Latest news with #CodeofCriminalProcedure
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court acts against woman for hiding facts over divorce settlement: 'Nipped in the bud'
A Delhi court on Monday reportedly initiated criminal proceedings against a woman for allegedly concealing the fact that she received ₹10 lakh during her divorce settlement. The court said that any misuse of the law meant for women's protection had to be 'nipped in the bud,' according to a PTI news agency report. "Complainant has admitted that all the disputes between the parties were already settled before the family court of southeast district and the first motion of divorce by mutual consent was passed on November 22, 2022, pursuant to which, the complainant received a sum of ₹10 lakh, out of the total settlement amount of ₹19 lakh…," judicial magistrate Anam Rais Khan, who was hearing the case said on April 25, as quoted by PTI. The husband was willing to pay the outstanding amount, but these crucial facts were concealed by the complainant in the present petition, the order added. The court said, 'Complainant deliberately did not appear for recording of her statement for the second motion of divorce by mutual consent before the family court.' It further added that the former husband despite paying ₹10 lakh, is standing on the same footing, and the present case was filed after receiving the said amount. There was a prima facie violation of the family court's order and the undertaking given on oath to the family court too. The court called this a sheer abuse of process of law and misuse of provisions enacted for the protection of women. It sought the woman's response after directing separate proceedings against her under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Sections 340 and 195 (1) (b). The next hearing is scheduled on June 30. Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC deals with offences against public justice and offences relating to documents produced in court whereas Section 340 outlines the procedure when a court believes that an inquiry should be made into an offence related to proceedings in that court.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court initiates action against woman for hiding facts over divorce
New Delhi, A Delhi court has initiated criminal proceedings against a woman for allegedly concealing the fact that she received ₹10 lakh during her divorce settlement and said any misuse of the law meant for women's protection had to be nipped in the bud. Judicial Magistrate Anam Rais Khan was hearing a criminal complaint case filed by the woman. In an order dated April 25, made available recently, the court said, "Complainant has admitted that all the disputes between the parties were already settled before the family court of southeast district and the first motion of divorce by mutual consent was passed on November 22, 2022, pursuant to which, the complainant received a sum of ₹10 lakh, out of the total settlement amount of ₹19 lakh…" The estranged husband was willing to pay the outstanding amount, but these crucial facts were concealed by the complainant in the present petition, it noted. "Complainant has also admitted to having already utilised the part-settlement amount of ₹10 lakh and deliberately did not appear for recording of her statement for the second motion of divorce by mutual consent before the family court," the court said. The woman, the court said, derived benefit from the settlement with the estranged husband without honouring the terms of the settlement. "In a nutshell, respondent 1 , despite paying ₹10 lakh, is standing on the same footing, and the present case was filed after receiving the said amount," the order said. The verdict found a prima facie violation of the family court's order and the undertaking given by the woman on oath to the family court aside from an "attempt to deceive the present court" by filing the petition without mentioning the settlement arrived at. "This also amounts to filing of false affidavit before this court by active concealment of material facts and is a sheer abuse of process of law and misuse of provisions enacted for the protection of women. Such conduct cannot be left unchecked and has to be nipped in the bud," the court said. Directing that separate proceedings be initiated against her under Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 340 and 195 , the court sought her response. Section 195 of the CrPC deals with offences against public justice and offences relating to documents produced in court whereas Section 340 outlines the procedure when a court believes that an inquiry should be made into an offence related to proceedings in that court. The court then posted the matter on June 30.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
‘793 victims of crimes deprived of compensations owing to lack of funding by State government'
Nearly 800 victims of crimes, including minor girls and female victims of sexual offences, have been waiting for compensation for the past two years as the State government has failed to release adequate funds to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA), which has the statutory power to disburse the compensation to eligible victims. As per data of the KSLSA, a total of around ₹30 crore is required to pay 793 victims of crime, who were found eligible to receive compensation as per provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). How much is required Of these 793 persons, 209 were found eligible for compensation during 2023-24 and 584 during 2024-25. As per the data, a total of around ₹8 crore is required to pay for 209 victims and ₹22 crore is needed to pay 584 persons, based on the assessment of compensation to which the victims or their family members are entitled to. As per the data, around 400 persons are likely to be added to the list of eligible victims for compensation in 2025-26, as there are about 890 cases before district legal services authorities that attract compensation when the cases are disposed of. The total amount required is around ₹40 to 45 crore, including around ₹30 crore required to clear those waiting for compensation since 2023. Duty of govt. The provisions of the CrPC and the BNSS vest a statutory duty on the State governments to release sufficient funds under the victims' compensation scheme (VCS), and the High Court of Karnataka, in a PIL petition filed in 2017 by People's Movement Against Sexual Assault, had given directions to the government to release funds to the KSLSA under VCS.
Hans India
a day ago
- Hans India
SC discharges hostel in-charge of abetting student's suicide
The Supreme Court has discharged a Tamil Nadu school hostel in-charge, who was accused of abetting a student's suicide. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with an appeal challenging a decision of the Madras High Court, which had rejected the prayer to discharge the appellant for the offence of abetment to suicide under the Indian Penal Code's Section 306. The appellant's counsel contended before the apex court that the appellant had scolded the deceased, due to which the latter had locked himself in a room and hanged himself with a nylon rope. It was argued that the response of the appellant, being the correspondent and in charge of running a school and hostel, was justified, and it was just a chiding as a guardian to ensure that the deceased did not repeat the offence, and there was peace and tranquillity in the hostel. It was further submitted that there was nothing personal between the appellant and the deceased, and such reprimanding was meted out to the deceased only on a complaint by another student. The appellant was accused in an FIR registered by the state police CB-CID for the offences punishable under Sections 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) and 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, charges were framed against him under Section 306. Before the apex court, the counsel representing the Tamil Nadu government "fairly" stated that there did not appear to be any valid ground for charging the appellant for abetment to suicide. In its order, the Supreme Court noted that despite valid service of notice, the complainant, the father of the deceased student, did not appear in the proceedings before the top court. "Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find it a fit case for interference. As has rightly been submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant, no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life," it said. The apex court added that such scolding was the least a correspondent was required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures effected. After considering the factual position, the top court, in its considered opinion, found that no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant with regard to the abetment of suicide committed by the deceased. Allowing the appeal, it directed that "the order framing charge against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC in connection with FIR No.01/2024 registered by CBCID stands set aside. The appellant stands discharged in the said case".
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Plea to cancel Rahul Gandhi's bail bond rejected
1 2 3 Pune: The court of special magistrate Amol Shinde rejected the plea of Satyaki Savarkar, great-grandnephew of Hindu ideologue Veer Damodar Savarkar, to cancel the bail bond of Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The court in its order of May 28 observed that Gandhi was granted permanent exemption from appearing before the court after he was released on bail, and enough grounds were not cited to cancel his bail bond. The court rejected Satyaki's plea because the grounds mentioned by him to cancel Gandhi's bail bond were not justified. The court relied on the Orissa High Court order in the case of Chinmaya Sahu vs State of Orissa, which stated that bail granted under the provisions of Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) could be cancelled by invoking Section 439 (2) of the CrPC. The court order stated that if Satyaki wanted to pray for cancelling the bail bond of Gandhi, he could file a plea under Section 439 (2) of the CrPC. Gandhi's lawyer, Milind Pawar, submitted that the court did not impose any conditions on his client at the time of granting him bail, so there was no question of cancelling his bail bond. The lawyer said his client was facing a charge of criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which was a bailable offence. Satyaki filed the criminal defamation case over alleged objectionable remarks made by the Congress leader against Savarkar in a March 2023 speech in London.
