Feminism international - "Aussie woman alleges dowry abuse"
Comments : Who said ONLY Indian women file dowry cases ?? !! Sadly the result is the same, the hubby is behind bars :-(
Aussie woman alleges dowry abuse
25 Nov 2007, 0137 hrs IST
, TNN
HYDERABAD: An Australian woman, who married a person from the city a few years ago, lodged a complaint with the police on Saturday against her husband and mother-in-law alleging dowry harassment.
The family, however, refuted the charges and claimed they had returned most of the money taken from the Australian woman.
Vanasthalipuram police said Mario Franklin Campbell, 32, went to Australia to pursue his education in 2002. During his stay in Sydney, he fell in love with an Australian woman Samantha Jani Sevel, 30, and they got married.
Campbell, however, returned to the city alone a few years ago. Samantha, who arrived in the city 10 days back, lodged a police complaint on Saturday alleging that her husband and mother-in-law Shaila Desai were harassing her physically and mentally. She had given them 50,000 Australian dollars, she claimed.
Samantha also alleged that her husband was trying to get married again. Police reportedly took Campbell into custody and are investigating.
Campbell's mother, Desai, is a retired gazetted officer. Police registered a case under Sec 498 (A) dowry harassment and are investigating.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Hyderabad/Aussie_woman_alleges_dowry_abuse/articleshow/2568412.cms
Posts
1 comments:
Australian woman Ms. Samantha Sevel can sued her Hyderabadi
husband in any civil money matters matter in India.
She cannot file Criminal Complaint under section 498A IPC for
cruelty
and dowry harassment in this country or file for divorce. This woman
is a
foreigner on Visitor Visa, having no residency in India. Therefore
she can only
approach the legal system in Australia, for her matrimonial problems.
She
was married in Australia not in India. As such matrimonial laws of
Australia
are applicable in her case where she can sue her husband for cheating
etc;
She landed in Hyderabad nearly 3 weeks ago in search of her husband
Mr. Mario Franklin Campbell, who is under arrest for physical abuse
and
demanding dowry, among others. He came back to India a year and a
half
ago after failing to get his Australian visa.
The registration of FIR by the concerned Hyderabad Police Station and
further
prosecution by the Hyderabad Magistrate's of area Jurisdiction is
illegal and without
any Legal Jurisdiction and the sanction of any Indian law.
The prosecution under Section 498A IPC of Mr. Mario Franklin Campbell
is complete
Misuse and Abuse of Law by the Hyderabad Law enforcing Machinery for
Extortion and
harassment for monetary considerations.
The FIR show that the alleged marriage was Neither solemnised within
the Jurisdiction of concerned Police Station at Hyderabad nor the
complainant resided along with her
husband within the Jurisdiction of said Police Station nor the
alleged offences were
committed within the Jurisdiction of said Police Station. Therefore
the registration of FIR at said Police station and further
proceedings at the Area court were contrary to the
provisions of sections 177 of the Cr.P.C.
No where in the FIR Australian complainant has stated that any part
of alleged offences were committed within the jurisdiction of said
Police Station .Neither alleged marriage took place within the
Jurisdiction of said Police Station. Nor she resided along with her
husband within the Jurisdiction of said police station at any time
after her marriage, nor the alleged cruelty had taken place within
the jurisdiction of said Police Station.
She filed the FIR with the said Police Station alleging that she was
now living within the
jurisdiction of said Police Station, while on Visitor/Tourist visa
for short duration.
The Territorial Jurisdiction is prescribed under sub-section (1) to
the extent that the officer
can investigate any cognisable case which a court having jurisdiction
over the local area within the limits of such police station would
have power to enquire into or try under the provisions
of Chapter XIII.
However, sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that
no proceedings of the police officer in any such case shall at any
stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which
such officer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is
completed, the result of such investigation is required to be
submitted as provided under Sections 168,169 and 170. Section
170 specifically provides that is, upon an investigation,
it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that
there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to
justify the forwarding of the accused to a magistrate, such officer
shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to
take cognisance of the offence upon a police report and to try the
accused or commit for trial. Further, if the investigating officer
arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then FIR can be
forwarded to the
police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime
is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which required
investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or
investigate it.
The law laid down by the Supreme Court of India is that in the event
of the investigating
officer arriving at a conclusion that crime was not committed within
his jurisdiction, the FIR should be forwarded to the Police Station
having the jurisdiction. However, the police officer cannot refuse to
register the FIR in respect of a crime which require investigation.
The parties never married in India and never lived in Hyderabad India
after their marriage
in Australia. Marriage took place in Australia. Matrimonial home was
in Australia. The alleged crime of Cruelty was allegedly committed in
Australia. No investigation was needed to come to the conclusion that
part of alleged crime was committed within the Jurisdiction of the
said Police Station. The said FIR should have been transferred it to
the Police Station if any; where the offence was alleged to have been
committed. The matter could have been reffered to INTERPOL for
further disposal.
Normally in all such cases," ZERO FIR" is registered at a Police
Station and FIR is transferred to the concerned police station where
crime is committed. Though there is no illegality in registration of
FIR, but retaining of this FIR with said Police Station raises doubt
about bonafides of In- charge of the Police Station.
This attitude of the Police is surprising. Such registration of FIR
only seems to be result of
some pressure or as a result of consideration and needs an enquiry to
be conducted as to
what was the reason for the for obliging with the registration of FIR
at this Police Station
when no offence was committed within Jurisdiction of the said Police
Station.
I think That Smalin Jenita case under 498A IPC similarly suffers from
JURISDICTION as the Car accident occured in USA and the Accident
record in USA is very clean.
