इलाहबाद उच्च न्यायालय के एक खंड पीठ ने दिनांक २६/०२/२०१० को एक व्यापक दिशा निर्देश जारी करते हुए पुलिस प्रशासन को यह निर्देश दिया है कि घरेलू हिंसा , दहेज़ उत्पीड़न , एवं अन्य साधारण वैवाहिक अपराधों में केवल प्राथमिकी दर्ज होने के आधार पर अभियुक्तों को पुलिस गिरफ्तार न करे। अपितु , विवाद को पहले न्यायलय के मध्यस्थता केंद्र या जहाँ मध्यस्थता केंद्र स्थापित नहीं हुए है, वहां पुलिस के मध्यस्थता प्रकोष्ठ में भेजे और मध्यस्थता के असफल होने तथा अपराध के गंभीर होने पर ही गिरफ्तारी करे।
उच्च न्यायालय ने यह भी निर्देश दिया है कि जिला मजिस्ट्रेट , वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक तथा जिलाधिकारी के द्वारा मानिटरिंग सेल की मासिक बैठक में उक्त प्रकार के विवादों की नियमित समीक्षा की जाये। न्यायलय द्वारा दिए गए दिशा निर्देश के पूर्ण उद्धृत पाठ के लिए इससे ठीक पहले अंग्रेजी में लिखा गया पोस्ट (mediation in matrimonial offences) देखें ।
मंगलवार, 16 मार्च 2010
Mediation in matrimonial offences
IN CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 3322 of 2010 Sanjeev Kumar & Others Vs. State Of U.P. & Others (Allahabad High Court), wide Judgment and Order Dated - 26/2/2010
their Lordships Hon'ble Amar Saran,J. and Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J. have directed that : "when a complainant approaches the police station or the concerned lower courts, with complaints about harassment, or violence against the wife, by the husband and in-laws, except in cases of extremely grave nature or in cases of serious violence and injuries, and where there are possibilities of repeated violence against the wife, the Courts or the police should first make an effort to try and bring about a reconciliation between the parties, by directing the parties to appear before the mediation centres in the Courts, wherever they exist, or to the mediation cells with the police. If reconciliation is not possible, and the matter appears to be serious, or there is a probability of recurrence of violence, only in those cases should the police take immediate steps for arresting the accused in pursuance of the FIR. "
The court observed that :
"It needs to be observed however, that in a very large number of cases the accused are rushing to this Court for relief, where complaints or FIRs under sections 498 A IPC or under section � Dowry Prohibition Act or allied provisions are filed against the husbands and their family members. The matters are frequently referred to the mediation centre of the High Court, and stays of arrest are granted by the writ Courts, and in a number of others cases where complaints or charge sheets have been filed, orders staying proceedings are being passed in applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. or in Criminal Revisions, or transfer applications, resulting in further clogging of the already overcrowded dockets of pending cases in the High Court, which cause other genuine and important matters to be put on the back burner.
Largely these stays are granted by this Court because of the view that offences against married women need to be handled rationally even for protecting the interests of the complainant wife or her relatives, as too ready arrests, jail or prosecutions in these matters may foreclose the option of reconciliation between the parties at a subsequent stage.
Immediate arrests or prosecution of the accused in these matters without any attempt to settle the matter by mediation may in fact cause the aggrieved wife to be a double victim. First, as a result of the ill treatment or violence that she has initially suffered at the hands of her husband or in-laws, and later where she has no other means of livelihood or support, she may be dragged into a protracted litigation to secure the conviction of her husband and in-laws. In the latter case there may be situations where for one or the other reason she is unable to attend the trial court on the dates fixed, where she may run the risk of warrants being issued against her for compelling her attendance. Even after securing the conviction of her husband or in-laws her problems of livelihood would remain, as usually wives are not economically independent, and her natal family, if any, may not be able or willing to support her for the rest of her life.
