PLEASE FIRST READ DISCLAIMER
AT BOTTOM*
NOTE:- Advise available for all countries laws vis-a-vis adultery & divorce so if you want divorce from your adulterous wife & want to have Consultation with ATUR CHATUR by paying him the consultation fees then contact him at +91-9873540498 & must also leave an email at ATURCHATUR@YAHOO.COM
(1) Perjury explained very easily by Anindya
here:-
http://zodiac498.blogspot.in/2012/11/
perjury-us-340-crpc-fight-back-tool-for.html?
showComment=1409147819741#c7828881518561012528
(2) Mr. D Arun Kumar
gave valuable tips here :-
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum
/Family-Law-Vs-Perjury-a-quot-aam-adami-s-quot-take--23513.asp#.U_35gJzWJky
(3) Proforma / Sample
by bharatchugh & 498agladiator :-
http://bharatchugh.wordpress.com/2012/08/24
/sampledraft-s-340-crpc-application-for-perjury/
(4) Read this article
also (re: Jessica Lall Murder Case) : Perjury
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.co
m/2013-12-23/news/45510412_1_shayan-munshitwo-gun-theory-murder-case
SOME1:- Perjury is
made as an application & not as a complaint. Hon'ble court will take
cognizance & then
court itself will be the complainant as it is fraud on court.
SOME2:- Perjury needs
to be filed at first available opportunity. Otherwise, if other party files
apology before your
application (re: condonation of perjury) then you cannot file perjury.
Hence, BHAI LOG
KRIPYA KAR K PERJURY LAGANE K LIYE TATPAR RAHEN. Jaise hi
kuchh valid mile,
file the perjury as you know what mananniye mahatma gandhi ji ne kaha tha.
. . . . . . . . . lol
& enjoy the fight against false cases.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
Perjury
- Sworn Affidavit
Those things which
are said/ spoken within sworn affidavit constitute the strongest part of
perjury.
Such perjurious act
doesn't merit condonation even if wife applies for condonation of
perjury
& any rejoinder
in regard thereof must be challenged vehemently through amendment at least i.e.,
one must challenge it within very next & first available opportunity.
Few Perjury Judgments
which can be used or quoted which will be discussed later on below. Keep
reading.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
Is Perjury a Waste of Time ?
SOME1: Family
courts are extremily biased towards women. It will be a himalian task to take
forward prejury case.
you will end up frustrated with poor knowledge lawyer,
insensitive courts
and judges and end up wasting your time in this already clogged up
court system which
rarely delivers justice. Best way is to defend your self and
concentrate on your carrier.
Try to minimize your court visits.
ATURCHATUR: Thanks SOME1,
One should rely on
three things viz., RTI, CRpc 91 & Perjury to break her false cases.
One4 should NOT use
any lawyer & must learn the law & finest aspects of law so that he can
fight all these himself PIP.
i.e., Party in person
Of course one must
try to get out of this mess & minimize court visits but on the same hand it
is also important to break the falsity of these cases which can be done thru
above three
tools.
WHAT I BELIEVE IS :-
(a) That the MM court
itself should try Perjury & hear it before MAIN PLAINT under DV.
(b) If MM doesn't
allow it or keeps it on side for later referral then goto Sessions (Perjury
Revision) without
asking for STAY on Main Case because till this application is with
Sessions then the
file is already with Sessions so it is automatically or at least
understandable stay.
I myself can argue
vehemently on that basis if need be.
(c) Similarly, if problem at
Sessions then HC & SC respectively.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
Perjury
u/s 340 r/w section 312 IPC
I discussed with
SOME1 regarding "Wife arrested for Female Foeticide"
Friends, I have been
advised by SOME1 that, if husband files case of 312 IPC on wife then it
might backfire. But,
I strongly feel that, It won't backfire so far as husband uses her & only
her
statement only. But
that NINDAK (SOME1) has helped me devise a new strategy. I am sharing
for benefit et al as
follows:-
Step 1:- Using CrPC
91 ask wife to present documents in her possession. She will of course
come back with some
weird reply as husband knows that nothing as such happened. Now, you have legal
proof that this is a wild allegation. This is now proved in court of law that
she used this wild allegation with a criminal intent to misled the process of
justice which is an abuse of the process of law.
NINDAK:- This matter
will be put to trial now. So for speedy & effectiveness of this perjury, It
is pertinent to mention some more wild allegations which have been spoken by
her with an intent (civil or criminal intent) to misled the court thereby to
deliver (misdeliver) some justice
(injustice) based on
those facts.
Step 2:- Add those
perjurious facts which have been proved (or which can be easily proved
from her statements
(mis-statements) itself.
Step 3:- Now, You
pursue Perjury PIP vehemently from MM, Sessions, HC to SC.
That's it !!! So
Simple !!! So Fast !!!
In above strategy, I
myself acted as my own NINDAK.
Friends, perjury
experts, et al, pls PM me your inputs.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
One more
success story related to perjury
Delhi High Court
Orders Woman to Pray at Rajghat for a Week to repent Sin
School
Teacher who lied for maintenance from estranged husband faces 3-years in jail
Delhi court sends strong message - Girl and Women to face
legal consequences for falsely accusing and fabricating false evidence
Delhi
court sends strong message - Girl and Women to face legal consequences for
falsely accusing and fabricating false evidence
While digging http://judis.nic.in/ found out that in the fast track Delhi court for POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) majority ~90% cases were false and girls (less than 18 years old) and their mothers or sisters are blatantly abusing the POCSO. This Special law (POCSO) is also being misused and abused freely by women (including Girls) folk to settle the personal score and for oblique motives and is turning out to be another weapon of Legal Terrorism.
Truely Feminism in India has trained Girls to become a part of Legal Terrorism network.
There were other cases where the judge pulled Police for the Shoody investigation which shall be posted soon.
Interesting Media is not highlighting these cases for reasons known to all !
Men and Boys wake up !
-----
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. : 194/13
ID No. : 02401R0596392013
FIR No. : 87/13
Police Station : Gulabi Bagh
Under Section : 323/354/506/34 IPC
r/w Section 8 POCSO
State
Versus
Karnail Singh
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Pal
R/o 10613, Gali No. 5
Pratap Nagar, Delhi
.........Accused No. 1
Deepa
W/o Karnail Singh
R/o 10613, Gali No. 5
Pratap Nagar, Delhi
.........Accused No. 2
Date of Institution : 21.11.2013
Date of judgment : 19.05.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. Sachin Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Sethi,
Advocate, counsel for both the accused persons.
While digging http://judis.nic.in/ found out that in the fast track Delhi court for POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) majority ~90% cases were false and girls (less than 18 years old) and their mothers or sisters are blatantly abusing the POCSO. This Special law (POCSO) is also being misused and abused freely by women (including Girls) folk to settle the personal score and for oblique motives and is turning out to be another weapon of Legal Terrorism.
Truely Feminism in India has trained Girls to become a part of Legal Terrorism network.
There were other cases where the judge pulled Police for the Shoody investigation which shall be posted soon.
Interesting Media is not highlighting these cases for reasons known to all !
Men and Boys wake up !
