THE OTHER SIDE OF STORY AND ROGUE BOMBAY POLICE !!!
THIS IS NOT INVESTIGATIVE EXCELLENCE- 498A IS A GOLDMINE FOR POLICE.
NO BODY KNOWS HOW MUCH PRASHANT SPENT FOR INVESTIGATION AND FINAL REPORT.
Here is the Indian Police in True Colors:-
Illegal Prosecution, Harassment, Hounding and Extortion of USA Citizen in India.
Ms. Lavina Chatur Kripalani came to USA on Fiance visa ( K-1) applied by her on 14. 07. 2001.
Fiance Visa for six months was granted by the USA Consulate in Bombay on 06. 12. 2001.
She was married in USA on 13. 02. 2002 in woodbridge NJ Court and subsequently she was
divorced on 01. 04. 2003 by order of the Superior Court Middlesex New Jersy USA Court.
Her father is also practising advocate at Bombay High Court Mumbai .
While the divorce proceedings against her were in progress in USA, she realised that she
can not stop the petitioner from obtaining divorce against her and that she was not likely to
get any amount of money or property in settlement,she resorted to the misuse of the police
machinery in India, with oblique motives to bring pressures, wreak revenge and unleash
legal-terror. She filed complaint at Nagpada Police Station Bombay on 10. 12. 2002 making
allegations against each and every member of the family ( USA Citizens) alleging
cruelty to her in USA. The complaint was the Counter-Blast to the on-going divorce
proceedings in USA. She did not disclose in the complaint, that there was divorce case
pending against her in USA, and the same was being contested by her and her lawyer
father; in which they had demanded / claimed US $ 200 Thousand (Rs. one crore) in settlement.
No one of husband's family has been spared and left out from being framed in this criminal case.
Ms. Lavina Chatur Kripalani was residing at 12/36 Navjivan Housing Society Dr. D.B. Marg;
Mumbai within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station Mumbai, at the time of
lodging the written complaint under section 156 code of Criminal procedure 1973 of India.
Simple reading of the complaint lodged by Ms. Lavina Chatur Kripalani, on 10. 12. 2002 explain
that, no crime was alleged to have taken place within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police
Station Mumbai (India). The parties never married within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada
Police Station. The parties never visited or resided together within the territorial Jurisdiction of
Nagpada Police Station before their marriage nor after their marriage in USA. Marriage took place
in USA. Matrimonial home was in USA. The alleged crime of Cruelty was allegedly committed in
USA. No investigation was needed to come to the conclusion that part of crime was committed
within the territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station nor any where within the Territory of India .Nagpada Police Station, registered FIR No. 405/2002 on 31. 12 2002 for the offences under
section 498-A, 406 r/w S. 34 I.P.C. and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
No enquiry nor scrutiny nor investigation was carried out by the police officers, as required
under Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, after registering the FIR. When an
information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the complaint
would be of secondary importance. It is the material and evidence collected during the
investigation by the police. FIR is not an encyclopedia of facts. The entire and complete facts
are to be collected by the investigating agency before taking action. The Police officer dealing
with the matter did not determined the Territorial Jurisdiction in respect of alleged offences made
out in the complaint. The Police Officer Violated Section 170 and 177 Criminal Procedure Code
1973 and Illegally proceeded with the matter.
The section 170 Criminal .Pr.Code 1973 specifically provides that if crime was not committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the Police Station
stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime was committed. The law is that police can
register an FIR of commission of a cognisable crime ,but after registration of FIR, if on scrutiny or investigation, it is found that crime was not committed within the jurisdiction of that Police Station
but was committed within the jurisdiction of some other Police Station, the FIR should be
transferred to that Police Station. However, if at the time of registration of FIR itself, it is apparent
on the face of it that crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the Police Station, the Police after registration of FIR should transfer the FIR to that Police Station for investigation. Normally
a 'Zero' FIR is registered by Police in such cases.
Under section 177 of criminal procedure code 1973 of India, no part of cause of action arose
within the Jurisdiction of concerned court and Police Station where the complaint was filed.
Therefore the entire proceedings had no foundation.
This is the question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction.
In spite of the fact that no crime or part of crime was alleged in complaint, that had taken place,
within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station and In-spite of the prohibition by law
for proceeding further against the accused in view of Section 170, 177 Criminal Procedure Code,
and section 188 criminal Procedure Code r/w section 4 Indian Penal Code 1860 the non bailable
arrest warrants were illegally issued against entire family of USA Citizens. Airport Immigration
Police were informed and posted with "look-out circular" naming all members of US Citizen family.
After about three months of the divorce granted by US court, my wife and son were detained and
arrested unaware on 29. 06. 2003, while boarding the scheduled flight for returning to USA after a
short visit to India; by Mumbai Airport Immigration Police; enforcing the Illegal Warrants of Arrest issued and posted in Violation of Section 170 &177 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Section 4
of Indian Penal Code 1860 r/w Section 188 Criminal Pr. Code 1973 of India.
Illegally arrested USA Citizens were produced before the Holiday Metropolitan Magistrate, and
Remand Custody Application dated 29. 06. 2003 was submitted by the Nagpada Police, stating that:
"The Arrested persons committed criminal offences against complainant for
fifteen days after her marriage in Mumbai during the month of February 2002
and onward in New-york USA till 28. 06. 2002".
Where-as the accused were arrested at Airport, enforcing Illegal Warrants of Arrest stating that:
"The Arrested persons committed criminal offences against the complainant
in New-york USA in the month of December 2001 and onward till 28. 06. 2002".
THE REMAND CUSTODY APPLICATION DATED 29. 06. 2003 DOES NOT ESTABLISH
THAT THE OFFENCE WAS COMITTED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
OF NAGPADA POLICE STATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 170 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860.
The USA Passports seized by the Police at Mumbai Airport earlier also showed that the persons
arrested by the police, were NEVER in India during the month of February 2002, according to Indian Immigration Arrival/Departure stampings in passports.The FIR No. 405/2002 registered by Nagpada
Police also states that the Complainant was present in USA from 9th December 2001 till 28th June 2002. Therefore the Remand Custody Application submitted to the Holiday Metropolitan Magistrate by Nagpada Police Station is a deliberately and fraudulently engineered document to to mislead the
Holiday Magistrate and secure Police Cusody of the accused.
The Holiday Magistrate at Metropolitan Court failed to apply his mind properly at the stage of
scrutiny and nor the requirements of law were correctly and responsibly followed by him before proceeding with the matter. Honourable Holiday Magistrate failed to apply his mind on the
contradictory statements made by the Police in the Remand Application and FIR No.405/2002
registered by Police. He even did not care to read and understand the case and simply took the
text from the Police.Honourable Holiday Magistrate even did not determine his own territorial
jurisdiction to deal with the matter, in view of section 170 &177 Criminal Pr. Code 1973 and
Section 4 Indian Penal Code 1860.
Honourable Holiday Magistrate However Illegally approved and ordered Police custody of the
Illegally arrested persons in violation of Section 4 Indian Penal Code and section 170 &177
Criminal ProcedureCode 1973 and without any consideration for falsely engineered charges
in the Remand Application Falsifying FIR No. 405/2002 dated 31.12. 2002.
The Remand Application accepted without application of mind by the Honourable Metropolitan
Magistrate, ordering Police Custody of the accused also does not establish that the alleged
offences took place, were committed within the Territorial Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police
Station and thus within the Territorial Jurisdiction of Holiday Magistrate.
The Remand Custody Application submitted by the Police to the Holiday Metropolitan Magistrate
was deliberate and fraudulently engineered document to misguide the court and fraudulently
secure the police custody of the accused illegally for the ulterior motives. Manipulations and interpolations are crystal clear on the part of the Nagpada police officer.
The learned Holiday Magistrate Mazgaon Court has proceeded to take cognisance without
applying his mind, just like putting a rubber stamp on it. By no stretch of reasoning the
Metropolitan Holiday Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the matter.
The proceedings initiated against the accused were liable to be dismissed on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction alone, under section 177 of criminal procedure code 1973. No part of
cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of Mazgaon Metropolitan court where the Police
Custody Remand Application was filed by the Nagpada Police. Therefore the entire proceedings
had no foundation. This is the question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction.
Don't the magistrate know the basic of criminal law? Judges have to be responsible,When they
pass orders. They must be aware of its consequences.
Neither the Nagpada Police Station informed the USA Consulate that the USA citizens were
arrested by them. Nor the higher authorities in the state of Maharashtra and Ministry of External
Affairs were informed about the arrest of foreign nationals in violation of Section 4 Indian Penal
Code 1860 by the Nagpada Police Station. No permission was obtained from higher authorities
as required by the Section 188 of Indian Criminal Proceedure Code 1973.
After obtaining Police-Custody of accused illegally and fraudulently from Holiday Magistrate
they were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate 15th court Mazgaon Mumbai, after 2 days
of Jail on 01. 07. 3003. The honourable Magistrate without ascertaining his territorial jurisdiction proceeded with the matter, in spite the fact that the said court had no jurisdiction to try the offences
as the cause of action did not accrue within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station,
under Section 170 & 177 Code of criminal Procedure, while dealing with the FIR. No crime has been alleged to have been committed within the Jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station. No investigation
was needed to come to the conclusion that part of crime was committed within the Jurisdiction of
Nagpada Police Station or within the Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Court at Mazgaon, Mumbai.
Under section 177 of criminal procedure code 1973 no part of cause of action arose within the
Jurisdiction of concerned Court where the complaint was filed by police. Therefore the entire
proceedings had no foundation. This is the question of law regarding lack of Jurisdiction
The proceedings were initiated illegally without any scrutiny, responsibility and without jurisdiction
and without respect for law by the Honourable Magistrate Mazgaon Court. Therefore the impugned judgements and orders delivered by the said court cannot be sustained.
Daughter/ Father duo opposed the bail application and falsely denied that the divorce was obtained.
Both were out to hit hard and hound till their demand of Ransoms and Extortion of Rs. Fifty Lakhs was
agreed by the accused
Nagpada Police Station in spite of siezing USA Passports from the accused, falsely and fraudulently
submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mazgaon Court, that the accused were Indian Citizens,
holding Indian Passports. Nagpada Police further submitted to the court that the accused were
residing in USA as such holding USA resident "Green Card". The Nagpada Police Station requested
to the Magistrate to order to the accused to surrender the Indian Passport and USA Green-Card to the Police.
The Illegally arrested US Citizens were released on bail after execution of P. R. Bond of Rs. 20,000/-
each with one of sureties in the like amount with a condition to attend police station every day from
10.00 a.m to 12.00 noon until further orders.
Accused were ordered to surrender their Passport and Green Card (in original) with I.O.
Accused were further directed not to leave the limit of Mumbai without prior permission of
court till further orders.
The accused attended Nagpada Police station daily between 10.00 A.M. to 12.00 Noon as
ordered by the court. Accused submitted an application to the concerned Magistrate on
14 .07. 2003 for return of their USA Passports and permission to leave India. The request
was granted and the USA Passports were returned on furnishing additional cash security
of Rs. 10,000/-each against receiving Passports from Nagpada Police Station.Accused were
permitted to leave India for six months and directed to report their where abouts to Nagpada
Police Station within that period of six months.Attendance conditions imposed in bail order
Metropolitan Magistrate while passing above orders releasing USA Passports did not even
review his own earlier order, directing to the Police to take possession of Indian Passports
and USA Green -Cards from the accused. Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate even did not
ascertain the non compliance of the said Judicial orders, and the reasons for the non-compliance
of taking possession of Indian Passports and USA Green-Cards.
Therefore the above order returning USA passports confirms that the concerned Honourable
Magistrate was very well aware that the accused were USA Citizens and their USA Passports
were in possession of Nagpada Police, and allowed the police to mislead the court and deny the
possession of USA passports.
Metropolitan Magistrate's failure to ensure effective implementation of his bail orders requiring
the surrender of Indian passports and Green Cards by the accused, to theNagpada Police Station,
after falsely determining that accused were Indian Citizens and subsequently ordering to return
the USA Passports to the accused, and recognising the Foreign nationals not being Indian nationals
by the same Judge, proves hand and glove conspiracy and speaks volumes of unlawful conduct by
law enforcers in India. The laws and Judicial System have been completely violated, short circuited, sabotaged and made irrelevant in this matter. You talk of Justice in a perfect system, not in a
imperfect system where Police Officers, Magistrates and Judges are falsifying the evidence.
The Orders/ judgements have been passed in a mechanical manner, without applying mind to the
facts of the case made in the FIR No. 205/2002. Had the Presiding Officer scrutinised even the
F.I.R. he would have learnt that no offence had taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Court at Mazgaon Mumbai India.