The other reason why this Court often interferes in such cases, is that when the atmosphere, between the wife and her natal family and the husband and his family has become sour, there is a tendency to rope in as many of the relations of the husband as possible, even though they may not be directly involved in the crime. This negative tendency was adversely commented upon by the Supreme Court in Kansraj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324. Such en masse involvement of a large number of family members takes place because in the aftermath of the incident, tempers are extremely high, the parties do not have a cool mind, and the aggrieved party at that stage only wants to seek recompense, by sending the other party to jail. It is only with the passage of some time usually with the help of mediators, that wisdom may dawn and the complaining party may consider the advisability of exploring other options such as either to resolve their differences and to come together, or to mutually agree to part on acceptable terms.
We may note that under sections 41 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under the U.P. Police Regulations, it is not mandatory to arrest the accused in each case where an FIR is lodged, and the police has been given a discretion in the matter. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349 in paragraph 24 this aspect has been emphasized as follows: "No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do."
The court has issued following directions:
1.That when a complainant approaches the police station or the concerned lower courts, with complaints about harassment, or violence against the wife, by the husband and in-laws, except in cases of extremely grave nature or in cases of serious violence and injuries, and where there are possibilities of repeated violence against the wife, the Courts or the police should first make an effort to try and bring about a reconciliation between the parties, by directing the parties to appear before the mediation centres in the Courts, wherever they exist, or to the mediation cells with the police. If reconciliation is not possible, and the matter appears to be serious, or there is a probability of recurrence of violence, only in those cases should the police take immediate steps for arresting the accused in pursuance of the FIR.
2.On the next date we would also like a report from the DGP, U.P. and the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. as to whether any G.O.s or directions on the lines suggested above for fulfillment of the objective for inititial attempt at mediation in such matrimonial matters exist, and they shall also consider the advisability of issuing such directions. In their response the said authorities should also point out the difficulties in sending the cases for mediation especially with regard to adequacy of the number of mediation centres in the Courts or attached to the police or mahila thanas, or the absence of trained mediators or any other difficulties, so that this Court may issue appropriate directions for addressing the problems indicated.
3.We would also like a response from the Organizing Secretary of the Mediation Centre of the Allahabad about their experiences and suggestions in this regard, and whether they are prepared to give training to the mediating agencies before the lower courts or connected with the police at the local levels for bringing about successful mediation of such disputes.
4.We would also like a report from the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. and the Registrar General of the High Court about the number of Courts and districts where such facilities for mediation exist, as also the courts where no such mediation facilities exist, and the steps they propose to take to meet the short fall in mediation centres, trained mediators and other infrastructure etc. needed.
5.This Court would also welcome intervention by NGOs who are working on problems of women, to give suggestions as to how these problems may be addressed.
6.We would also like suggestions from the U.P. State Legal Services Authority as to how they can help facilitate mediation between the parties in such matrimonial matters, and other suggestions in this regard on the next listing.
7.We also direct that this matter of trying to bring about reconciliation and mediation in matters relating to domestic violence involving offences under section 498 A IPC, � D.P. Act and other allied sections, which are not of such a grave nature be also taken by the monitoring cells consisting of the District Judges, D.M.s SSP/ SP and others in their monthly meetings and the success in tackling the problem, and the difficulties if any, be communicated to this Court after the meetings, which may be placed in a tabular form before us by the registry."
their Lordships Hon'ble Amar Saran,J. and Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J. have directed that : "when a complainant approaches the police station or the concerned lower courts, with complaints about harassment, or violence against the wife, by the husband and in-laws, except in cases of extremely grave nature or in cases of serious violence and injuries, and where there are possibilities of repeated violence against the wife, the Courts or the police should first make an effort to try and bring about a reconciliation between the parties, by directing the parties to appear before the mediation centres in the Courts, wherever they exist, or to the mediation cells with the police. If reconciliation is not possible, and the matter appears to be serious, or there is a probability of recurrence of violence, only in those cases should the police take immediate steps for arresting the accused in pursuance of the FIR. "
The court observed that :
"It needs to be observed however, that in a very large number of cases the accused are rushing to this Court for relief, where complaints or FIRs under sections 498 A IPC or under section � Dowry Prohibition Act or allied provisions are filed against the husbands and their family members. The matters are frequently referred to the mediation centre of the High Court, and stays of arrest are granted by the writ Courts, and in a number of others cases where complaints or charge sheets have been filed, orders staying proceedings are being passed in applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. or in Criminal Revisions, or transfer applications, resulting in further clogging of the already overcrowded dockets of pending cases in the High Court, which cause other genuine and important matters to be put on the back burner.
