::…TRUTH IS OUT HERE…::

Voice Against Gender Biased Laws and Family Breaking FemiNAZIs.

498A IPC WRONG IMPLEMENTATION

FOR CIRCULATION

To: saveindianfsociety-owner@yahoogroups.com

DELHI 12/9/2006: – 498A IPC WRONG IMPLEMENTATION: IT IS BOTH NON-BAILABLE AND BAILABLE IN REFERENCE TO SECTION 6 of the ACT No. 46 of 1983.

A UNIQUE LAW EMBEDDING TWO ASPECTS ROLLED INTO OEN LAW TO SAVE DOWRY DEATH AND SECONDLY TO SAVE WILLFUL CRUELTY. CRUELTY INCLUDES HARASSMENT. BOTH ARE BEING TREATED AS COGNIZABLE, THOUGH THE SC has ruled in SushIlkumar Sharma Writ’s judgment of 19 July 2005 that the both categories (willful dowry death and willful creulty for dowry) cannot be treated like in a straitjacket formula.

To make it clear further see as follows:

Please see the Objects of enactubf Act No.46 of 1983.
Section 1 of the Crl. act No. 46 of 1983 is through which 498A was created in the IPC.
See Section 6 of Act 46 of 1983 through which the first dowry death law was enacted and consent given by teh president of INDIA ON 25 December 1983. The living woman has to go to the magistrate for the other side of the coin so that family is saved. Women cannot be deciding factor for cognizable offence. It is the duty of the Police Office I/c. of the Thana (Police Station) to not accept it for woman’s welfare too as she is living and that she is not a dead woman. She has to file criminal case as a PRIVATE COMPLAINT CASE.

Judges/Magistrates concerned are to be also challenged for allowing wrong implementation by being a party to it giving the police office an excuse.

I quote from CPI(M) Journal in issue No. Vol. XXVII No. 23 June 08, 2003as follows:
“ALARMING NEXUS What is alarming is the reality that a nexus has developed between the corrupt members of judiciary, the government and the powerful and influential sections of society who contrive to make gains for themselves. The nexus, many a time, includes some from the legal profession as well. Thus it is not in the interest of anyone of these quarters to change the system so as to have an independent and incorruptible judiciary. ”
and “It is evidently the consumers of justice who want an independent and incorruptible judiciary which will safeguard the constitution and frustrate the attempts of the government and the powerful vested interests in the society to use it for their gain.”
and “The constitutional mandate is that all functionaries of the state, including judges, assume office under oath to safeguard the constitution. That in every day practice the tenets of sovereignty, socialism, secularism and democracy are violated speaks volumes about the system, the state of things and the health of judiciary. In whose interest, then, it is to have an independent and incorruptible judiciary? In whose interest, then, it is to have a corrupt and pliable judiciary? The answer is not far to seek.”
and I quote from their same news bulletin named People’s democracy Volume XXVII No. 33 August 17, 2003 :

“Justice Sawant emphatically pointed out that failure of the system of impeachment has been established in the case of Supreme Court judge Ramaswami. There is no transparency in the system of appointments and it works to divide the spoils among senior judges. Now the government will have a greater say if the bill is enacted into a law. After retirement, judges are not allowed to take up any jobs or do practice or take up arbitration cases. This may be compensated by increasing the age of retirement and by lifetime pensions equal to salaries, as provided in some countries.” When judges can be having possible weaknesses despite being duty bound for using even a discretion as a Judicial Discretion, if they can make judgments based upon their personal discretion based upon their personnel whims and fancy being assured failure of justice then how woman can be given the role of complainant, prosecutor, judge at COST OF GOVERNMENT EXPENCES and the wrong implementation of the 498A IPC defeats the purpose of saving matriomonial homes but used for ulterior purposes 100% wherever 498A IPC is started from the F.I.R. in police station and where-ever the police case (Govt. case) or pvt. complaint case tags 498A IPC with repititive laws like (any or all) sections 323, 403, 506 of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. And as a prejudice and in straijacket formulation the Police OFficer (Investigation Officer) and the Magistrate does not arrests the giver of dowry applicable universally in each case of living woman making the use of section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act for the husband and in-law sides by universally applying section for not arresting the woman(wife), her parents and bpothers and their wives and other accompalices for GIVING SO CALLED DOWRY (may be normal gifts termed as dowry later and /or claiming givimng of dowry though actually not giving it) are not arrested under dowry law for giving dowry by wrongly applying the law under Section 7(3) of the DPAct 1961universally at the time of filing of cruelty complaint. Why not filed dowry complaint at time of giving for getting the matter detected red-handed? Such immunity encourages false allegations.

The Police Officer and the Court’s Magistrate/Judge are supposed to check for the ulterior purposes in routine as per check list prepared by me under the law that includes the medical check up for the woman using 498A IPC for usuring equality and depriving the husband and in-laws of their Right to Livelihood, Liberty, dignified Life (Article 21 of Constitution) so that it could be detected that after putting them into bail or jail whether she is enjoying with other males by jumping from her duty of conjugal bed. This was not the object of the Parliament of our democratic India in passing Act No.46 of 1983.

The implementation is wrongly directed. Law is intra-vires. Only proper implementation is required. This is the demand and not that we should beg for it.
The government is to be stopped from entering our family matters and make the woman of family go berserk and find themselves among the basket of pleasure to satistate the desires of V.I.P. and powerful officers. We are not in a jungle law. It is democracy. Wrong laws like Doemstic Violence is an wide deep rooted conspiracy to make the women realise their mistakes after it is too late and they remain in the pleasure basket. So who cares. Only you have to take care of your homes and make woman realise the pitfalls. Woman means equally daughter, sister, daughter-in- law, sister in law of any side.

Old parents and grandparents may die out of the prolonged shock of such criminal allegations which are for ulterior motives of the woman that includes blackmail and extortions under threat of getting punishment through criminal roulte.

The National Commission for Women knows very clearly the implication of teh section 6 of the Crl. Act No.46 of 1983. Its Chairperson can agree if the matter is openly brought before her and should be helpful for getting the same implemented.

All woman are equal under the Constiutition.
So why only daughter in law is the only woman, and the other side woman i.e. sister of husband, mother of woman is malteated under the shadow of the wrongly implemented law. The Chairperson should be asked to cooperate by balancing the fact. If the NCW is used for ulterior purposes, there can be demand for dissolving it as it is destroying the matrimonial bonds in homes. However in case of Udit Narayan the NCW acted rationally and saved that family. Why not she saves others.
So diffrentiate the intravires and ultra vires law let us call it respectively as 498A IPC and HOAX498A.
Discussions will do nothing. Make demands. We send such some of the demands to teh President of India, and the National Human Rights Commission and the Chairperson (Girija Vyas) NCW in the earlier part of 2006 but nothing response.

The Police Officer should be challenged for creating 498A IPC on complaint of living woman while also using the cover and shelter of other regular cognizable law upon complaint of LIVING woman. 498A IPC covers the crime and taken from the laws under generally bailable sections like 323, 503, 506 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry P. Act. The Police Officer Incharge and the Investigation Officer should be also challenged for use of ulterior motives and alien purposes’ use of section 498A IPV by and in name of the LIVING WOMEN and he also being a criminal conspirator too alongwith the living woman’s relatives for ulterior and alien purposes for which section 498A IPC was made. The Policy of Government cannot over rule statutes in judgments and policing practice as per Supreme Court as well as per Constitution. The Objects of the making the Crl. Act 46 of 1983 are to be kept in mind above every thing while implementing teh correct law.

We have to make strong protest by peaceful assemby in India Date by coming in thousands of numbers and not shy that some of you can manage things with MONEY i.e. also a crime to encourage a wrong procedure to increase criminal design by wife and others suffer. Those who can spend money should not shy for public cause and saving money. Divided we lose, United we win for our democratic rights already given in bthe section 498A IPC’s unique two sides of the coin {Congnizable and Non Cognilazble for dead woman and living woman as mentioned abov.)

We live is the greatest and only democractic country of the world – India that enjoys granbtuing of LIBERTY and other rights under the Constiution that should not be allowed to be usurped by the hidden hands in executives, judiciual, political bodies of any hue, AWAKE RISE AND REACH THE GOAL.

SK Sharma
Sushilkumar Sharma
Social Worker
(Principal Correspondent, WINDOW TO THE WORLD)
Post Box no. 9306, Delhi 110092
12th. SEPTEMBER 2006

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FREE LEGAL ADVICE

REGISTER

FORGOT PASSWORD

CHANGE PASSWORD








Copyright © 2018 ::...TRUTH IS OUT HERE...::

eXTReMe Tracker