Jurisdiction is where “she” says it is

This article is a response to the story “A Matter of Jurisdiction” in Telegraph India, from the feminist propaganda mill, represented by Ms Saheli Mitra,  giving the “pathetic” feminist slant to what is considered Law 101 in the contemporary as well as traditional jurisprudence. Observe the scenes included in the story from the movie “provoked”, which is a real life story of a cold blooded woman killer murdering her “sleeping” husband.  [Can one think of more heinous crime than killing a sleeping husband?]

It is a settled matter of law that the jurisdiction to entertain the trial for an alleged crime falls in the place where such crime is alleged to have taken place. You do not need a doctorate degree in laws to understand the common sense reasoning behind this reasonable conclusion. The evidence, the witnesses, the place and scene of the crime all exist in the alleged place of commission of the crime, not some thousands of miles away.  Just because it is not “convenient” for the alleged victim to attend the court proceedings, you cannot shift the jurisdiction to some far away place. 

So, that is what happened in this case. The court quashed the proceedings in an incorrect and inappropriate jurisdiction. The court did not have much choice in this pronouncement – It was all in black and white. The crime was alleged to have occurred in Mumbai, the cases (not one, but multiple) were filed in Durgapur, thousands of miles away. 

Now, just reverse the genders of the actors in this story – a man runs to a different city and files a case of “whatever” on the woman, the feminist propaganda machine would have gone into overdrive condemning the practice and screaming the issues of jurisdiction. 

I said “whatever”, because most women filing false cases are not facing any consequences for wasting the time of public prosecution and the courts, even after the accused are exonerated and the perjury committed by the women in the open court is proven at the trial. That is the sad state of our judicial landscape – no penalty for perjury; perjury which strikes at the roots of any honest and impartial justice dispensation system. 

Time and again, we witness 498a cases in their hundreds filed by women, tens of hundreds of miles away from their matrimonial residences, with the sole intention of harassing and blackmailing the in-laws and their families. Not one line of condemnation of this virulent practice was ever written in the media, while scores of families were ruined as multiple accused persons from the in-laws families had to trudge thousands of miles across the country to arrange for bails, engage lawyers, and the fight costly court battles against the deep pocketed and unaccountable public prosecutors. 

Was that not an inconvenience for the accused in-laws who were in their advanced years to travel to a far off jurisdiction to fight the accusations leveled against them? And fight those accusations, while the witnesses and evidence that exonerates them is at the place where the alleged harassment is supposed to have occurred? That doesn’t matter. If it is inconvenient for “the woman”, then we must bend the rules to suit “her” convenience”. 

Here are some excerpts Ms Saheli Mitra’s article –
“In so many instances, a woman’s marital home is in a state where she doesn’t have any relatives or friends to fall back on. If she has no support system, there is nothing she can do when tortured. It becomes impossible for her to lodge and then fight a case in a state where she has no base,” 
When you observe that reasoning, you can see the duplicity oozing from every word. Is that not true for the man and his family – word for word.  Is justice dispensed based on the convenience of the litigants; or based on the principles of justice? 

“The accused, in turn, filed a case under Section 482 (inherent power of the High Court to set aside a lower court’s orders) of CrPC against Sumana at the Calcutta High Court. And on March 22, 2007, in a judgment that could perhaps spell doom for hundreds of women subjected to similar torture, Calcutta High Court quashed the case filed by Sumana on the simple ground of jurisdiction. ” 
Wasn’t the accused forced to travel thousands of miles, engage a lawyer in unfamiliar territory, without any support system or relatives, and no base to fight his case. “[t]he Calcutta High Court quashed the case on the simple ground of jurisdiction”. 

Dear Ms Saheli Mitra – Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking! The “ground of jurisdiction” is by no means simple. It may appear simple to simpletons, but it is a profound concept of jurisprudence. It is one of the basic foundations on which modern jurisprudence rests. 

No matter how many crocodile tears one may shed, one cannot subvert the rule of law completely without far reaching consequences on the society. Because what may benefit the goose today, could some day become a precedent for the gander.  But, then who says you are arguing for equitable application of law irrespective of the gender. You and your ilk want the whole world to accept wholesale whatever a woman utters or wants, no matter what the intent of that woman is, or the consequences there of on the rest of the society.


Tags: , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Jurisdiction is where “she” says it is”

  1. Durga Says:

    Excellent comment!

  2. B K Mishra Says:

    very illustrative remarks on misuse of dowry act. Thanks for such informative passage.

  3. balu murli Says:

    very well said,very comprehensive & remarkable findings.Thanks to support aggreived famileis.

  4. anindita Says:

    atrocity prevails in the kingdom of men and they cheer for connivance of their clan..

  5. The Sentinel Says:

    Deceit prevails in the dominion of whores and they bemoan and protest the exposure of their lies.

  6. The Sentinel Says:

    Read this to understand jurisdiction:

  7. Cheryl King Says:

    Speaking of Fraud, Incest and the like ..Read how the perpetrator plays the victim and hopes the whole issue of her crime will go away. Go read the true story the “Days of Tempest” A sobering dose of brutal truth.


    Cheryl King Email : kingcems@alphalink.com.au

    Australian Advocate Against Paternity Fraud

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: