In probably a first case in India, a woman who made a false dowry harassment complaint has been issued NBW (non-bailable warrant) by JMFC, Mangalore for filing a false case under IPC 498a. The news doesn’t mention 498a but dowry harassment case is just another name for IPC 498a case.
The police summoned Dr Rao and his parents and held a detailed enquiry by questioning the relatives and neighbours. It was revealed that there was no dowry at all in the marriage and all the marriage expenses were borne by the husband. Allegations of cruelty, beating etc were found to be false. Police concluded that it was a false complaint and hence closed the case.
Dr. N.R.Rao, senior physician of Manipal and his family was deeply hurt on account of this false complaint and approached the JMFC Court praying the court to take action against his daughter in law and her parents for filing false complaint of dowry and harassment. After enquiry, JMFC Court found that there are prima facie materials showing that Dr Ranjeetha and her parents lodged a false complaint of dowry, harassment etc to the police and abused the anti-dowry laws and thereby committed perjury and defamation. The JMFC Court upheld the arguments of complainant’s advocate and ordered to register criminal case (as per C.C.No.1214/14) against the trio. The charges carry maximum of two years prison sentence.
The prosecution against the woman has been started which is a first. So due credit goes to the judge who has done something different from other judges who may have handled lakhs of such cases before this case BUT those judges never thought of applying applicable section of law against false accusers.
Over 1 lakh 498a cases are filed in India every year. About 93% result in acquittal. Why don’t we see more prosecutions of false accusers as in this case? What happened in this case that was so different? Actually, many things:
- The police INVESTIGATED the case on its merits and found allegations to have no basis. Police then filed a B-report to the court.
- Not only the police said case has no merit, they actually mentioned the case to be false. That requires some honesty and courage from our supposedly male dominated police whose specialty lies in proceeding to arrest husband and his relatives including the family dog when an IPC 498a complaint is filed. Due to recent 2 Jul 2014 SC judgment on strict injunction on police to follow CrPC 41 and 41a, these arrests might reduce.
- The falsely accused family, specifically father in law decided to file a private complaint to the magistrate. Usually the husband’s family have no desire to pursue any action against the their ‘bahu’ or daughter in law. Usual strategy is how to get rid of the whole problem and find another suitable bride for the son; which usually results in similar problem in second marriage too. But that’s material for another post…
Kudos to Dr Rao for taking stand against criminal bahu. Hoping for maximum 2 year punishment for her, after all, don’t we want equality to be applied in law to both men and women? If feminism demands equality, they should welcome punishment to false accuser women rather than demanding to be treated innocent and like children when caught in their own web of lies. But it probably never was about equality, it started from self-loathing of few women about women’s role in family and society, and then their goal to make women more like men; and over time it morphed into man-hating and irresponsibility.
Read my book on how to save on maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act. (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online)(PDF book)
Dear Respected Madam/Sir,
With Reference to subject concern, Honorable Madam/Sir, I have try lot on BOMBAY HIGH COURT WEBSITE to search the judgment copy of Bombay High Court related to “Mr. Nilesh Ojha (Human Rights Security Council) case for a scientist man of BARC (Shri Subhash) victim of false 498a from Mumbai & proved beyond reasonable doubt to the court that the false 498a was made by wife to defame her scientist husband’s reputation due to which within ongoing 498a the HC of Mumbai allowed his defamation (IPC 499) petition against the wife. Judgment came on 29th January’2015”
Hence, it is humble requested to please provide the judgment copy of the Bombay high court on the my email address vande.matram27011987@gmail.com or make update on Bombay High Court Judgment Website for convenience of Public & Citizen of India please.
Looking forward for you kind cooperation, help & guidance please at the earliest and revert me please.
In hope.
Humble suggestion: if you can’t find that judgment, possibly it’s not there on site, OR no one else will be able to find it too.
For general judgment search: check bharatlaw.in (currently Karnataka HC judgments only)
Hello sir,
This is very good that people have stasted their efforts to fight against wrong women who are mis using law…my single son murederd and torchured by her wife with the help of her judge brother at darbhanga bihar she mentally and physically tourchured my son at age of 28.
after this she ran away to bihar by taking all jewellery and cash for which she and her brother was keep on harrassing us.
because of misuse of law such kind of women are shame for country ..
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I m Jr.Adv and m handling dv , 498 a and 125 cr.p.c. for my brother’s side who is opponent. My bhabhi is getting maintenance per month for her and for 4 years old baby in d.v. but yet she has filed 125 cr.p.c. only to harass and to get more maintenance. Can I file Discharge application on the ground that she is already getting maintenance in dv ? If yes pls massage me Important Judgments and format.
Thank You.
Dear Aparna,
Being a non-advocate, I wouldn’t like to advise advocates on how to draft a complaint or about it’s format. If there is something already available on website, it is on best effort basis and goodwill and I don’t want to get into giving some ready-made solutions or formulas. They don’t work in real life.
My simple understanding is that such a maintenance application should not be allowed on grounds of res judicata (same matter already decided in another court/judgment), and that similar/same litigation cannot be started on same cause of action between same parties.
DV Act also follows CrPC 125 procedure. So effectively a fresh maintenance petition under CrPC 125 is exactly same as DV Act maintenance petition earlier because both are under same section. We have seen multiple maintenance under HMA 25 and CrPC 125 which can be excused a bit only on grounds of using different sections of law, but even that can happen only if judge takes into account maintenance already awarded and deeming it to be insufficient to allow some additional new maintenance on the fresh application filed under a different section of law.
I have blogged 2 judgments of Mumbai and Delhi HC on similar matters. The Delhi HC judgment is very similar to your case except in that case CrPC 125 was filed first and DV later.
http://menrightsindia.net/2014/10/mumbai-hc-disallows-multiple-maintenance-under-crpc-125-when-civil-suit-pending.html
http://menrightsindia.net/2014/10/multiple-maintenance-under-dv-act-denied-when-crpc-125-already-decided.html
Thanks a lot sir..also sorry for giving reply so late..actually in 125 the stage of the matter as per the roznama of the court is for evidence of the applicant. But the Advocate of the Applicant asking for argument for interim maintenance yet she is already getting maintenance in dv case..So my question is that can I file Discharge application at this stage but some sr. Advocats are suggesting that u can not file discharge application as u have already filed your say..Sir my another question is : Can I file an application for dismissal as she has not filed evidence from 5-6 dates..sir please assist me asap as the matter is on next week..Thanks a lot!