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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

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

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS