News Analysis India

Tag: Mumbai Court

  • Sending ‘dirty messages’ to fiancée is not an insult to her modesty: Mumbai Sessions Court

    By Online Desk

    A sessions court in Mumbai acquitted a 36-year-old man, a decade after he was booked for cheating and raping a woman under the pretext of marriage. The court observed that sending ‘obscene messages’ to a woman one is going to marry cannot be termed as insulting her modesty.

    The court stated that sending “obscene messages” during the premarital period “may give happiness”.

    “If at all those are not liked by the other side, it has discretion with it to convey its displeasure to the other side, and the other side generally avoids a repeat of such a mistake. The purpose was to put up his expectation before her, to arouse her with similar feeling of sex, which may give happiness even to her, etc. But in no way those SMSs can be said as were sent to insult her modesty,” the court said.

    According to the reports from TOI, the woman had lodged an FIR in 2010. The couple had met on a matrimonial site in 2007 and tried to marry despite opposition from the mother of the accused.

    After the proposed marriage, she refused to let him stay in neither of the homes. Following which the accused broke up the relationship in 2010.

    The court, which acquitted the man of rape charges, said that breaking the promise to marry someone cannot be termed cheating or rape.

    The court said, “He had even been to Arya Samaj Hall with mangalsutra but it was the quarrel on the ground of stay after marriage and thereafter, by getting tired of his indecisiveness and getting surrendered before his mother’s wish and failing to handle and tackle the problem stood before him in proper manner, he came back. But it is certainly not the case of false promise of marriage. It is the case of failure to make substantial efforts.”

    The court stated that it was not mandatory for the woman to have allowed the accused to have a physical relationship with her prior to the wedding.

    The woman opted for sex, believing blindly that they would tie the knot, despite she was aware of opposition from the family of the accused, the court said.

    The court said, “Even after respecting emotions of the informant (woman), respecting her fighting for justice for 11 years or more, this court is of humble opinion that this is not a case which would show that the offence of rape has been committed.”

  • Mumbai court issues notice to Minister Nawab Malik on defamation complaint by BJP leader

    By PTI

    MUMBAI: A local court on Monday issued a process (notice) to Maharashtra minister Nawab Malik on a criminal defamation complaint filed by former Mumbai BJP youth wing president Mohit Bharatiya, who alleged that the NCP leader defamed him and his brother-in-law after the NCB’s raid on a cruise ship last month.

    The court in its order noted that prima facie Malik’s statements harmed the complainant’s (Bharatiya’s) reputation and offence under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the NCP leader.

    The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) last month raided the cruise ship off the Mumbai coast and claimed to have seized drugs onboard.

    The agency subsequently arrested 20 people, including Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan, in connection with the cruise drugs case.

    Aryan Khan and some others were later granted bail.

    Malik has repeatedly termed the cruise drugs case as “fake” and levelled several allegations against NCB’s Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede, who has denied the charges.

    ALSO READ: High Court seeks Nawab Malik’s response on defamation suit filed by NCB officer Sameer Wankhede’s father

    Bharatiya in his complaint filed before a metropolitan magistrate claimed that Malik, in a press conference held on October 9 on the NCB raid and arrest of several persons including Aryan Khan, “purposefully and intentionally defamed” him and his brother-in-law Rishab Sachdev.

    On Monday, magistrate P I Mokashi in the order noted that prima facie offence under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code was made out against Malik.

    The court said it has perused the documents and video clips of Malik’s press conference.

    “It is prima facie proved that the words spoken by accused Nawab Malik were such that it had harmed the reputation of the complainant (Bharatiya),” the court said in its order.

    “Thereby, ingredients of (IPC) Section 500 are prima facie proved against the accused (Malik),” the court said.

    “Issue process against accused Nawab Malik for offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,” the court said and posted the matter for further hearing on November 29.

    Bharatiya in the complaint filed before a metropolitan magistrate had sought action against Malik for allegedly committing offences under Sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of IPC.

    In the complaint, Bharatiya alleged that Malik grossly misused his dominant position to defame him and his family with highly speculative statements without any evidence to substantiate his malicious claims.

    As per the complaint, Malik claimed the “NCB was acting under the influence of the BJP” and tried to connect Bharatiya with the raid.

    Bharatiya further claimed Malik later also made false and absurd allegations that he (Bharatiya) had met NCB’s Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede.

    Bharatiya said such allegations and statements have harmed his reputation.

    The complainant said he had issued a legal notice to Malik on October 9, asking the minister to cease and desist from making any further statements.

    However, Malik continued with the allegations and on October 11, Bharatiya sent a second legal notice, asking him to prove whatever has been stated by him or cease from making such claims.

    When Malik did not stop from making statements, Bharatiya filed the defamation complaint before the magistrate.

  • ‘Films do not contain explicitly sexual acts’: Raj Kundra moves HC against arrest

    By PTI
    MUMBAI: Businessman Raj Kundra on Friday challenged before the Bombay High Court his arrest in a case of alleged production and distribution of pornographic films through apps, saying these videos might be described as “lascivious” but do not show “explicit sexual acts”.

    Kundra (45), the husband of actor Shilpa Shetty, was arrested on July 19 by Mumbai Police.

    A magistrate’s court remanded him in police custody till July 27.

    The petition sought quashing of the lower court’s order.

    The magistrate’s order sending him in police custody violated the law as serving a notice under section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (before arrest) is mandatory, especially in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, it said.

    ALSO READ | Porn films case: Court extends Raj Kundra’s police remand till July 27

    As per section 41A, the police may, in cases where arrest is not warranted, issue summons to the accused person and record his or her statement.

    The material which the police claim to be pornographic did not “depict direct explicit sexual acts and sexual intercourse but shows material in the form of short movies which are lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest of persons at best”, Kundra’s plea contended.

    Hence section 67A of the Information Technology Act (publishing sexually explicit content) cannot be invoked, and at the most it would attract section 67 (publishing lascivious content), it said.

    On July 19, 2021, the police carried out a search at his office and requested him to go to the police station to record statement, Kundra said.

    ALSO READ | Raj Kundra’s arrest: Actor and wife Shilpa Shetty shares post on ‘surviving challenges’

    “The respondent (police) arrested the petitioner in the police station where he was called under the garb of recording his statement,” the plea alleged.

    After his arrest Kundra was asked to sign a notice issued under section 41A of CrPC which he refused to do, it claimed.

    Further, the sections under which he is booked do not prescribe a sentence of more than seven years in jail, so his arrest, without prior notice under section 41 A, “is completely illegal”, the petition said.

    When the First Information Report (FIR) was registered in February 2021, he was not even named as accused, Kundra said, adding that a charge sheet was filed in the case in April and several other accused are now out on bail.