-----
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. : 194/13
ID No. : 02401R0596392013
FIR No. : 87/13
Police Station : Gulabi Bagh
Under Section : 323/354/506/34 IPC
r/w Section 8 POCSO
State
Versus
Karnail Singh
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Pal
R/o 10613, Gali No. 5
Pratap Nagar, Delhi
.........Accused No. 1
Deepa
W/o Karnail Singh
R/o 10613, Gali No. 5
Pratap Nagar, Delhi
.........Accused No. 2
Date of Institution : 21.11.2013
Date of judgment : 19.05.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. Sachin Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Sethi,
Advocate, counsel for both the accused persons.
Source:-
http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.in/2014/06/delhi-court-sends-strong-message-girl.html?m=1
Important
Extracts from the judgment:-
24. As already stated that PW1, PW2 and PW3 either made
false evidence before this Court or before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on
oath under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Prima-facie their act amounts giving false
evidence and fabricating false evidence as defined under Section 191 and 192
IPC. Indisputably, statements before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under
Section 164 Cr. P.C. and the complaint Ex.PW1/B were made within an intention
that the same shall be used during judicial proceeding against the accused
persons, thus prima-facie complainant and her sisters (PW2 and PW3) have
committed an offence punishable under Section 193 IPC.
26. Nodoubt, under Section 22 of POCSO Act, no action
can be taken against a child if child makes a false complaint or provides false
information. To my mind, police cannot take any action against any child, if
during investigation, it is revealed that the child had made a false complaint
or information provided by him/her is false. But this does not empowers a child
to make a false deposition in judicial proceeding. This further clears from
Section 22 (1) of POCSO Act because the maximum sentence to furnish false
information is up to six months or with a fine or both whereas to make a false
statement on oath before the Court and to give false evidence or fabricate
false evidence is punishable for imprisonment which may extend upto 7 years.
This further makes it clear that Section 22 of POCSO Act does not empowers a
child witness to make a false statement in judicial proceeding. Thus, I am of
the view that Section 22 of the POCSO Act does not prevent the Court in any
manner from proceeding even against the child witness, if there are sufficient
reasons to believe that the child witness has made a false evidence or created
a false or fabricated circumstance. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed
out that in instant case PW2 was not a child at the time when she graced the
witness box on April 24, 2014.
28. Needlessto say that witnesses play a significant
role in the administration of criminal justice. If witnesses be permitted to
behave in such a irresponsible manner, it will become just impossible for
courts to impart justice. If they (PW1 to PW3) have settled their dispute with
accused persons out of the Court, they should have approached the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in accordance with law for quashing of proceedings instead of
making a false statement before the Court. It is pertinent to state that
witnesses did not depose that they have settled the dispute with the accused
persons. If witnesses like PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not checked or dealt with
sternly wrong message would disseminate among public at large that witnesses
can take somersault during trial at any point of time as per their whims and
fancies without facing any consequences, thus, I am of the considered opinion
that PW1, PW2 and PW3 deserve to face the consequences of their wrongful act.
29. Inview the above discussion, I am of the considered
opinion that prima-facie there are sufficient material on record to show that
PW1, PW2 and PW3 had committed the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC.
Since, a complaint under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure is required to
take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 193 Indian Penal Code,
this Court authorises Reader of the Court i.e.Sh. Amit Sharma to file a
complaint against PW1 (Renu), PW2 (Barkha) and PW3 (Kiran) on behalf of this
Court for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC before the Court of
learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He is further directed to submit the
compliance report within three weeks from the date of judgment.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
PERJURY
APPLICATION
PERJURY
APPLICATION
DISTRICT: XXXXXX.
In the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Xth Court, 1st class, at Santinagar.
Ref: Case No M - XXX of 2014.
Smt. Kalangkini Miglani/Wife.
…………….Petitioner
Vs
Mr. Laxmiaprikash Miglani/Husband.
…………Opp, Party in-person.
Application on behalf of the Oppsite-Party/Husband under section 340 CrPC read with section 195 CrPC
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the OP husband with a view to restore his marital life at least for the sake of the child filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights on June-2010 whereas in reply the Petitioner-wife filed Maintenance case U/s 125 CrPC on August-2010 only to intentionally harass and extort and extract money from the OP husband without paying any heed to the future of the child.
2. During the pendency of the said suit the petitioner- wife set in motion the instant proceeding for interim maintenance for herself and the child on the basis of false and concocted stories which are self contradictory on the face of it.
3. That the OP-husband intends to challenge the instant proceeding for which he has already filed his written objection controverting the reckless allegations contained therein. The petitioner has not filed any re-joinder to such objection till this date.
4. That it is now well known that for wrongful gain and for settling scores in sinuous and seductive depositions are in abundance before the courts now a day. The present application under section 125 CrPC, by the petitioner-wife is one such petition. The respondent has already shown in his reply to the application under section 125 CrPC, how the applicant has come up with suppression of material facts and false depositions/ unclean hands. The proceeding under section 125 CrPC and FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy (Annexure-R2) is false, fabricated and with intent to extort and extract money from the OP Husband. The basic contents of both the complaints are self-contradictory. The intent of this interim maintenance on the basis of only being the OP Husband - an able bodied person is to annoy, injure and harass him to such a degree so as to compel the OP Husband/ applicant to part with his earnings.
5. That the petitioner in her petition of 125 CrPC in respect of the instant proceeding has reiterated the same false allegations. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that the OP-husband and his relatives pressurised her for dowry whereas there is no such mentioning of demand of dowry in aforesaid FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy and Final Charge-Sheet No. XXX (Annexure-R2). It is thereby submitted that the petitioner, Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement for demand of dowry to be given to the OP Husband /applicant so as to give credence to her theory that there were cash and valuables transaction at and after the time of marriage.
DISTRICT: XXXXXX.
In the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Xth Court, 1st class, at Santinagar.
Ref: Case No M - XXX of 2014.
Smt. Kalangkini Miglani/Wife.
…………….Petitioner
Vs
Mr. Laxmiaprikash Miglani/Husband.
…………Opp, Party in-person.
Application on behalf of the Oppsite-Party/Husband under section 340 CrPC read with section 195 CrPC
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the OP husband with a view to restore his marital life at least for the sake of the child filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights on June-2010 whereas in reply the Petitioner-wife filed Maintenance case U/s 125 CrPC on August-2010 only to intentionally harass and extort and extract money from the OP husband without paying any heed to the future of the child.
2. During the pendency of the said suit the petitioner- wife set in motion the instant proceeding for interim maintenance for herself and the child on the basis of false and concocted stories which are self contradictory on the face of it.
3. That the OP-husband intends to challenge the instant proceeding for which he has already filed his written objection controverting the reckless allegations contained therein. The petitioner has not filed any re-joinder to such objection till this date.
4. That it is now well known that for wrongful gain and for settling scores in sinuous and seductive depositions are in abundance before the courts now a day. The present application under section 125 CrPC, by the petitioner-wife is one such petition. The respondent has already shown in his reply to the application under section 125 CrPC, how the applicant has come up with suppression of material facts and false depositions/ unclean hands. The proceeding under section 125 CrPC and FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy (Annexure-R2) is false, fabricated and with intent to extort and extract money from the OP Husband. The basic contents of both the complaints are self-contradictory. The intent of this interim maintenance on the basis of only being the OP Husband - an able bodied person is to annoy, injure and harass him to such a degree so as to compel the OP Husband/ applicant to part with his earnings.
