By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru : Complaint was for to find the missing good husband and police made it as 498A case in FIR. As per complaint date and time of alleged crime is 17/02/2012 when all three accused were not with complainant and but were at different place as per complaint itself then it is proved case of false complaint .But Police has mentioned it alleged crime continuously happened between 1-02-2007 and 17-02-2012 in FIR and it is case of false FIR . No medical or hospital records showing the physical harassment. No documentary evidences of dowry supporting the crime .Complaint and FIR contradict on date, time & place of crime happened. When offences not prima facia made out against accused person framing of charge sheet is not proper and white field police have committed blunder in FIR No 050/2012 Dated 19-02-2012. General allegations are not sufficient to procure 498-A. Vague allegations are not acceptable.
Reportedly wife or daughter-in-law who's demands are not met can make a written false complaint of dowry harassment to a nearby police station. The husband, his old parents and relatives are immediately arrested without sufficient investigation and put behind bars on a non-bailable terms. Even if the complaint is false, you shall be presumed guilty until you prove that you are innocent. 498a can only be invoked by wife/daughter-in-law or her relative. Most cases where Sec 498A is invoked turn out to be false (as repeatedly accepted by High Courts and Supreme Court in India) as they are mere blackmail attempts by the wife (or her close relatives) when faced with a strained marriage. In most cases 498a complaint is followed by the demand of huge amount of money (extortion) to settle the case out of the court. This section is non-bailable(you have to appear in court and get bail from the judge), non-compoundable (complaint can't be withdrawn) and cognizable (register and investigate the complaint, although in practice most of the time arrest happens before investigation). There have been countless instances where, without any investigation, the police has arrested elderly parents, unmarried sisters, pregnant sister-in-laws and even 3 year old children. In these cases unsuspecting family of husband has to go through a lot of mental torture and harassment by the corrupt Indian legal system. A typical case goes on for years (5-7 years is typical) and the conviction rate is about 2% only. Some accused parents, sisters and even husbands have committed suicide after time in jail.
Reportedly lodging of a false FIR/complaint is punishable under IPC. Such an informant/ complainant can be proceeded against under section 182 IPC or under section 211 of IPC by the police. Police need to file FIR against such complainant under section 182 and 211 and 420 464 and 468 of IPC and 504 of IPC for fraud and conspiracy 120B creating false documents criminal intimidations as entire Pankaja family and her friends are involved in the crimes. Mr D.V Ramu has filed Complaint against Smt Pankaja A D/O D.L Anantharamaiah (9900789618)resident of No 136 4 th cross Prshantha Layout White Field Bangalore -560066 and D.L Anantharamaiah and Mrs Ratnamma w/o D.L Anantharamaiah and others who committed fraud coercion and abetting the crime with along with their daughter Mrs Pankaja Singh (9900789618) residing atNo 5/5 Subanna Garden Hoody Village Hoodi White Field Bangalore -560066and No 136 4 th cross Prshantha Layout White Field Bangalore -560066in respect filing false complaint and false FIR Crime No 050/2012 Dated 19-02-2012 under section 498A after receipt of notice of Abhijit Divorce Petition filed in Family court case Number 443/2012 dated 01-02-2012 without any evidence of dowry as it was a love marriage and marriage was in Arya samaja and marriage broke because of her fraud of suppressing her earlier marriage FIR Number 121/2012 dated 22-04-2012 and her serial frauds which are coming and pouring in like FIR 22/2014.The complaint itself is false fabricated and full of contradiction and does not report any cognizable offence against Abhjit and his parents. Complaint does not disclose any crime. Complaint does not disclose dowry demand and harassment.
Reportedly Pankaja A D/O D.L Anantharamaiah (9900789618)had filed a false case of 498A against Abhijit and his parents without any proof of dowry last year to extort money of Rs 20 lakhs on 19-02-2012. Slap IPC section 211 (false charge of offence) . Section 211 of IPC states whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Credibility of Bangalore police is in question. Request is made to Sri M.N.Reddy IPS The Commissioner of Police Bangalauru to take necessary legal action as per IPC and criminal procedure code against PSI Sadananda of White field Police Station in respect of False complaint false FIR Number 50/2012 dated 19-02-2012 and filing false charge sheet and framing and fabricating false case on accused Sri D.V.Ramu and Smt Lalitha . False complaint False FIR and false charge sheet in FIR Number 50/2012 dated 19-02-2012 by PSI Sadananda of White field Police Station. Evidently the complainant in FIR Number 50/2012 dated 19-02-2012 is again accused in FIR Number 121/2012 dated 22-04-2012 for suppressing her earlier marriages and tress pass in in-laws house and charge sheeted by same PSI Sadananda of White field Police Station. This contradiction proves that PSI Sadananda of White field Police Station has committed blunder and willfully filed False FIR and false charge sheet in FIR Number 50/2012 dated 19-02-2012 against innocents parents and senior citizens with ulterior motives to harass innocents parents and senior citizens and black mail them as complainant in FIR Number 50/2012 dated 19-02-2012 huge money for settlement in Family court and even filed false domestic violence case. The place of alleged crime as per complainant is "No 136 4 th cross Prshantha Layout White Field Bangalore -560066 whereas in FIR and charge sheet place of alleged crime was changed deliberately to "No 38 1 Cross 1ST MAIN Prashanta Layout White Field Bangalore: 560066 .Whereas the complainant never stayed at this place with her in laws Sri D.V.Ramu and Smt Lalitha as it was love marriage and at the time of complaint her husband was not staying at with her as he had filed divorce petition a month before. Based on false PSI Sadananda of White field Police Station have filed false change sheet.The complaint of Smt Pankaja does not warrant slapping of IPC section 498A by police as No demand for dowry was made , section 498-A could not be attracted in such circumstances .General allegations are not sufficient to procure 498-A in Surajmal Barithia V. State of west Bengal 11 (2003) DMC 546 (Cal) (DB). Taunting is not Cruelty in Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand , 2003, Cri LJ 2759 (Del) : 2003 (3) Crime 100. While interpreting the provisions of Section 304-B, 498-A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision reported as State of H.P.v Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219 the Supreme Court observed that harassment to constitute cruelty under explanation (b) to Section 498-A must have nexus with the demand of dowry and if this is missing the case will fall beyond the scope of Section 498-A, IPC. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty' to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision reported as Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 53 wherein it was observed that offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be made out if beating given to bride by husband and his relations was due to domestic disputes and not on account of demand of dowry. It is thus clear from the reading of Section 498-A IPC and afore-noted judicial pronouncements that pre-condition for attracting the provisions of Explanation (b) to Section 498-A IPC is the demand and if the demand is missing and the cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the women without any nexus with the demand then such a cruelty will not be covered under explanation (b) to Section 498-A, IPC. It may be a cruelty within the scope of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121. In said case, it was observed that cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is distinct from the cruelty under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. If a woman's complaint accusing her husband and in-laws of cruelty under the dreaded Section 498A of Indian Penal Code turns out to be false, then the man is entitled to divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled.