SC quashes Bhandarkar rape charge Swati Deshpande TNN  Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Monday quashed an eightyear-old rape case filed against film-maker  Madhur Bhandarkar by actress Pretti Jaiin, citing her wish to not pursue the charges as well as non-observance of laid-out legal procedures by a Mumbai magistrate.      Bhandarkar had moved the apex court this March against a Bombay high court order in which it declined to dismiss the case. When the hearing commenced in the SC on Monday, the director’s counsel said Jaiin did not wish to pursue the case since she was planning to get married soon.   Set to marry, actress did not want to prolong ‘rape’ case  SC Considers Wish & Merits Of The Matter      National Award-winning director Madhur Bhandarkar got reprieve from the Supreme Court on Monday as it quashed an eight-year-old rape case against him. His counsels Harish Salve and Shreyansh Mithare began the day’s proceedings in the court, saying there was a “new development”. Salve announced that the complainant, actress Pretti Jaiin, does not want to proceed with the case since she is getting married. The revelation sent a ripple through the court.      The bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad asked if Jaiin was marrying Bhandarkar. “No,” promptly replied Jaiin’s counsel B H Marlapalle, a former judge of the Bombay high court. “Bhandarkar is already married. She will be marrying someone else.” Marlapalle said the actress wanted to “move on”: “Eight years have passed since the FIR was filed. She wants to start life afresh. She is already engaged.” He suggested that no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.      The judges took into account Jaiin’s wish but thereafter heard the matter on merit. In 2004, the actress had accused Bhandarkar of “indulging in sexual intercourse with her 16 times from 1999 to 2004” on the promise of casting her in his movies. Jaiin had claimed that whenever she resisted, he threatened and coerced her.      Bhandarkar’s appeal in the apex court said both the HC order of March 2012 and an order passed by an Andheri magistrate in September 2011 were wrong and ought to be set aside since they caused “grave injustice” to the film-maker whose movies have won “critical acclaim”.      The Andheri magistrate, Babanrao Pantawane, had in 2011 held that there appeared to be an “ingredient of an offence of rape and criminal intimidation against Bhandarkar” and ordered that criminal action—which could include arrest and trial—must start against him. Prior to this order, the Mumbai police had twice asked for the rape case to be closed, arguing lack of evidence.      The magistrate’s directions sent Bhandarkar rushing to the Bombay high court, which first stayed all further progress in the case. But in March this year, the HC rejected his plea for Jaiin’s complaint and the magistrate’s order to be quashed. The matter thus landed in the SC.      On Monday, finally, things swung in Bhandarkar’s favour. The Supreme Court judges asked if the magistrate had recorded the statements of anyone apart from Jaiin. They were informed that he had not. Bhandarkar’s lawyers said the magistrate ought to have recorded the statements of witnesses too, since serious charges of rape had been levelled against the director. The SC said, “The magistrate did not follow the procedure laid down under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code and chose to examine only the complainant (Jaiin).”    BOLLYWOOD-STYLE DRAMA PRETTI’S ACCUSATION In 1999, film-maker Madhur Bhandarkar was scouting for a new actress to essay the leading role in his venture. He approached Pretti Jaiin and promised to cast her in the lead. He then took advantage of her ambition, she alleged, and indulged in sexual relations with her but never fulfilled his promise   LEGAL JOURNEY July 7 2004  Jaiin sent a legal notice to  Bhandarkar in which she accused him of having sexual intercourse with her 16 times in five years after giving false promises of casting her in his movies. The notice claimed that whenever she resisted, Bhandarkar threatened her. Jaiin said he denied her a role in four films and gave him 48 hours to cast him in his next feature film July 22 2004 Jaiin lodged an FIR with Versova police, accusing Bhandarkar of rape under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code July 30 2004 A sessions court granted anticipatory bail to Bhandarkar. It observed that medical evidence would serve no purpose in the case since considerable time had elapsed, because he was a married man and seeing as the victim was “habitual to sexual relation” Dec 8 2004 Bombay high court confirmed the sessions court order Jan 16 2006 Police filed a ‘B-Summary’ report  before Andheri magistrate to close the case, saying “no evidence” was found against Bhandarkar. The investigating officer (IO) stated the complaint was false Sep 15 2006 Magistrate issued a notice to Jaiin after  agreeing with the IO’s views and asked the actress “why action should not be taken against her” Dec 19 2008 Magistrate directed further investigation into the original FIR without examining the victim on oath. The IO recorded additional statements of Jaiin and the witnesses she named July 18 2009  Versova police submitted another report citing lack of evidence Nov 11 2009 Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court Andheri, rejected the ‘B-Summary’ report and said it will conduct an inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Dec 4 2010 Magistrate recorded Jaiin’s  statements Aug 2 2011 Magistrate recorded Jaiin’s statements Sep 9 2011 Magistrate issued “process” to proceed against Bhandarkar for rape charges Oct 2011 Bhandarkar moved the HC, asking that the criminal proceedings against him be quashed Mar 22 2012 Bombay HC rejected Bhandarkar’s application, said he must face proceedingsMar 27 2012  Bhandarkar approached the Supreme Court against the HC order Nov 5 2012 Apex court quashed magistrate’s order.   EARLIER COURT OBSERVATIONS SESSIONS COURT | While granting Bhandarkar anticipatory bail in 2004: Medical evidence would serve no purpose since There was no explanation to the silence time had elapsed, because he was a married man and of the victim for over four years and no seeing as the victim was “habitual to sexual relation” proof of threat to her life as alleged    BOMBAY HIGH COURT | While confirming Bhandarkar’s anticipatory bail:      The claim of the complainant that she was repeatedly raped under threat seems to be unfounded… This is so because the offence was allegedly committed since 1999 but was not been reported till now and… the complainant accepts that initially she consented to keep physical relations with the respondent      It cannot be overlooked that Pretti is ambitious and intends to somehow make a career in the film industry… There is... record in court that would cast doubt on her credentials   While rejecting Bhandarkar’s plea to quash criminal proceedings:      Proceedings do not show vindictive abuse of process of court by a frustrated actor or model    SUPREME COURT OBSERVATION      The magistrate had not followed the procedure laid down in law for issuance of process under section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. It had chosen instead to examine only the complainant (Pretti Jaiin)…. She is not interested in pursuing the complaint any further I want to marry and settle down in life. I want peace. The case was delaying my marriage. The only solution to end the eight-year-long fight was to resolve our differences and move on. We met outside court and found this was the best way to end the battle — Pretti Jaiin It is good that she has moved on in life. I was waiting in the corridor when the judgment came. I didn’t know how to react. I just walked away with tears in my eyes. Police investigated the case and found the allegation false — Madhur Bhandarkar

Source::::: The Times of India, 06-11-2012, p.01. http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

‘Education policy out of step with times’

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 

New Delhi: Painting a bleak picture of the higher education scenario in India, an industry report pointed out that its gross enrolment ratio (GER) of 16% was much below the world average of 27%. 90% of colleges were average or below average in 2010, on the basis of their NAAC accreditation, the report says. 
    The higher education sector is plagued with various challenges such as low GER and lack of quality research and education, said the report ‘Higher Education in India: Twelfth Five Year Plan and Beyond’’ by Planning Commission-FICCI-Ernst & Young. This situation is compounded by 11% increase in student enrolment in higher education and a 9% growth in institutions during the last decade, it added. 
    Speaking on the issue, minister of state (MoS) for HRD Shashi Tharoor said that the university system was not producing “well-educated” graduates to meet needs of Indian companies, giving an opportunity to firms to enter the sector in the “guise” of training. 
    He also said that the national education policy in the past has been out of step with the times. “The major problem remains that our national education policy in the past has remained out of step with the time. Whereas countries in the Middle-East and China are going out of their way to woo foreign universities to set up campuses in their countries, India turned away many academic suitors who have come calling in recent years,” he said. 
    Speaking at a two-day higher education summit, Tharoor said, “Companies are entering the higher education space in the guise of training. Our university system simply is not producing well educated graduates to meet the needs of Indian companies today.” 
    The minister said there will be no need for many Indian students to go abroad to study if good higher education institutes were set up in the country. “We will also work towards putting our reform agenda back on track.” 
    He addedthat there is a proposal to establish 50 centres for research in frontier areas of science, design innovation centres, innovation centres in different universities and also research parts of the IITs and other technical institutions. “If finally established, it would transform the research environment in our country,” he said.


Source::::: The Times of India, 06-11-2012, p.11. http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

High court seals builders’ conviction for double-selling same flat

Mustafa Plumber

The Bombay high court has upheld the conviction handed down to Vinay Mehta and Nitin Mehta of Anamika Real Estate Pvt Ltd for cheating a home buyer by double-selling a flat.  The sessions court had sentenced the duo to six months’ simple imprisonment and fined them Rs5,000 each. It also directed the firm to pay Rs 5,000 to the complainant, CM Lakhani.  In 1998, Lakhani met the Mehtas and decided to buy a flat in the under-construction Benzer Tower in Borivli (E) for Rs7.5 lakh. He paid Rs50,000 as the booking amount and the balance was to be paid as mentioned in the agreement signed on January 12, 1998.  When the project was not completed, in 2003, Lakhani checked with the sub-registrar of assurances office and found out that the duo had entered into an agreement with Annay and Nitin Kancholiya on June 20, 2000, for the same flat.  Advocate Mohan Tekawade, appearing for Lakhani, argued that the Mehtas deprived his client to be of his property and used the Rs50,000 for personal expenditure. The Mehtas argued that Lakhani neither paid the balance nor credited his demand notice so, they issued a final letter of cancellation of the agreement. They argued the case would amount to breach of contract and not cheating.  But justice KU Chandiwal dismissed the Mehtas’ revision petition and directed them to surrender before the authorities concerned.

Source:::: DNA, 01-11-2012, p.02. http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=30856&boxid=15738&ed_date=2012-11-01&ed_code=820009&ed_page=4

State to rank colleges on attitude to women

Rankings To Encourage Higher Edu For Women

Yogita Rao TNN 

Mumbai: How a college treats the women on its campus will play a crucial role in determining its ranking among other colleges in the state. The state government plans to rank the best colleges at district, university and state level after assessing them on several parameters, the most important criteria being its sensitivity to women.
    The parameters include measures taken by colleges to curb eve-teasing/ragging, maintaining a balanced male female ratio, convincing girls and their families to pursue higher education, and steps taken by colleges to make girl students economically independent. The idea is to promote equality between girls and boys and increase the enrollment of women in colleges. 
    The state’s higher and technical education department issued a resolution on October 23 to all universities announcing a competition in the state for ‘public awakening’. Different committees have been set up to pick two best colleges each at the district and state university levels and in the final stage, three best colleges in the state. The government has even set aside a budget of Rs150croreto award cash prizes to the winning colleges. Colleges will be assessed for a total of 100 marks, of which 50 marks are allotted for efforts made by institutes to make female students comfortable in the college environment. Another 50 marks is for innovative schemes by students. 
    The idea is to remove inequality between boys and girls and encourage girls to take up higher education. Rajesh Tope, minister for higher and technical education, said, “The idea is to improve girls’ enrollment in higher education and also to make them fearless. I have been approached by many groups complaining of regular eve teasing incidents. Women’s safety is the topmost priority in higher education. We will try to make it an annual exercise.” 
    Ujjwal Uke, principal secretary, women and child development department, said, “The campaign will definitely help bring about awareness among today’s youth. I appreciate the education department’s move in initiating the‘public awakening’ movement.” 
    A department official said, “The colleges have to write to us with filled form. The prizes will be announced on International Women’s Day.”

Source:::: The Times of India, 01-11-2012, p.04. http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

Night hauling of women pub patrons ‘was entirely illegal’

Females Can Be Taken To Police Stations After Sunset Only In ‘Exceptional Circumstances’, Says Law

Swati Deshpande TNN 

The latest raid by the Mumbai police on a So Bo lounge bar, in which some 200 patrons–including men and women -- were taken to the MRA Marg police station because the establishment was open beyond the deadline, violated some major provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. These provisions dictate that the police cannot arrest or take, even as witnesses, women to the police station between sunset and sunrise. The police can take such action only in exceptional circumstances. 
    At 2 am Saturday morning, the police raided LIV lounge in Kala Ghoda, which was open beyond the 1.30 am deadline. The police had no right to take the women to the police station, said city advocate Satish Maneshinde,who deals with criminal matters. 
    Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) says that no male below 15 years of age and no woman (of any age) can be taken or asked to come to the police station between dusk and dawn as a witness to record their statement. Information sought from them can only be taken at their place of residence. Under the law, the police can onlytake names and address if they suspect a crime or offence has been committed. Saturday’s police action thus appears completely illegal and contrary to the procedures laid down by law, said legal experts. 
    Sub-section 4 of Section 46 of the CrPC prohibits the arrest of a woman between sunset and sunrise except in exceptional circumstances. Where such circumstances exist, prior permission of a first-class judicial magistrate must be obtained. 
    Legal experts said there were no exceptional circumstances made out by the police even in their FIR. The police had gone to shut a licensed nightclub that had exceeded its scheduled operating hours for the day.“First of all, no patron had committed any offence when the police had reached,” said Maneshinde. There was not even the suspicion of the commission of any offence by the patrons at that time,he said. 
    “Thus, not just women but none of the guests present there could have been rounded up,” said Maneshinde. “Yet, they were all confined for an hour at the nightclub and all, including the women, were carted to the police station at night and again confined in the tiny police compound or in vans like cattle, which was entirely illegal.” 
    Women must know that there are special privileges for them under law, said experts. For instance, there has to be a woman cop present when a woman is being arrested or taken as a witness. LIV patrons said that no women police were present when the police reached the bar on Saturday morning. The police FIR says that women police personnel were present only at the MRA Marg police station. 
    The law says that if there are exceptional circumstances and a woman has to be taken to the police station, her relatives must be allowed to go with her. A woman can also choose to give her statement or information only to a lady police officer. If that is not possible, a lady officer must at least be present. The law requires that as far as it is practical, a woman officer must be deputed. But the state’s police force has less than 5% women cops. 
    Even the Bombay Police Act, which governs all police action and powers when it comes to petty offences, makes it mandatory for the police to treatwomen with respect. 
 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS | PRIVILEGES WOMEN ENJOY 
Every cop is duty bound to ensure that women are treated with respect. There are no exceptions to this rule 
When a woman is a complainant, the police must enquire and investigate expeditiously and arrest the accused immediately 
It is binding on the police to have a woman cop present while arresting or interrogating a woman 
    The police must treat an accused woman with dignity, irrespective of the crime 
    Women cannot be arrested or called to a police station between sunset and sunrise. If the need arises due to exceptional circumstances, the police must allow the woman’s kin to stay with her 
    Accused women must be kept in reserved cells. If no such cell is there, they are to be kept in the visitors’ room. A rape victim may ask for her medical exam to be conducted by a female doc.

WHERE TO COMPLAIN 
The Mumbai police are committed to provide decent treatment to all citizens, especially women, says the police website. Any aberrations must be brought to the notice of senior officers 
If you have to complain about treatment received, first meet the senior inspector of the police station 
If the problem persists, meet the assistant commissioner of police (ACP) of that division 
    If need be, the complainant can go higher up, to the deputy commissioner of police (DCP) for the zone or additional commissioner of police (Addl CP) for the region 
    Names, addresses and phone numbers of all these officers have been given on the website www. mumbaipolice.org. One can also directly write to the webmaster by clicking ‘Contact Us’ on www. mumbaipolice.org.