Largely these stays are granted by this Court because of the view that offences against married women need to be handled rationally even for protecting the interests of the complainant wife or her relatives, as too ready arrests, jail or prosecutions in these matters may foreclose the option of reconciliation between the parties at a subsequent stage.
Immediate arrests or prosecution of the accused in these matters without any attempt to settle the matter by mediation may in fact cause the aggrieved wife to be a double victim. First, as a result of the ill treatment or violence that she has initially suffered at the hands of her husband or in-laws, and later where she has no other means of livelihood or support, she may be dragged into a protracted litigation to secure the conviction of her husband and in-laws. In the latter case there may be situations where for one or the other reason she is unable to attend the trial court on the dates fixed, where she may run the risk of warrants being issued against her for compelling her attendance. Even after securing the conviction of her husband or in-laws her problems of livelihood would remain, as usually wives are not economically independent, and her natal family, if any, may not be able or willing to support her for the rest of her life.
The other reason why this Court often interferes in such cases, is that when the atmosphere, between the wife and her natal family and the husband and his family has become sour, there is a tendency to rope in as many of the relations of the husband as possible, even though they may not be directly involved in the crime. This negative tendency was adversely commented upon by the Supreme Court in Kansraj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324. Such en masse involvement of a large number of family members takes place because in the aftermath of the incident, tempers are extremely high, the parties do not have a cool mind, and the aggrieved party at that stage only wants to seek recompense, by sending the other party to jail. It is only with the passage of some time usually with the help of mediators, that wisdom may dawn and the complaining party may consider the advisability of exploring other options such as either to resolve their differences and to come together, or to mutually agree to part on acceptable terms.
We may note that under sections 41 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under the U.P. Police Regulations, it is not mandatory to arrest the accused in each case where an FIR is lodged, and the police has been given a discretion in the matter. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349 in paragraph 24 this aspect has been emphasized as follows: "No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do."
The court has issued following directions:
1.That when a complainant approaches the police station or the concerned lower courts, with complaints about harassment, or violence against the wife, by the husband and in-laws, except in cases of extremely grave nature or in cases of serious violence and injuries, and where there are possibilities of repeated violence against the wife, the Courts or the police should first make an effort to try and bring about a reconciliation between the parties, by directing the parties to appear before the mediation centres in the Courts, wherever they exist, or to the mediation cells with the police. If reconciliation is not possible, and the matter appears to be serious, or there is a probability of recurrence of violence, only in those cases should the police take immediate steps for arresting the accused in pursuance of the FIR.
2.On the next date we would also like a report from the DGP, U.P. and the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. as to whether any G.O.s or directions on the lines suggested above for fulfillment of the objective for inititial attempt at mediation in such matrimonial matters exist, and they shall also consider the advisability of issuing such directions. In their response the said authorities should also point out the difficulties in sending the cases for mediation especially with regard to adequacy of the number of mediation centres in the Courts or attached to the police or mahila thanas, or the absence of trained mediators or any other difficulties, so that this Court may issue appropriate directions for addressing the problems indicated.
3.We would also like a response from the Organizing Secretary of the Mediation Centre of the Allahabad about their experiences and suggestions in this regard, and whether they are prepared to give training to the mediating agencies before the lower courts or connected with the police at the local levels for bringing about successful mediation of such disputes.
4.We would also like a report from the Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. and the Registrar General of the High Court about the number of Courts and districts where such facilities for mediation exist, as also the courts where no such mediation facilities exist, and the steps they propose to take to meet the short fall in mediation centres, trained mediators and other infrastructure etc. needed.
5.This Court would also welcome intervention by NGOs who are working on problems of women, to give suggestions as to how these problems may be addressed.
6.We would also like suggestions from the U.P. State Legal Services Authority as to how they can help facilitate mediation between the parties in such matrimonial matters, and other suggestions in this regard on the next listing.
7.We also direct that this matter of trying to bring about reconciliation and mediation in matters relating to domestic violence involving offences under section 498 A IPC, � D.P. Act and other allied sections, which are not of such a grave nature be also taken by the monitoring cells consisting of the District Judges, D.M.s SSP/ SP and others in their monthly meetings and the success in tackling the problem, and the difficulties if any, be communicated to this Court after the meetings, which may be placed in a tabular form before us by the registry."
शनिवार, 6 मार्च 2010
पेट्रोल पम्प - नमूने के टेस्ट की पूर्व सूचना आवश्यक है
उच्चतम न्यायालय ने हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन बनाम सुपर हाई वे सर्विसेस के मामले में दिनांक १९/०२/२०१० को यह निर्णय दिया है कि पेट्रोल पम्प के निरीक्षण में लिए गए नमूने के लेबोरटरी जाँच की तिथि व स्थान की पूर्व सूचना डीलर को दिया जाना आवश्यक है ताकि वह या उसका प्रतिनिधि जाँच के समय मौजूद रह सके। यदि पूर्व सूचना नहीं दी गयी है तो डीजल में मिलावट होने के आधार पर डीलरशिप निरस्त किया जाना अवैध है। निर्णय के संगत उद्धरण के यहाँ क्लिक करें (इसी लेखक के अन्य ब्लॉग "लीगल आर्टिकल्स" में लेख संख्या १११ ) ।
गुरुवार, 4 मार्च 2010
S. 482 Cr.P.C.- orders /action against which it invoked
Here is the list of orders of
401510 order under Sections 110/111 Cr.P.C. for quashing of notice
401511 order under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C.
401512 order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance
401513 order under Section 126 Cr.P.C.
401514 order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration of maintenance
401515 order under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for enforcement of order of maintenance
401516 order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. for removal of nuisance
401517 order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before filing revision
401518 order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. after filing revision
401519 order under Section 145(8) Cr.P.C. for custody or sale of crops
401520 order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. before filing revision
401521 order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. after filing revision
401522 order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to quash the order for investigation
401523 order summoning accused in a complaint case without filing revision
401524 order summoning accused in a complaint case after filing revision
401525 order summoning accused after rejecting final report without filing revision
401526 order summoning accused after rejecting final report after filing revision
401527 for quashing of charge sheet
401528 for quashing of investigation
401529 for quashing of F.I.R.
401530 against summoning order u/s 319, Cr.P.C.
401531 to dispense with the presence of accused
401532 to set aside order of commitment
401533 for stay of arrest
401534 for expeditious disposal of Bail
401535 for disposal of bail on same day
401536 for quashing of criminal Proceedings in State case
401537 order under Section 203,Cr.P.C. dismissing complaint
---------------------------------
Other situations *
Against rejection or allowance of protest petition
Against order for recall of witnesses u/s 311 CrPC
Against rejection of discharge application
Against discharge order
Against order of warrant to surety and order to deposit the surety amount, without filing appeal
Against order of warrant to surety and order to deposit the surety amount after filing appealChallenging the jurisdiction of the trial court
Against denial of supply of records/documents to the accused s 207, 208, of CrPC
Against order for fresh bail bond for added sections/ offenses
Against rejection of prayer for expert opinion
Against rejection of application to produce prosecution witness by the accused.
Against order on production of child witness.
* Added by Mr. Surendra Singh yadav, AGA, Allahabad High Court.
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)