5. That the petitioner in her petition of 125 CrPC in respect of the instant proceeding has reiterated the same false allegations. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that the OP-husband and his relatives pressurised her for dowry whereas there is no such mentioning of demand of dowry in aforesaid FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy and Final Charge-Sheet No. XXX (Annexure-R2). It is thereby submitted that the petitioner, Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement for demand of dowry to be given to the OP Husband /applicant so as to give credence to her theory that there were cash and valuables transaction at and after the time of marriage.
6.
That in paragraph 24 of the petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has
alleged that she was not maintained financially which is another instance of
perjury made with a view to mislead the court for the purpose of unlawful gain.
The OP-husband sent on three occasions sent money to the tune of Rs. 1500/-, Rs
2000/- , Rs 1500/- vide Money Order to the petitioner which the petitioner-wife
refused to accept. The bank statement of joint a/c being no 2000200022
disproves such allegation. The receipts of such MO is attached herewith as Annexure-R1.
7. That It is thereby submitted that the petitioner, Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement for the allegation of not sending money and thereby suppressing the fact of sending money she has attempted to extract the money out of the OP Husband/ Applicant.
8. That in paragraph 11 and 12 of the petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that she was tortured during her pregnancy and was harassed in the hospital which is a strong ground of committing perjury by her as her treatment was duly done at XYZ Hospital at the expense of the OP Husband. The pious intention of the OP Husband is proved by the fact that the petitioner-wife was not admitted in some local government hospital during her pregnancy. She was given best medical treatment during pregnancy. The copy of birth certificate issued from XYZ Hospital of the girl child is enclosed herewith Annexure R3.
9. That in paragraph 8 and 19 of the petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that several negotiations for restoring the conjugal life were made from the parents of the petitioner-wife and several diaries had been lodged in the Santinagar PS by the petitioner-wife which is false as no such copies of diaries has been annexed in her petition of 125 CrPC. but the OP Husband has filed G.D. Vide No. GDE. 123 dated 01rd May, 2013 at Santinagar Police Station after being assaulted by the petitioner’s parents when he went to bring the petitioner back to her matrimonial house only to assist him during his father’s accidental recovery in Calcutta Medical Hospital (Accident date 1st April 2009 – death on 7th June 2009). So thereby submitted that the petitioner, Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement in paragraph 8 and 19.
10. That in paragraph 16 of her petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that she was instigated for committing suicide by way of torture, assault, abusive and slang languages by the OP Husband which is totally false and fabricated story framed by the petitioner as she had not given any statement of such suicide in her FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy (Annexure-R2). Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement in paragraph 16.
11. That in paragraph 10 of her petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that OP Husband had some intimacy with another woman whereas no name and address is mentioned in the petition of 125 CrPC so the statement made by the petitioner is wrong and is ground of perjury.
12. That in paragraph 9 of her petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that the torture of the OP Husband was severe upon her and she had been digesting the pills of torture with is again false and is ground of perjury as she left her matrimonial home 5 months before she filed the false FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy (Annexure-R2). She continually refused to take money sent by money-order during her stay at her parental house. The receipts of such MO is attached herewith as Annexure-R1.
7. That It is thereby submitted that the petitioner, Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement for the allegation of not sending money and thereby suppressing the fact of sending money she has attempted to extract the money out of the OP Husband/ Applicant.
8. That in paragraph 11 and 12 of the petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that she was tortured during her pregnancy and was harassed in the hospital which is a strong ground of committing perjury by her as her treatment was duly done at XYZ Hospital at the expense of the OP Husband. The pious intention of the OP Husband is proved by the fact that the petitioner-wife was not admitted in some local government hospital during her pregnancy. She was given best medical treatment during pregnancy. The copy of birth certificate issued from XYZ Hospital of the girl child is enclosed herewith Annexure R3.
9. That in paragraph 8 and 19 of the petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that several negotiations for restoring the conjugal life were made from the parents of the petitioner-wife and several diaries had been lodged in the Santinagar PS by the petitioner-wife which is false as no such copies of diaries has been annexed in her petition of 125 CrPC. but the OP Husband has filed G.D. Vide No. GDE. 123 dated 01rd May, 2013 at Santinagar Police Station after being assaulted by the petitioner’s parents when he went to bring the petitioner back to her matrimonial house only to assist him during his father’s accidental recovery in Calcutta Medical Hospital (Accident date 1st April 2009 – death on 7th June 2009). So thereby submitted that the petitioner, Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement in paragraph 8 and 19.
10. That in paragraph 16 of her petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that she was instigated for committing suicide by way of torture, assault, abusive and slang languages by the OP Husband which is totally false and fabricated story framed by the petitioner as she had not given any statement of such suicide in her FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy (Annexure-R2). Smt. Kalangkini Miglani has committed perjury by knowingly making false statement in paragraph 16.
11. That in paragraph 10 of her petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that OP Husband had some intimacy with another woman whereas no name and address is mentioned in the petition of 125 CrPC so the statement made by the petitioner is wrong and is ground of perjury.
12. That in paragraph 9 of her petition of 125 CrPC the petitioner-wife has alleged that the torture of the OP Husband was severe upon her and she had been digesting the pills of torture with is again false and is ground of perjury as she left her matrimonial home 5 months before she filed the false FIR No. XXX u/s 498a, 406 dated dd.mm.yyyy (Annexure-R2). She continually refused to take money sent by money-order during her stay at her parental house. The receipts of such MO is attached herewith as Annexure-R1.
P R A Y E R
In the circumstances aforesaid,
a. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court exercise its powers U/s 340 Cr.P.C. in the expediency of Justice.
b. As the false dispositions are shown to affect the course of the proceedings, the applicant prays that this application may be given priority over the parent case.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Laxmiprakash Miglani son of Late Laxminarayan Miglani, aged about XX years, by religion - Hindu, by occupation service, presently residing at Santinagar, , Shivpore, Pin-700XXX, West Bengal, P.S.- Santinagar do hereby solemnly affirm state and declare as follows:
1. That I am the OP/husband of this instant case and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That all the facts, figures and circumstances and contents of the foregoing paragraphs 1 to 12 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and the remaining are my humble submission made before this Learned Court.
Prepared by me.
(In Person)
_______________________
Deponent
Is known to me.
Advocate.
In the circumstances aforesaid,
a. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court exercise its powers U/s 340 Cr.P.C. in the expediency of Justice.
b. As the false dispositions are shown to affect the course of the proceedings, the applicant prays that this application may be given priority over the parent case.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Laxmiprakash Miglani son of Late Laxminarayan Miglani, aged about XX years, by religion - Hindu, by occupation service, presently residing at Santinagar, , Shivpore, Pin-700XXX, West Bengal, P.S.- Santinagar do hereby solemnly affirm state and declare as follows:
1. That I am the OP/husband of this instant case and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That all the facts, figures and circumstances and contents of the foregoing paragraphs 1 to 12 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and the remaining are my humble submission made before this Learned Court.
Prepared by me.
(In Person)
_______________________
Deponent
Is known to me.
Advocate.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
No one should
indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods :
2 weeks Jail
No one
should indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated
falsehoods : 2 weeks Jail
Supreme Court of India
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 421, JT 1994 (7) 459
Author: H B.L.
Bench: Hansaria B.L. (J)
PETITIONER:
CHANDRA SHASHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ANIL KUMAR VERMA
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1994
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (1) 421 JT 1994 (7) 459
1994 SCALE (4)944
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.L. HANSARIA, J.- The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, 424 required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2.Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
3.These prefatory remarks well project the importance of the point under consideration in this suo motu contempt action taken against respondent Anil Kumar for his having filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial proceeding from Delhi to Unnao. It shall be first required to be seen whether Anil did file a fabricated document and then we shall address ourselves as to whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud amounts to contempt of court, as this expression has been defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act).