Source:::: The Times of India, 01-11-2012, p.04. http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW

No escaping VAT, high court tells builders

Dismisses clutch of petitions seeking the quashing of govt circulars on the tax

DNA Correspondent l Mumbai

Builders will have to assess their tax liabilities the way the government wants it to and pay VAT (value added tax) by October 31.  Also, they can avail of the option of composite payment for agreements entered after April 2010, the Bombay high court ruled on Tuesday.  While upholding the two sales tax department circulars related to VAT, the court dismissed a clutch of petitions from various builders’ bodies that had sought the quashing of the circulars.  The Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry and the Builders Association were among the petitioners. A division bench of justices DY Chandrachud and RG Ketkar directed the developers/builders to register themselves with the sales tax department and pay VAT as per the new Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act, 2002. Under the act, the new definition of “sale” makes it mandatory for developers to pay tax every time they sell a flat/house.  As per the circular, developers were supposed to register by September 15 and pay the taxes by October 31. The earlier deadline was August. The SC had extended it while admitting a petition that challenged the HC order, which had upheld the constitutional validity of an amendment in the MVAT Act (changing the definition of “sale”). Going by the circulars, developers will have to pay 5% of the agreement value as tax for flats built between June 2006 and March 31, 2010. In case of tax liability after April 1, 2010, developers will have to pay 1% of the agreement value as tax without any land deduction and input tax credit.  For the period 2006-2010, input tax credit, with conditions, will be available. Also, deduction for labour and service will be available on actual basis. Deduction of land cost too will be there followed by a 30% standard deduction from the remaining amount.  The petitioners wanted the composite scheme — offered to developers for agreements entered after April 1, 2010 — to be extended to them.  But the bench rejected it saying, “The state is empowered to provide scheme of composition to registered dealers. While providing the scheme the first principle is to encourage voluntary compliance of the law.”  The court went on to add, “The scheme is not a way of amnesty but provisions made by the state acting as a delegate of the legislature.” Source:::: DNA, 31-10-2012, p.01. http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=30776&boxid=23190&ed_date=2012-10-31&ed_code=820009&ed_page=1

Divorce granted abroad valid: HC

Overrules decision of Bandra family court which ignored US verdict

Mustafa Plumber

The Bombay high court recently quashed and set aside an order of the Bandra family court allowing a wife to live with her estranged husband overlooking a divorce decree passed by the judicial district court of Harris County, Texas, United States of America.  According to the court, a wife cannot exercise her right to live with her husband in the US by invoking the provisions of restitution of conjugal rights in a Mumbai court once she has contested and the local court in US has declared them as divorced. While setting aside the order passed on July 31, the court said, “Once the decree of divorce is granted by a foreign court after the parties submit to its jurisdiction and after contest or agreement, the marriage stands dissolved. Nothing further survives in the marriage. Therefore conjugal rights cannot be restituted.” The couple married in 2006 and went to the US in the same year. They lived together there until 2010. In the meantime, they had disputes and the husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and cruelty. The wife filed a counter claim. The parties applied for, opposed and ultimately accepted an interim order by consent. The interim order restrained the parties from entering each other’s places of residence. The husband was told to pay house rent, car and motor cycle loan and phone bill up to the end of July, 2010.  After this interim order was passed, the wife came to India on August 22, 2010. She filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and an application under the Domestic Violence Act against the husband, his father and mother. The wife instructed her attorney to withdraw her counter claim and sent emails to the court in the US. Hence, the petition for divorce filed by the husband was to proceed without a counter claim and without her defence. The wife argued that the judicial district court in the US would have no jurisdiction and the decree of divorce passed would not become a final judgement conclusive upon both parties. She further argued that the grounds for divorce would be different in the courts of the US and hence no decree of divorce can stand in India. She also said that the parties were domiciled in India and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would apply. The high court, however, dismissed all her contentions and set aside the family court order, thus holding the divorce granted by the foreign court as correct. Source:::: DNA, 29-10-2012, p.05, http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=30613&boxid=13219&ed_date=2012-10-29&ed_code=820009&ed_page=7