Malpractices, Manipulations and Mala fide on the part of the Nagpada Police Officer stands proved.
In view of the above manipulations by the Police officer and non-application of mind firtly by the
learned Holiday Magistrate, and secondly by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th court
Mazgaon the criminal proceedings stand vitiated.
Supreme Court of India had considered the question of registration of FIR at length and taking
note of different Sections of Cr.P.C. observed that the territorial jurisdiction was prescribed
under Sub-Section 1 of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to the extent that a Police Officer can investigate
any cognisable case, which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of
said Police Station would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
However, Sub Section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that proceedings of Police Officer
in any case cannot be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such Officer
was not empowered to investigate.
The Supreme Court further observed that Section 170 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that if, upon investigation, it appears to the Officers In-charge of the Police Station that crime was not
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, that FIR can be forwarded to the
Police Stating having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed.
In view of above Supreme Court judgement the entire process of taking cognition of FIR
No.405/2002 dated 31.12. 2002, and issuing non bailable arrest warrants, issuing look out circular,
arresting the accused and prosecuting the accused by Nagpada Police and Metropolitam Court
at Mazgaon was Illegal. The entire process was in violation of Section 170 and 177 code of
Criminal procedure 1973 and section 4 Indian Penal code 1860.
Illegaly arrested and prosecuted accused in India reached back in USA; after fifteen days of
harassment, agony and extortion by the police and judicial system in India.
Subsequently Petition for Quash under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and Article 226 of constitution of India was filed with Honourable Bombay High Court, on behalf of accused being
Criminal Writ Petition Nos 1558 and 1559 of 2003 praying for quashing of complaint (FIR).
The Petitions were rejected vide order dated 21. 01. 2003. The Bombay High Court held that the
prayers made in the Writ Petitions were premature and all the pleas are open to petitioners in the
event of charge sheet being filed by the police.
An application dated 23. 03. 2004 in the Case No. 631/P/2003 was filed in Metropolitan Magistrate's
15th Court at Mazgaon Mumbai, for "discharge" on grounds of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other grounds as follows:
a. The prosecution was filed without obtaining the requisite sanction from central government
under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such the prosecution was bad in law.
b. Even if the entire contents of the FIR No. 405/2002 dated 31.12.2002 are admitted for the sake
of arguments, the said contents by any stretch of imagination, does not constitute any offence
under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act.
c. The fact that the accused No.1 and the complainant were married in USA, has been admitted by
the complainant herself in the FIR whereas, the complainant's other contentions that she was
married with the accused no. 1 first time in India is not corroborated or supported by any
documentary evidence, as any such document does not find any place in the charge-sheet filed
by police in the above case. Even if her contentions are accepted as true that she married in India,
then also "The marriage in India does not constitute the offence under the Indian Penal Code
and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
d. The fact that even the marriage between accused no.1 and the complainant solemnised and
registered in USA, according to USA laws was dissolved by the Judgement of divorce dated
1.4.2003, passed by the honourable Judge Mr. Bradley Ferenz in the divorce petition filed by
the accused no. 1 against the complainant on 30.7.2002.
e. It was pertinent to note that as per her own complaint, the complainant had returned to India
on 28.06.2002, filed her Written Answers to the divorce petition on 11.9.2002 but has lodged
the complaint in the present case on 10. 12. 2002 as an after thought.
f. It was also pertinent to note that even if the complainant had filed her complaint against
accused no.1 on 10.12.2002, in her Written Answers dated 11.9.2002 to the Divorce Petition,
the complainant had categorically stated in para no. 6 that
" The Defendant has no grievances with her HUSBAND and very much wants
to continue, preserve and nurture her marriage and return to her Husband.
g. Thus, it can be seen that the complainant, when realised that she can not stop the accused from
obtaining divorce against the complainant and that she was not likely to get any amount of money
or property from him had filed the present complaint against the the entire family as late as about six
months after returning to India and 3 months after after stating in her written answers to the divorce
petition that she does not have any grievance against her Husband.
h. The accused further stated that the accused, by virtue of being American Citizens are fireign
nationals. As per the provisions of section 4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 188 of
Code of Criminal Proceedure, 1973, Your worship does not have the Jurisdiction to enquire
into the above case and to try the above accused.
j. In view of the above circumstances and the legal position, the accused pray that your lordship
may be pleased to order the above accused persons to be Discharged from the above case.
The honourable magistrate without entertaining the above application for 'discharge', cancelled
bail granted on 14. 07. 2003 and issued non-bailable arrest warrants on 8th April 2004 insisting
presence of of the
accused in the court.
The Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 2004 was filed by the advocate for accused with the
Bombay sessions court at Sewri Mumbai, against the said order of the honourable magistrate
cancelling the bail and issuing non-bailable warrants without disposing the application for
discharge made as per section 4 of Indian Penal Code and section 188 of Criminal Pr. Code of India.
The Honourable Sessions Court was requested to examine the legality and propriety of the
impunged order issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Court.
The Revision Application was allowed and disposed on 28th May 2004.
The non-bailable warrants issued by the Honourable Magistrate were ordered to stand cancelled. Honourable Magistrate at Mazgaon Court was advised to consider the application for discharge,
and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. The Honourable Magistrate was further
advised to give reasonable time to petitioners to appear before him, keeping in mind that the
petitioners were residents of USA, in case the discharge application was rejected by him.
The Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate, once again without considering and deciding the
application for discharge as ordered by sessions court and without examining the legality and
propriety of his actions; once again insisted on the appearance of the petitioners before him, as
the petitioners were allowed permission for 6 months, and were ordered to return to India within
six months vide his order dated 14th July 2003.
The honourable magistrate without entertaining the above application for 'discharge',
issued non-bailable arrest warrants on 8th April 2004 insisting presence of of the
accused in the court.
The Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 2004 was filed by the advocate for
accused with the Bombay sessions court at Sewri Mumbai, against the said order
of the honourable magistrate cancelling the bail and issuing non-bailable warrants
without disposing the application for discharge made as per section 4 of Indian Penal
Code and section 188 of Criminal Pr. Code of India. The Honourable Sessions Court
was requested to examine the legality and propriety of the impunged order issued by
the Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Court.
The Revision Application was allowed and disposed on 28th May 2004.
The non-bailable warrants issued by the Honourable Magistrate were ordered to
stand cancelled. Honourable Magistrate at Mazgaon Court was advised to consider
the application for discharge, and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
The Honourable Magistrate was further advised to give reasonable time to petitioners to
appear before him, keeping in mind that the petitioners were residents of USA, in case
the discharge application was rejected by him.
The Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate, without considering and deciding the
application for discharge on 10th June 2004, and without examining the legality and
propriety of his actions; once again insisted on the appearance of the petitioners before
him, as the petitioners were allowed permission for 6 months, and were ordered to return
to India within 6 months vide his order dated 14th July 2003.
The Criminal Revision Application No. 6 of 2005 was once again filed in the Mumbai Sessions
Court, against the order of Honourable Metropolitan Magistrate,Mazgaon Court which is pending.
Even if contentions in FIR are accepted as true that complainant married in India, then also
"The marriage in India does not constitute the offence under the Indian Penal Code and Dowry
Prohibition Act 1961. Metropolitan Magistrate Mazgaon Court has no "All India or All Maharashrta
or All Bombay Territorial Jurisdiction". By no stretch of reasoning the Metropolitan Magistrate was
competent to hear and deal with the matter of "discharge" under section 188 Criminal Procedure
Code r/w sect 4 Indian Penal Code on the ground of lack of jurisdiction alone, as no part of cause of
action arose within the Jurisdiction of Mazgaon Metropolitan court. Entire proceedings at Mazgaon
Metropolitan Court at Mumbai had no foundation. This is the question of law regarding lack of
Jurisdiction. Don't the magistrate know the basic of criminal law?
Session's Court committed grave error by reffering the matter back to the metropolitanMagistrate
Mazgaon Court. The Sessions court at Mumbai aught to have 'Discharged' the case,using power
of superintendance over the sub ordinate court. The Revision application for discharge ought to
have been decided on it's merits by the court of appeal.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled in respect of the Similar Application made under
Section 188 Cr. P. Code 1973 and Section 4 IPC 1860.http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydis ... name=31538
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON 13th MAY 2008 .
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl) No.6004 of 2006.
Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel.... Versus State of Gujarat & Anr.
The Supreme court of India Judgement says:-
"The proceedings were initiated illegally and without jurisdiction".
"In view of the fact that the offence is said to have been committed
outside India, the provisions of IPC or CrPC cannot have any application".