4.Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, we entertain no doubt, as the case put by Anil contemner in his show- cause that the Experience Certificate dated 4-3-1993 purportedly from the Principal, V.S.S.M. Inter College, Moti Nagar, Unnao, had been signed by Khem Chandra, the Principal, is not acceptable on the face of the affidavit of the Principal himself, according to whom, the certificate is a "forged and fabricated document". The averments in the show-cause filed by Anil, after issuance of contempt notice, that he had contacted one A.K. Mathur, working as Additional General Manager in Ordnance Factory at Kanpur, who in turn spoke to one V.K. Upadhyay, Manager of the Armapur Gas Agency at Kanpur, who ultimately obtained the certificate, have nothing to commend inasmuch as the contemner has not been successful, despite opportunity having been given, to produce any supporting material either from Shri Mathur or Shri Upadhyay. The further statement in the show-cause that three other teachers of the College used to sign in the name and as Khem Chandra and that Shri Khem Chandra, the Principal himself, signed in different styles has really made the matter worse. These averments made in the show- cause do not merit acceptance and we entertain no doubt that Anil had filed a forged and fabricated document to resist the prayer of his wife to get the matrimonial proceeding transferred on the ground of her poverty i.e. it was done with an oblique motive.
5.The real question is whether filing of the aforesaid forged and fabricated document amounts to contempt. According to Shri Gangull, appearing for Anil Kumar, this does not. Let it be seen whether the contention advanced by Shri Ganguli is tenable.
Supreme Court of India
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 421, JT 1994 (7) 459
Author: H B.L.
Bench: Hansaria B.L. (J)
PETITIONER:
CHANDRA SHASHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ANIL KUMAR VERMA
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1994
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (1) 421 JT 1994 (7) 459
1994 SCALE (4)944
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.L. HANSARIA, J.- The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, 424 required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2.Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
3.These prefatory remarks well project the importance of the point under consideration in this suo motu contempt action taken against respondent Anil Kumar for his having filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial proceeding from Delhi to Unnao. It shall be first required to be seen whether Anil did file a fabricated document and then we shall address ourselves as to whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud amounts to contempt of court, as this expression has been defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act).
4.Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, we entertain no doubt, as the case put by Anil contemner in his show- cause that the Experience Certificate dated 4-3-1993 purportedly from the Principal, V.S.S.M. Inter College, Moti Nagar, Unnao, had been signed by Khem Chandra, the Principal, is not acceptable on the face of the affidavit of the Principal himself, according to whom, the certificate is a "forged and fabricated document". The averments in the show-cause filed by Anil, after issuance of contempt notice, that he had contacted one A.K. Mathur, working as Additional General Manager in Ordnance Factory at Kanpur, who in turn spoke to one V.K. Upadhyay, Manager of the Armapur Gas Agency at Kanpur, who ultimately obtained the certificate, have nothing to commend inasmuch as the contemner has not been successful, despite opportunity having been given, to produce any supporting material either from Shri Mathur or Shri Upadhyay. The further statement in the show-cause that three other teachers of the College used to sign in the name and as Khem Chandra and that Shri Khem Chandra, the Principal himself, signed in different styles has really made the matter worse. These averments made in the show- cause do not merit acceptance and we entertain no doubt that Anil had filed a forged and fabricated document to resist the prayer of his wife to get the matrimonial proceeding transferred on the ground of her poverty i.e. it was done with an oblique motive.
5.The real question is whether filing of the aforesaid forged and fabricated document amounts to contempt. According to Shri Gangull, appearing for Anil Kumar, this does not. Let it be seen whether the contention advanced by Shri Ganguli is tenable.
6.In
Section 2(a) of the Act "contempt of court" has been said to mean
civil contempt or criminal contempt. The latter expression has been defined in
Section 2(c) to mean the publication of a matter which, inter alia, 425 interferes
or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding, or interferes
or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice.
7.There being no decision of this Court (or for that matter of any High Court) to our knowledge on this point, the same is required to be examined as a matter of first principle. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James's Evening Post case) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.2:
.LM15
"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperilled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted that their authority wanes and is supplanted."
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.
9. The aforesaid thoughts receive due support from the definition of criminal contempt as given in Section 2(c) of the Act, according to which an act would amount be so if, inter alia, the same interferes or tends to interfere, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. The word 'interfere', means in the context of the subject, any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty, as stated at p. 255 of Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn.), Vol.
22. As per what has been stated in the aforesaid work at p. 147 of Vol. 29 obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments, or to hinder, impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent the administration of justice. 1 (1742) 2 Atk 469: 26 ER 683 2_ 1974 AC 273, 302: (1973) 3 All ER 54, 66: (1973) 3 WLR 298 426
Now, if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do.
7.There being no decision of this Court (or for that matter of any High Court) to our knowledge on this point, the same is required to be examined as a matter of first principle. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James's Evening Post case) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.2:
.LM15
"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperilled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted that their authority wanes and is supplanted."
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.
9. The aforesaid thoughts receive due support from the definition of criminal contempt as given in Section 2(c) of the Act, according to which an act would amount be so if, inter alia, the same interferes or tends to interfere, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. The word 'interfere', means in the context of the subject, any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty, as stated at p. 255 of Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn.), Vol.
22. As per what has been stated in the aforesaid work at p. 147 of Vol. 29 obstruction of justice is to interpose obstacles or impediments, or to hinder, impede or in any manner interrupt or prevent the administration of justice. 1 (1742) 2 Atk 469: 26 ER 683 2_ 1974 AC 273, 302: (1973) 3 All ER 54, 66: (1973) 3 WLR 298 426
Now, if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive, the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even flow of justice and would prevent the courts from performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do.
10. A
reference to standard textbooks on contempt, to wit, C.J. Miller's Contempt of
Court; Oswald's Contempt of Court; and Anthony Arlidge & David Eady's The
Law of Contempt would amply bear what has been stated above; and that if a
forged and fabricated document is filed, the same may amount to interference
with the administration of justice. Of course, for the act to take this colour
there is required to be an element of deceit or the knowledge of the statement
being forged or fabricated. This is what finds place at pages 399 to 401 (2nd
Edn.); page 62 (1993 Reprint); and pages 186 and 188 (1982 Edn.) respectively
of the aforesaid treatises.
11. These statements are based on some important decided cases. It would be enough for our purpose to note two such decisions, one of which is by the Privy Council and the other by a King's Bench Division.
12. In the Privy Council case titled Moses Amado Taylor, Re3 which was on appeal from the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, what had happened was that the appellant, a barrister, who had enrolled as solicitor of the Supreme Court of the said Colony, applied to the Acting Chief Justice for a warrant for the arrest of one Wright on the ground that he was about to leave the settlement, despite his owing some money to his client. This prayer was rejected. Subsequently, an application was made to one of the police magistrates for a warrant for the arrest of the same person upon a criminal charge of assault and a warrant was issued accordingly. As the Acting Chief Justice had earlier refused the warrant, the Supreme Court felt that the entire proceeding initiated by the appellant was an abuse to the process of justice and it was held that the appellant, by initiating the criminal proceedings, was influenced by the intention of defying the Acting Chief Justice who refused the civil warrant of arrest; and being of this view the appellant was held guilty of contempt and his name was ordered to be removed from the roll of barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court in question, apart from being fined. On appeal being preferred to the Privy Council, it was held that as the evidence did not show any intent to defraud on the part of the appellant no contempt was committed; at the most he had committed an irregularity for which some pecuniary penalty was adequate punishment. The importance of this case for our purpose is that had the Privy Council felt satisfied about intent to defraud, the appeal would have been dismissed and the view taken by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone that the appellant was guilty of contempt would have been upheld. What emerges from this decision is that if a person does anything to defraud the court, he commits its contempt.
13. The King's Bench judgment was rendered in R. v. Weisz, ex p Hector MacDonald Ltd.4 Lord Goddard, C.J. (speaking for the Court) held the action of the type, which was one of recovery of money on the basis of 3 1912 AC 347: 81 LJPC 169 : 105 LT 973 : 28 TLR 204, PC 4 (1951) 2 KB 611 :(1951) 2 All ER 408 427 account stated though there was none, as an abuse of the process of the court but not per se a contempt. It was however added that if the attempt were to deceive by disguising the true nature of the claim, the same would be contempt. On the facts of the case it was found that the solicitor firm had committed contempt as it had endorsed the writ (which was for money won at betting) for a fictitious, though apparently a legal cause of action, as Parliament had ordained that courts are not to be used for realising such monies. The action was, therefore, regarded as an interference with, or distortion of, the course of justice. (A different view was, however, taken insofar as the litigant himself was concerned as he had done nothing to bring a feigned issue before the court.)
11. These statements are based on some important decided cases. It would be enough for our purpose to note two such decisions, one of which is by the Privy Council and the other by a King's Bench Division.
12. In the Privy Council case titled Moses Amado Taylor, Re3 which was on appeal from the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, what had happened was that the appellant, a barrister, who had enrolled as solicitor of the Supreme Court of the said Colony, applied to the Acting Chief Justice for a warrant for the arrest of one Wright on the ground that he was about to leave the settlement, despite his owing some money to his client. This prayer was rejected. Subsequently, an application was made to one of the police magistrates for a warrant for the arrest of the same person upon a criminal charge of assault and a warrant was issued accordingly. As the Acting Chief Justice had earlier refused the warrant, the Supreme Court felt that the entire proceeding initiated by the appellant was an abuse to the process of justice and it was held that the appellant, by initiating the criminal proceedings, was influenced by the intention of defying the Acting Chief Justice who refused the civil warrant of arrest; and being of this view the appellant was held guilty of contempt and his name was ordered to be removed from the roll of barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court in question, apart from being fined. On appeal being preferred to the Privy Council, it was held that as the evidence did not show any intent to defraud on the part of the appellant no contempt was committed; at the most he had committed an irregularity for which some pecuniary penalty was adequate punishment. The importance of this case for our purpose is that had the Privy Council felt satisfied about intent to defraud, the appeal would have been dismissed and the view taken by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone that the appellant was guilty of contempt would have been upheld. What emerges from this decision is that if a person does anything to defraud the court, he commits its contempt.
13. The King's Bench judgment was rendered in R. v. Weisz, ex p Hector MacDonald Ltd.4 Lord Goddard, C.J. (speaking for the Court) held the action of the type, which was one of recovery of money on the basis of 3 1912 AC 347: 81 LJPC 169 : 105 LT 973 : 28 TLR 204, PC 4 (1951) 2 KB 611 :(1951) 2 All ER 408 427 account stated though there was none, as an abuse of the process of the court but not per se a contempt. It was however added that if the attempt were to deceive by disguising the true nature of the claim, the same would be contempt. On the facts of the case it was found that the solicitor firm had committed contempt as it had endorsed the writ (which was for money won at betting) for a fictitious, though apparently a legal cause of action, as Parliament had ordained that courts are not to be used for realising such monies. The action was, therefore, regarded as an interference with, or distortion of, the course of justice. (A different view was, however, taken insofar as the litigant himself was concerned as he had done nothing to bring a feigned issue before the court.)
14.The
legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court
or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it
would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to
interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document
is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated
document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ
large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.
15.Before applying our mind to the question of sentence, we would advert to an offer of unconditional apology tendered by Anil Kumar in his affidavit filed on 29-10-1994. A perusal of the same shows that this was done after the deponent formed an impression, when the matter was argued in court in his presence on 24th October, 1994 (on which date the judgment was also reserved), that we were of the view that he had committed wrong. The affidavit further states that if he would be punished, his life would "get shattered", as after his divorce proceeding was completed recently he could secure a job and has started his "life afresh". Thus, the apology tendered is not a product of remorse or contrition, which it has to be to merit acceptance, as stated in M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana5 in which case it was also pointed out that an apology merely to protect against rigours of law is no apology. In Major General B.M. Bhattacharjee v. Russel Estate Corpn.6 an "unconditional apology" while trying to justify the act (similar is the position here as would appear from the averments made in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid affidavit) was not accepted. Recently, in K.A. Mohammed Ali v. C.N. Prasannan7, a belated apology sought was refused.
16.Had the contemner shown real contriteness and regret for the act done, we would have perhaps accepted his apology; but as it cannot be used as a weapon of defence to get purged of the guilt, which precisely the contemner has sought to do as he desires to avoid worldly suffering which would follow if sentenced, we reject his offer and proceed to decide the question of sentence. Let it be first seen whether sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. In our view, such a sentence would not be conducive to 5 (1991) 3 SCC 600: 1991 SCC (Cri) 897 6 (1993) 2 SCC 533 7 1994 Supp (3) SCC 509 : JT (1994) 6 SC 584 428 the larger cause of maintenance of purity in the portals of court inasmuch as if a fabricated document with oblique motive can be filed in the Apex Court, a serious view for the same has to be taken to maintain a modicum of fairness in courts below. This apart, the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching courts from doing so. Such a tendency is required to be curbed, which requires somewhat deterrent sentence.
15.Before applying our mind to the question of sentence, we would advert to an offer of unconditional apology tendered by Anil Kumar in his affidavit filed on 29-10-1994. A perusal of the same shows that this was done after the deponent formed an impression, when the matter was argued in court in his presence on 24th October, 1994 (on which date the judgment was also reserved), that we were of the view that he had committed wrong. The affidavit further states that if he would be punished, his life would "get shattered", as after his divorce proceeding was completed recently he could secure a job and has started his "life afresh". Thus, the apology tendered is not a product of remorse or contrition, which it has to be to merit acceptance, as stated in M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana5 in which case it was also pointed out that an apology merely to protect against rigours of law is no apology. In Major General B.M. Bhattacharjee v. Russel Estate Corpn.6 an "unconditional apology" while trying to justify the act (similar is the position here as would appear from the averments made in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid affidavit) was not accepted. Recently, in K.A. Mohammed Ali v. C.N. Prasannan7, a belated apology sought was refused.
