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which revoked the suspension order on July 1. The government has challenged the CAT order in the High Court, and the case is still pending. To a question about whether it was a set back to the state government, the home minister said, "How is it a set back? It (suspension) was our (government) was an administrative decision, it has been inquiry has continued. Let's see what comes out." Asked about whether Dayananda would be reinstated as the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, Parameshwara said, "He will not be given the same position as Commissioner. He will be given an equivalent post to his ranking." The stampede occurred on June 4 evening outside the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru, where a large number of people thronged to participate in the RCB team's IPL victory celebrations. Eleven people died and 56 were injured in the incident. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on June 5 ordered the suspension of five officers.
