Hi All

Here is the link:

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles ... n53137209/

is there any next step on this for those who have filed DP3 in MM court?

Please update as MM has given me the next date on the basis of the above order by High Court.

It might be true.

In such cases, the girl and her family are accused and they would have all the rights of accused.

When we say, we have right to move HC/ SC for discharge/ quash and get stay in criminal cases slapped against us, the girl and her family has the same rights. :-)

OUR RULES APPLY TO US AS WELL.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

Below are the few lines from above article:
===================================================
They argued before HC that a court can't book a victim of dowry harassment under the Dowry Prohibition Act as this is explicitly barred in the Act itself. Seeking relief, the lawyers further claimed the lower court went beyond the law to slap another FIR against the girl and her family.

Pointing to section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act the advocates for Payal argued before HC that a girl's statement she had been forced to give dowry can't be held against her or her family to book her under the act as here the woman is the victim.
====================================================================

What does it mean according to her lawyer? DP3 cannot be filed at all ? Lower court does not have power to book in-laws under DP3 ? isn't it an absurd argument ?

Mine DP3 case is also in High Court. Please put some light, it will be helpful in arguments.

The complainant can not be prosecuted for giving/ taking dowry.

However this shield is not available to her parents.

How could this be, if acceptor of the dowry is punished (not just his parents) then howcome giver of the dowry cannot be punished. This is a specious argument. How can an educated woman be allowed to hide behind the excuse of being a victim when she is actually an accomplice in the crime of dowry exchange?

Dear
this is the nonsense that is going in the courts.
The applicant accepted giving dowry therefore conviction. The lawyer cannot keep using various parts of the act to support the argument.
The fundamental questions that you need to ask are
a) why was the dowry prohibition act passed
b) who is in breach of the act.

hey guys,

are we trying to change the criminal justice system?

Please note if admission was to be taken at face value, what would happen.... Police would beat you and make you admit of torturing your wife..... trying to kill her and so on.... what would u do then?

Statements recorded in Police Dairy is not conclusive proof.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

The above is 100% correct. If you ask the police the same via RTI, they will even give you in writing . However it is not easy, but eventually they will give in and give you in writing.

Sec 7 is definitely a tough catch. It depends on how one asks. Whoever's that case is, they need to make sure it does cut Justice Dhingra's Judgment.

Please note if admission was to be taken at face value, what would happen.... Police would beat you and make you admit of torturing your wife..... trying to kill her and so on.... what would u do then?
======================================================================

In 498a FIRs , generally Girl's side says that "they have given dowry at the time marriage", is not it an admission on face value by In-laws ?
Its not an allegation by some other person, its the admission of crime done by the person himself . The other party just informed the Law system about this self confessed crime.

Where as in 498a , its the allegation by Girl Side , which have no proof and hence cannot be taken at face value.

Strangely, Section 7 can bring relief to wives , who often themselves admits of giving dowry in many FIRs and CrPC 161 statements.

Is not it another hole in the law then?

I just concluded from all of the replies that my lawyer can argue in MM court that my 498a infected wife's parents are not shielded. I let you know all what happens next in few days.

Rohan,

Let me tell you a legal tid bit.

FIR/ Statements under 161 CrPC, can not be used for any other purpose but to contradict the witness during cross-examination. It has no evidentiary value other than that.

For more clarity Read Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

Wait till ur wife and in-laws

1) depose their statements in court
or
2) give their statements on written affidavit and testify in court that they are the person who signed the affidavit

Both of the above to be done under oath.

Then this can be used as evidence.

Aren't we digressing and barking up the wrong tree? The original pertinet question was :

If the girl and her parents admit to giving dowry in the FIR, how can the judge stay the DP3 proceedings, opining that the woman is a victim and hence cannot be an accomplice?

We are not questioning the fact that even the girl has to go through the rigamorals of legal procedure and it must be established beyond reasonable doubt that she HAS committed the crime of abetting dowry exhchange.

As far as changing the criminal justice system is concerned, how many times a fair investigation is undertaken by the police to verify the veracity of 498A complaints or by protection officer to verify the contents of DIR, before regurgitating the complaint to the Court? It is in the law to do a fair investigation. But do they abide by it? Is it not changing the system then? There is a very fine line between changing a legal system and interpreting it. Laws are made according to prevailing moral and social ethos, but their interpretation must infuse some humane outlook and at the very least some commonsense.

dear
where there is an admission of giving dowry was indicated in writing in the FIR, Complaint shall stand as evidence unless proven not to be so after the due process of I/O investigation and court process. If the fact stated by the girl is not true then it is for her to remove or explain her herself in court as to why she had stated that dowry was given and why does she now want to delete this.
From your post it is also clear that she was aware of who gave the dowry that is her parents. She had knowledge of the fact and she had information about the dowry act. Therefore she is party to it even though she did not physically give the monies in person. Therefore a person who had knowledge of dowry been given on her behalf( here it is her parents) is liable to be punished. If she thought giving dowry was wrong why has she failed to stop this act and why did she not intevene with her parents action.
you need to get your lawyer to spend some time on reflecting the case from the following aspects
1) her knowledge of dowry prohibition act
2) her awareness of the misuse of the act
3) her intention of getting into a wedlock that included dowry giving
4) Where did she get the information that taking dowry was against the law.
5) evidence act applies not only for physical presence of evidence but also for the intention and knowledge of contrevening such actions. THerefore consider circumstantial evidence as well as her motive behind filing a complaint that taking dowry was against the law. If she has knowledge of this then she should have knowledge ogf giving dowry was against the law.

evidence act applies not only for physical presence of evidence but also for the intention and knowledge of contrevening such actions.
=========================================================================================================

Hmmmm...... interesting point. I need to read evidence act .

Hi All

Problem is if High Court has given stay on this then MM or sessions court would not take any action & till the time my case in MM court is adjudicated, i cant move to next higher court. Only further dates are going on till some final decision comes on the Law by High Court.