16.Had the contemner shown real contriteness and regret for the act done, we would have perhaps accepted his apology; but as it cannot be used as a weapon of defence to get purged of the guilt, which precisely the contemner has sought to do as he desires to avoid worldly suffering which would follow if sentenced, we reject his offer and proceed to decide the question of sentence. Let it be first seen whether sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. In our view, such a sentence would not be conducive to 5 (1991) 3 SCC 600: 1991 SCC (Cri) 897 6 (1993) 2 SCC 533 7 1994 Supp (3) SCC 509 : JT (1994) 6 SC 584 428 the larger cause of maintenance of purity in the portals of court inasmuch as if a fabricated document with oblique motive can be filed in the Apex Court, a serious view for the same has to be taken to maintain a modicum of fairness in courts below. This apart, the increasing tendency of taking recourse to objectionable means to get a favourable verdict in the courts has to be viewed gravely to deter the large number of persons approaching courts from doing so. Such a tendency is required to be curbed, which requires somewhat deterrent sentence.
17.Keeping
in view the above, we award sentence of two weeks' imprisonment to the
contemner. We would have indeed awarded a longer period of incarceration
because of the gravity of contumacious act fabrication of document to defeat
just cause of an adversary and thereby seriously affecting the purity of
courts' proceeding but we have refrained from doing so as this is the first
occasion in free India when this Court (for that matter may be any court of the
country) has felt called upon to send a person like the contemner behind iron
bars in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. We have restricted the period of
imprisonment to two weeks in the hope that the incarceration of this contemner
will work- as eye-opener and no court will henceforth feel constrained and to
do so in any other case. We have traversed the untreaded path guardedly,
because the assumption of contempt jurisdiction by a court requires zealous and
careful movement as the affected party faces a summary trial and the prosecutor
himself acts as a judge.
18. The proceeding stands disposed of accordingly. 433
18. The proceeding stands disposed of accordingly. 433
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
UNCLEAN
HANDS JUDGMENT
unclean
hands judgment
Supreme Court of India
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008
Author: . A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. OF 2008 (CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NOS.8515-8516 OF
2008) Mahila Vinod Kumar i ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh .....Respondent JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Though, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petitions, but we find that there is a need for expressing views on action to be taken for maliciously setting law into motion.
4. The petitioner lodged a report against two persons at Pichhore Police Station to the effect that on 28.1.1993 between 6.00 to 7.00 a.m. she was waylaid by them who dragged her and committed rape on her, one after another. She claimed to have narrated the incident to her father and uncle and, thereafter lodged the report at the police station. On the basis of the report, matter was investigated. The accused persons were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC'). The accused persons abjured their guilt. During trial, the petitioner stated that she had actually not been raped. As she resiled from the statement made during investigation, she was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. She even denied to have lodged the first information report (Exh.P-1) and to have given any statement to the police (Exh.P-2). In view of the statement of the petitioner, the two accused persons were acquitted by judgment dated 28.11.2001. The Trial Court found that the 2 petitioner had tendered false evidence and had fabricated evidence against the accused persons with the intention that such evidence shall be used in the proceedings, and, therefore, directed cognizance in terms of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code') to be taken against the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued and the case was registered against the petitioner who filed reply to the effect that being an illiterate lady, she had committed the mistake and may be excused. The Trial Court found that
the petitioner admitted her guilt that she had lodged false report of rape against the accused. She was, accordingly, sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, by the impugned order, was dismissed.
Supreme Court of India
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008
Author: . A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. OF 2008 (CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NOS.8515-8516 OF
2008) Mahila Vinod Kumar i ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh .....Respondent JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Though, we are not inclined to entertain the special leave petitions, but we find that there is a need for expressing views on action to be taken for maliciously setting law into motion.
4. The petitioner lodged a report against two persons at Pichhore Police Station to the effect that on 28.1.1993 between 6.00 to 7.00 a.m. she was waylaid by them who dragged her and committed rape on her, one after another. She claimed to have narrated the incident to her father and uncle and, thereafter lodged the report at the police station. On the basis of the report, matter was investigated. The accused persons were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed. The accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC'). The accused persons abjured their guilt. During trial, the petitioner stated that she had actually not been raped. As she resiled from the statement made during investigation, she was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. She even denied to have lodged the first information report (Exh.P-1) and to have given any statement to the police (Exh.P-2). In view of the statement of the petitioner, the two accused persons were acquitted by judgment dated 28.11.2001. The Trial Court found that the 2 petitioner had tendered false evidence and had fabricated evidence against the accused persons with the intention that such evidence shall be used in the proceedings, and, therefore, directed cognizance in terms of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code') to be taken against the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued and the case was registered against the petitioner who filed reply to the effect that being an illiterate lady, she had committed the mistake and may be excused. The Trial Court found that
the petitioner admitted her guilt that she had lodged false report of rape against the accused. She was, accordingly, sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which, by the impugned order, was dismissed.
5.
Stand before the High Court was that being an illiterate lady, she does not
understand law and the particulars of the offence were not explained to her
and, therefore, the appeal should be allowed. This was opposed by the State on
the 3 Mahila Vinod Kumari vs
State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/46073/1 ground that the petitioner had admitted her guilt before the
Trial Court and, therefore, the conviction is well founded. The High Court
perused the records of the Trial Court and found that in the show-cause reply
she had admitted that she had told lies all through. The stand that the
particulars of the offence were not explained to her, was found to be equally
untenable, because in the show-cause notice issued, relevant details were given.
In the first information report, and the statement recorded by the police, she
had clearly stated that she was raped by the accused persons. But in Court she
denied to have stated so. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Court imposed 15 days' simple imprisonment which is harsh. But that is not the end
of the matter. The petitioner filed an application before the High Court
stating that a wrong statement was made before the High Court that she had
already suffered custody for 15 days, which weighed with the High Court to
reduce the sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that being a girl of tender age, she was pressurized by her mother and uncle to give a false report. This is at variance with the statement made in court during trial to the effect that she had not reported anything to the police. It is a settled position in law that so far as sexual offences are concerned, sanctity is attached to the statement of a victim. This Court, has, in several cases, held that the evidence of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient for the purpose of conviction if it is found to be reliable, cogent and credible. In the present case, on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner, two persons were arrested and had to face trial and suffered the ignominy of being involved in a serious offence like rape. Their acquittal, may, to a certain extent, have washed away the stigma, but that is not enough. The purpose of enacting Section 344, Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as `the Old Code') appears to be further arm the Court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the weapon already in its possession. The object of the legislature underlying enactment of the provision is that the evil of perjury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated and can be better achieved now as it is open to the courts to take recourse to Section 340(1) (corresponding to Section 476 of the Old Code) in cases in which they are failed to take action under Section 344 Cr.P.C.
7.
This section introduces an additional alternative procedure to punish perjury
by the very Court before which it is committed in place of old Section 479 A
which did not have the desired effect to eradicate the evils of perjury. The
salient features of this new provision are:
(1) Special powers have been conferred on two specified Courts, namely Court of Session and Magistrate of the First Class, to take cognizance of an offence of perjury committed by a witness in a proceeding before it instead of filing a complaint before a Magistrate and try and punish the offender by following the procedure of summary trials. For summary trial, see Ch. 21. 6 (2) This power is to be exercised after having the matter considered by the Court only at the time of delivery of the judgment or final order.
(3) The offender shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before he is punished.
(4) The maximum sentence that may be imposed is 3 month's imprisonment or a fine up to Rs.500 or both.
(1) Special powers have been conferred on two specified Courts, namely Court of Session and Magistrate of the First Class, to take cognizance of an offence of perjury committed by a witness in a proceeding before it instead of filing a complaint before a Magistrate and try and punish the offender by following the procedure of summary trials. For summary trial, see Ch. 21. 6 (2) This power is to be exercised after having the matter considered by the Court only at the time of delivery of the judgment or final order.
(3) The offender shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause before he is punished.
(4) The maximum sentence that may be imposed is 3 month's imprisonment or a fine up to Rs.500 or both.
(5) The
order of the Court is appealable (vide S. 351). (6) The procedure in this
section is an alternative to one under Sections 340-343. The Court has been
given an option to proceed to punish summarily under this section or to resort
to ordinary procedure by way of complaint under Section 340 so that, as for
instance, where the Court is of opinion that perjury committed is likely to
raise complicated questions or deserves more severe punishment than that
permitted under this section or the case is otherwise of such a nature or for
some reasons considered to be such that the case should be disposed of under
the ordinary procedure which would be more appropriate, the Court may chose to
do so [vide sub-section (3)].
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/46073/2
(7) Further proceedings of any trial initiated under this section shall be stayed and thus, any sentence imposed shall also not be executed until the disposal of an appeal or revision against the judgment or order in the main proceedings in which the witness gave perjured evidence or fabricated false evidence [vide sub-section (4)].
8. For exercising the powers under the section the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. All these conditions arc mandatory. [See Narayanswamy v. State of Muharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 182].
9. The object of the provision is to deal with the evil perjury in a summary way.
10. The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the provision more effectively and frequently than it is presently done.
11. In the case at hand, the court has rightly taken action and we find nothing infirm in the order of the Trial Court and the High Court to warrant interference. The special leave petitions are, accordingly dismissed.
9
................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New Delhi:
July 11, 2008
10
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/46073/3
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/46073/2
(7) Further proceedings of any trial initiated under this section shall be stayed and thus, any sentence imposed shall also not be executed until the disposal of an appeal or revision against the judgment or order in the main proceedings in which the witness gave perjured evidence or fabricated false evidence [vide sub-section (4)].
8. For exercising the powers under the section the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. All these conditions arc mandatory. [See Narayanswamy v. State of Muharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 182].
9. The object of the provision is to deal with the evil perjury in a summary way.
10. The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the provision more effectively and frequently than it is presently done.
11. In the case at hand, the court has rightly taken action and we find nothing infirm in the order of the Trial Court and the High Court to warrant interference. The special leave petitions are, accordingly dismissed.
9
................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New Delhi:
July 11, 2008
10
Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State Of M.P on 11 July, 2008
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/46073/3
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
PERJURY
AGAINST DIRTY COPS
Please check the
below link:-
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
Pursuing
Perjury Vehemently
Dont
sit like a Duck worrying what will happen. Do your work properly. Go to High
court with an appeal u/s 341.
I have noticed that some people who have failed in getting CRPC 340 admitted in the court against the opposite party because of people do not do proper homework and adv. represents half-heartedly and also not citing some key judgments of Apex court which have strong words against fraudsters. If we cite judgments and draft the petition properly and still if the court rejects it, we have fair chance to get it admitted in High Court or Supreme Court.
Numerous times, Apex court has held that Unclean Hands, Falsehood, Suppression of material facts, False affidavits etc amount to fraud on court and fraud on opposite party. Fraud on court is a very serious offence.
Discuss with your adv. and check if there is a possibility to file a contempt case against the judge or Criminal Defamation.
Read the judgment posted in the below link. In Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State of M.P , Apex court has not spared even minor girl for giving false evidence in the court.
Let us know what judgments did u cite in ur 340 petition.
If you need some judgments relating to fraud on court, let me know. I have couple of them. I can share them with you.
Tell everyone that she has played fraud with the court. It is she who should be losing hope and not you.
Getup and start your fight.
I have noticed that some people who have failed in getting CRPC 340 admitted in the court against the opposite party because of people do not do proper homework and adv. represents half-heartedly and also not citing some key judgments of Apex court which have strong words against fraudsters. If we cite judgments and draft the petition properly and still if the court rejects it, we have fair chance to get it admitted in High Court or Supreme Court.
Numerous times, Apex court has held that Unclean Hands, Falsehood, Suppression of material facts, False affidavits etc amount to fraud on court and fraud on opposite party. Fraud on court is a very serious offence.
Discuss with your adv. and check if there is a possibility to file a contempt case against the judge or Criminal Defamation.
Read the judgment posted in the below link. In Mahila Vinod Kumari vs State of M.P , Apex court has not spared even minor girl for giving false evidence in the court.
Let us know what judgments did u cite in ur 340 petition.
If you need some judgments relating to fraud on court, let me know. I have couple of them. I can share them with you.
Tell everyone that she has played fraud with the court. It is she who should be losing hope and not you.
Getup and start your fight.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
ONE
SHORT ALLEGATION
ONE
SHORT ALLEGATION
A Wife files false criminal case against husbands. It is very short without any arguments or citations or judgments.
Similarly, In Perjury I suggest that the first application should be very short & to the point.
Pls check my post named one short allegation
A Wife files false criminal case against husbands. It is very short without any arguments or citations or judgments.
Similarly, In Perjury I suggest that the first application should be very short & to the point.
Pls check my post named one short allegation
It should be just a half page criminal application type of application presented to the court. See above link.
Of course, now it will be in the hands of the court to take SANGYAAN i.e., suo moto action against your opp g@ng, but later on you can give your arguments based upon the developments in the case.
THE
IDEA IS:- Keep the ball rolling. Do NOT get the Perjury Application die at
Lower Court level itself.
STEPS:-
(1) File Very Short Perjury Application w/o any judgment etc.
(2) After that seeing the reply of opp g@ng or if judge directly takes action/no-action then file applications on it's basis.
HINT:- Instead of pouring your PANDARA just keep everything in bag.
Tell
something very short (ONE SHORT ALLEGATION) say she stole money with criminal
intent & this was the intent.
After
that as application moves be ready to move applications after applications to
keep it alive in lower court itself.
Thanks & Regards
Atur Chatur
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
PERJURY
= WIFE & HER LAWYER CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER
Perjury
= Wife & Lawyer Contradicting each other
Friends, Pls do NOT use these judgments below as I have NOT thoroughly gone through these. The idea is to tell you that, Perjury applies also if wife & her lawyer contradict each other.
“Court had put the parties to notice that it would hear the parties on the issue of perjury arising from the contradictory statements of the plaintiff and his attorney”
Mahant Surinder Nath Thru His ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 December, 2007
Perjury must be deliberately done to misled court/justice thereby material loss to opp p@rty
Another Case:- “the mere fact that a person made contradictory statements in his deposition is not a sufficient ground for his prosecution for perjury. It is further to be found that such contradictory statements were conscious and were made deliberately in order to thwart the administration of justice or to obstruct the Court in coming to a correct conclusion. In other words, the Court has to consider and come to a finding that the prosecution is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice.”
Arguments by Wife's Lawyer & Husband's Response thereon
Shri Jiten Bhalla vs Ms.Gaytri Bajaj on 8 September, 2008 "judgment will not be set aside upon mere proof that the judgment was obtained by perjury." 31. In Mrs.Savitri Ahuja vs. Hari Mehta AIR 1964 Punjab 487 (V 51 C 160) it was held that; "It is a fundamental principle that an order or decree of a Court can be displaced on ground of fraud only when it is extrinsic or collateral to anything which has been adjudicated upon."
Friends, Pls do NOT use these judgments below as I have NOT thoroughly gone through these. The idea is to tell you that, Perjury applies also if wife & her lawyer contradict each other.
