- Keeping the countrymen deep scared, instilling fear psychosis in their being so that their questioning tendencies go away. So that any uprising against corruption, against malpractices of the powerful stop and does not rise again.
- With countries becoming nuclear enabled and empowered, the possibility of war has terribly decreased. Now all these countries know that one mistake by one country and the chain would start wiping out the total habitation off the earth. Hence no old time war would happen wherein they used small weapons to attack the other. Available information suggest that the nuclear arsenal, in possession with various countries, is good enough to wipe out the earth 15-16 times. I wonder why do we need so much nuclear arsenals, after all not everybody is Jesus Christ that a resurrection will happen and that too 15-16 times which even Jesus would have failed. In absence of such wars which were great markets of small weapons; these weapons now get used in the name of terrorism. I am sure that the persons involved in such businesses will realize someday their misdeeds. I have read that the king who ordered crucifixion of Jesus developed one life-time disease of washing his hands believing them to be stained with the blood of Jesus.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Again in Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, (supra) the question arose whether a Magistrate to whom a report under Section 173(1) had been submitted to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused, could direct the police to file a charge-sheet, on his disagreeing with the report submitted by the Police. this Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet. It was open to the Magistrate to agree or disagree with the police report. If he agreed with the report that there was no case made out for issuing process to the accused, he might accept the report and close the proceedings. If he came to the conclusion that further investigation was necessary he might make an order to that effect under Section 156(3). If ultimately the Magistrate was of the opinion that the facts set out in the police report constituted an offence he could take cognizance of the offence, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expressed in the report. While expressing the opinion that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police the Court observed that the Magistrate could take cognizance under Section 190(1)(c)'. We do not have any doubt that the reference to 'Section 190(1)(c)' was a mistake for 'Section 190(1)(b)'. That appears to be obvious to us. But Shri Kapil Sibal urged that the reference was indeed to Section 190(1)(c) since at that time Section 190(1)(c) included the words 'or suspicion' and the Court had apparently taken the view that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence not under Section 190(1)(b) as if on a police report but under Section 190(1)(c) as if 'on suspicion'. We do not agree with this submission. Section 190(1)(c) was never intended to apply to cases where there was a police report under Section 173(1). We find it impossible to say that a Magistrate who takes cognizance of an offence on the basis of the facts disclosed in a police report must be said to have taken cognizance of the offence on suspicion and not upon a police report merely because the Magistrate and the Police arrived at different conclusions from the facts. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the police even as he is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the complainant in a complaint. If a complainant States the relevant facts in his complaint and alleges that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the complainant. He may think that the facts disclose an offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code only and he may take cognizance of an offence under Section 324 instead of Section 307. Similarly if a police report mentions that half a dozen persons examined by them claim to be eye witnesses to a murder but that for various reasons the witnesses could not be believed, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the opinion of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses. He may prefer to ignore the conclusions of the police regarding the credibility of the witnesses and take cognizance of the offence. If he does so, it would be on the basis of the Statements of the witnesses as revealed by the police report. He would be taking cognizance upon the facts disclosed by the police report though not on the conclusions arrived at by the police. It could not be said in such a case that he was taking cognizance on suspicion.
In case you wish to clarify any of your doubts in connection with the above, let me know.
Friday, July 8, 2011
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.400 OF 2009
Priyanka Singh ...Petitioner Versus
Jayant Singh ...Respondent ORDER
1. This is a petition for transfer of Divorce Petition No.1118 of 2008 titled Shri Jayant Singh vs. Smt. Priyanka Singh pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) to District Court, Koderma (Jharkhand).
2. While issuing notice, this Court stayed further proceedings of the divorce case. On 15.5.2009, the parties appeared in person and presented a joint application for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. However, as the averments necessary for making out a case under Section 2
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') were not made in the application, the case was adjourned with a direction to the parties to file an appropriate application. Thereafter, the parties jointly filed I.A. No.3 of 2009 with the prayer that their marriage be dissolved by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. They also filed an application (I.A. No.4 of 2009) under Section 13B of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by stating therein that due to temperamental incompatibility, the parties have not been able to live together as husband and wife; that they have been living separately since 12.3.2005 and that the marriage is irretrievably broken down. It has also been averred that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and after due intervention of the family members and other relatives, they have decided to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Both the I.As are supported by the affidavits of the parties.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Keeping in view the fact that the parties are living separately for last more than 4 years and 6 months and there is no chance of reconciliation between them and also the fact that they have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent without any coercion or undue influence, we deem it proper to accept the prayer made in the two 3
applications for dissolution of marriage. Accordingly, Divorce Petition No.1118 of 2008 titled Shri Jayant Singh vs. Smt. Priyanka Singh pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) is transferred to this Court and marriage between the parties is dissolved by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent in terms of Section 13B of the Act.
4. The transfer petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. ........................................J.
New DelhiNovember 10, 2009