Relevant Judgements of Supreme Court of India
and other High Courts in India.
Jurisdiction Case No. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P (Crl.) No.1266 of 2007
Date of Decision: 10.10.2007
Sonu and others versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
JUDGEMENT
FIR was filed by the complainant under sections 406/498A at PS
Malviya Nagar, while perusal of FIR would show that no
offence was committed within the jurisdiction of NCT of
Delhi. Respondent-wife alleged that petitioners subjected
her to cruelty at matrimonial home in Patiala (Punjab).
Marriage in this case was solemnised in U.P. Neither the
marriage was solemnised in Delhi nor the offence was committed
in Delhi. The registration of FIR in Delhi at PS Malviya Nagar
was contrary to the provisions of sections 177 and 181 (4) of
the Cr.P.C
Jurisdiction Case No. 2
Y. Abraham Ajith and others Versus Inspector of Police CHENNAI
(MADRAS)
and others.
MANU/SC/0635/2004 Criminal appeal No. 904 0f 2004
The complaint was Filed in the court of xviii Metropolitan Magistrate,
SAIDAPET CHENNAI under Section 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
The accused in the complaint filed application under Section 482 of
Cr. P. Code
before CHENNAI High Court, Saying that:"The Saidapet Chennai"
magistrate had no
Jurisdiction even to entertain the complaint, even if the allegations
contained in the complaint their in are accepted in Toto. According
to the applicants, no part of the cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the
SAIDAPET CHENNAI(MADRAS) JURISDICTION.
The petitioner's case was that, "All the allegations made in the
complaint
took place at Nagarcoil (Madras state)therefore the courts in Chennai
(Madras state) did not have Jurisdiction to deal with the matter". The
approach of Chennai High Court in this matter was also found
erroneous by supreme court.
The Judgement by Justices Arijit Pasayat and C.K.Thakkar Judges at
Supreme Court of India said:
A bare reading of the complaint would go to show that no part of the
cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of the court where the
complaint was filed.Therefore the entire proceedings had no
foundation.
No part of cause of action arose in CHENNAI(Madras) and therefore
CHENNAI Court
had no Jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
********************
Jurisdiction Case No. 3
In the High Court of Andhra Pardesh at Hyderabad.
T. Venkateshwarlu and others Versus State of A.P.and others.
WP No. 9546 of 1996 Decided on 27.07.1998.
Under section 188 of criminal procedure code 1973
(a)The courts can not take cognisance of any
of the offences without a previous approval
of the central government Ministry of
External affairs.
(b) The accused are all US citizens
(c) There is no evidence that any attempt
was made to obtain previous approval
of government of India.
(d) There is also no evidence that higher
authorities of government of Maharashtra
were informed about arrest of Foreign
national by police.
(e) Even US consulate was not informed about
arrest of US citizens as required by Warsha
convention.
**************
Jurisdiction Case No 4
In the High Court of Andhra Pardesh at Hyderabad.
T. Venkateshwarlu and others Versus State of A.P.and others.
WP No. 9546 of 1996 Decided on 27.07.1998.
PARA...19
Offence alleged in complaint is cruelty under section 498A IPC.
The complaint indicated the alleged cruelty by accused at Sweden and
Nellore.
At no point of time complainant and accused were residents of
Hyderabad.
Allegations of Cruelty are in SWEDEN up to 1992 and in Nellore in
1993.
Therefore none of the acts of cruelty are committed within the
Jurisdiction of MAHILA COURT AT HYDERABAD. Therefore the mahila
court has no Jurisdiction to try the offences as the complaint does
not disclose prime facie offence within
the Jurisdiction of the Mahila Court at Hyderabad.
**************
Jurisdiction Case No. 5
Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)*
Facts
The appellant was married with respondent at Delhi on 09.12.1990.
The appellant was thrown out of matrimonial home in Patiala on
19.01.1992. Complaint was lodged by her at Kotwali P.S., Patiala on
the same day making various allegations of torture and dowry demand
against her husband and his family members.
Thereafter she came to live with her parents at Delhi.
A complaint was lodged against her husband in the Women's Cell, Delhi
on 30.04.1992. After preliminary investigations, the impugned F.I.R.
under sections 406 and 498 IPC was registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi, on 23.01.1993 for the alleged occurrence at Patiala.
Thereafter, the respondent filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C
for quashing the F.I.R. in Delhi High Court. The High Court arrived
at the conclusion that the SHO P.S. Paschim Vihar was not having
territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate, the F.I.R.
lodged by the appellant because the the alleged caused of action for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code arose at
Patiala
*************************
Jurisdiction case No.6
LUCKNOW HIGH COURT
Judgement in February 2006.
A division bench of the high court comprising Justice Bhanwar Singh
and
Justice JM Paliwal quashed the entire criminal proceedings pending
against
an assistant income tax commissioner, Sanjiv Yadav, for dowry
harassment.
The bench passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by
Dharam Raj Yadav (Sanjiv's father) and others for quashing the
charge-sheet while treating it to be a petition under Section 482 Cr
PC.
It may be recalled that the proceedings against Sanjiv was initiated
on the
basis of an FIR lodged by his wife Dipti Yadav on January 11, 2005
alleging
harassment for dowry.
After going through the material on record, the bench observed that
the investigating
officer had acted in a malafide manner and had manipulated things to
mislead the court
of the additional chief judicial magistrate as well as this court.
The bench further remarked that the additional chief judicial
magistrate had
also acted without application of mind in taking cognizance of the
matter as
the Lucknow court had no jurisdiction to deal with the offence
alleged to
have been committed in Jaunpur, Sultanpur, Gorakhpur etc.
Post a Comment