“Court had put the parties to notice that it would hear the parties on the issue of perjury arising from the contradictory statements of the plaintiff and his attorney”
Mahant Surinder Nath Thru His ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 December, 2007
Perjury must be deliberately done to misled court/justice thereby material loss to opp p@rty
Another Case:- “the mere fact that a person made contradictory statements in his deposition is not a sufficient ground for his prosecution for perjury. It is further to be found that such contradictory statements were conscious and were made deliberately in order to thwart the administration of justice or to obstruct the Court in coming to a correct conclusion. In other words, the Court has to consider and come to a finding that the prosecution is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice.”
Arguments by Wife's Lawyer & Husband's Response thereon
Shri Jiten Bhalla vs Ms.Gaytri Bajaj on 8 September, 2008 "judgment will not be set aside upon mere proof that the judgment was obtained by perjury." 31. In Mrs.Savitri Ahuja vs. Hari Mehta AIR 1964 Punjab 487 (V 51 C 160) it was held that; "It is a fundamental principle that an order or decree of a Court can be displaced on ground of fraud only when it is extrinsic or collateral to anything which has been adjudicated upon."
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
Women Jailed for 7 years for PERJURY in MP
Women
Jailed for 7 years for PERJURY in MP
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bhopal/woman-jailed-for-false-rape-charge-in-madhya-pradesh/article1-1277357.aspx
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bhopal/woman-jailed-for-false-rape-charge-in-madhya-pradesh/article1-1277357.aspx
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
SAARAANSH
SAARAANSH
Saaraansh safalta ki kunji hoti hai.
Summary is the key to success.
Saaraansh:- CrPC91 & RTI & Perjury
That's it !!! So Simple !!! So Fast !!!
Thanks & Regards
Pati Chanakya Neeti Aap Beeti
Saaraansh safalta ki kunji hoti hai.
Summary is the key to success.
Saaraansh:- CrPC91 & RTI & Perjury
That's it !!! So Simple !!! So Fast !!!
Thanks & Regards
Pati Chanakya Neeti Aap Beeti
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
BAND-AID
FORMULA (or NIP-IT-IN-THE-BUD )
BAND-AID
FORMULA
This is also known as DHAKKAN FORMULA or PUT-A-DOT FORMULA.
Remember that, PROCASTRINATION is the key to success so far as WRITING/STATEMENT giving is concerned. You should procastrinate many things,
But so far as overall strategy to fight false cases on you is concerned, you need NOT procastrinate & instead use BAND-AID FORMULA.
i.e., Zakhm ko badne se pehle hi yani chot lagte hi ya chot lagne se pehle ya jab pata chale ki chot lag gayi hai etc BAND-AID laga kar theek kar lo instead of letting the Zakhm increase & later on use Betadine or Soframycine.
Examples of Band-Aid Formula are start using RTI's, then shift to CrPC 91, then PERJURY asap.
In a famous judgment related to unclean hands SC has also directed HC & LC to NIP-IN-THE-BUD whenever a complaint is found to be vexatious.
This is also known as DHAKKAN FORMULA or PUT-A-DOT FORMULA.
Remember that, PROCASTRINATION is the key to success so far as WRITING/STATEMENT giving is concerned. You should procastrinate many things,
But so far as overall strategy to fight false cases on you is concerned, you need NOT procastrinate & instead use BAND-AID FORMULA.
i.e., Zakhm ko badne se pehle hi yani chot lagte hi ya chot lagne se pehle ya jab pata chale ki chot lag gayi hai etc BAND-AID laga kar theek kar lo instead of letting the Zakhm increase & later on use Betadine or Soframycine.
Examples of Band-Aid Formula are start using RTI's, then shift to CrPC 91, then PERJURY asap.
In a famous judgment related to unclean hands SC has also directed HC & LC to NIP-IN-THE-BUD whenever a complaint is found to be vexatious.
Mahatma
Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT
YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"
Some More Good Reads:-
PICK GOOD POINTS FROM HERE REGARDING PERJURY:-
Mens Rea'
http://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=perjury%20is%20an%20offence%20
http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2011/02/falsehood-in-pleadings-intolerable-high.html
CrPC 340 procedure cannot be bypassed by trial court
http://men rights india. net/2010/02/crpc-340-procedure-cannot-be-bypassed.html
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=4165
Thanks
DON'T MISS TO SEE THE POWER OF PARTY IN PERSON IN CASE OF PERJURY !!
Madras High Court
P. Murugesan vs B. Gokila on 21 March, 2013
The judge uses A SC judgement to prosecute. Please refer to that SC judgement aslo....
17. From the evidence of the respondent is has come to light that before the same Court she has taken different stands as to her marriage and the finding of the Court below that only offence made out against the first respondent is under section 193 I.P.C.is appropriate. Hence, as per the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in N.Natarajan's case it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to proceed with Section 340 Cr.P.C.as per the procedure laid down in the provision. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate has to be directed to act in accordance with law as per Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.
Hope this will help you guys....................all the best
Issued in Public Interest by
ATUR CHATUR COUNSELLING *
शादी से पहले और शादी के बाद
ATUR CHATUR को रखना याद
ATUR CHATUR को रखना याद
Email:- aturchatur@yahoo.com
DISCLAIMER & TERMS &
CONDITIONS
*Disclaimer:-
Atur Chatur is my pen name. I am Delhi University Ex-Lecturer. I am NOT a
lawyer. I am a PIP (Party-in-Person). I filed Perjury (fraud on court) on lies
of my wife with proofs. I filed court case against Police/CAW. I filed
complaint against Judge Family Court (JFC) due to unethical practices/ gender
discrimination which resulted in JFC Recusal. I also became a RTI Activist. I
acquired all other knowledge/info after false 498a/DVC/Divorce/ CAW cases were
filed against me & entire family & my income greatly affected so I have
chosen this profession to support my family & also to support my one man
fight against gender discrimination in India. Counselling Fees = 2,000 only for
approx one hour talking to you & suggesting you few methods like RTI or
other methods which is based on my knowledge which I acquired while fighting
false cases. Fees is subject to change due to urgency & other factors so
please confirm. I do not provide legal opinion/ legal advise or anything like
that. All written by me & my suggestions etc is my personal views. You
yourself will be responsible for acting on any of my counseling/ advises /
consult / guidance etc. Fees for the RTI & any other writing work is to be
paid separately & does not come under counselling fees. Pls ask the fees
before getting any work done. Fees once paid (even if paid in excess) are not
refundable under any circumstances. I do not provide legal opinion/ legal
advise or anything like that. All written by me & views/ writings/ RTI/
suggestions/ counselling guidance etc are my personal views. You yourself will
be responsible for acting on any of my counselling/ advises / consult /
guidance etc. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor
have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due
process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations,
and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone
or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of
expression – with all the protections this right guarantees. There has been no
advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement
of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work
through this website. The user wishes to gain more information about us for
his/her own information and use. The information about us is provided to the
user only his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials
downloaded from this website is completely at the user's volition and any
transmission, receipt or use of this site would not create any lawyer-client
relationship. The information provided under this website is solely available
at your request for information purposed only, should not be interpreted as
soliciting or advertisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any
action taken by the user relying on legal material/information provided under
this website. In cases where the user has any legal dowry consultation issues,
he/she in all cases must seek independent legal advice from his own reliable sources & contacts.
Disputes if any shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only. General Disclaimer
applies.
