Padmapriya ‘suicide’: Setback for former Udupi MLA Raghupathi Bhat as SC sets aside HC order

News Network
September 18, 2017

Udupi, Sept 18: In a major setback to BJP leader and former Udupi MLA Raghupathi Bhat, the Supreme Court has set aside the 2014 order of the Karnataka High Court, which directed a trial court in Udupi to order further investigation against Athul Rao on charges of abetting Padmapriya, wife of Mr. Bhat, to commit suicide, adultery and enticing a married woman. Athul was a close friend of Padmapriya.

A Bench, comprising Justice Dipak Misra (as he then was) and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, in its August 18, 2017 verdict, allowed Athul’s plea and set aside the High Court’s September 16, 2014 order.

Also, the Supreme Court directed the Udupi trial court to conclude within six months the trial of the case against Athul.

The police had filed charge sheet against Athul under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code accusing him of cheating and forgery in connection with his actions of procuring several official documents, including the rent agreement for a flat in New Delhi, where Padmapriya allegedly committed suicide on June 14/15, 2008.

The charges were based on fraudulent information and false representations made by Athul to show that Padmapriya was his lawfully wedded wife. Athul’s claim was that he had only helped Padmapriya, “on her request,” to come out of her marital house.

Not satisfied with the charge sheet filed by the police in August 2008 and the supplementary charge sheet in July 2009, Mr. Bhat had filed a private complaint against Athul before a magistrate court in Udupi making allegations under Sections 497 (adultery), 498 (enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman) and 306 (abetment to suicide). The magistrate court had ordered a separate investigation based on Mr. Bhat’s complaint.

However, Athul moved the High Court challenging the probe ordered on Mr. Bhat’s complaint.

And the High Court quashed the investigation ordered by the magistrate but allowed Mr. Bhat to file an application seeking further investigation before the trial court, where the police had already filed the charge sheet against Athul. The High Court had asked the trial court to consider Mr. Bhat’s plea “in accordance with the law.”

The trial court, after hearing Mr. Bhat’s application, on August 7, 2014 rejected his plea for further investigation while observing that “investigation officer had probed the case from all angles in the context of allegations in the complaint” besides making it clear that additional charges could be framed against Athul if any evidence is revealed during trial.

This made Mr. Bhat to move High Court against rejection of his plea for further probe. The High Court, in its September 16, 2014 order, allowed Mr. Bhat’s petition and directed the trial court to order further investigation.

But Athul moved the Supreme Court, which on February 2, 2015 stayed the High Court’s order related to further investigation.

In its final order, the apex court held that the High Court “committed manifest error in interfering with the discretionary order passed by the trial court, which had rightly, giving proper reasons, rejected Mr. Bhat’s plea for further investigation.

Comments

Kalandar Manna…
 - 
Tuesday, 19 Sep 2017

Raghupathi Bhatta has to be punished, The law should be same for all.

Danish
 - 
Monday, 18 Sep 2017

Mr. Raguphathi bhat is innocent and the rest god knows.

Truth
 - 
Monday, 18 Sep 2017

Yeddyruappa also claimed innocence for his wife's death

Unknown
 - 
Monday, 18 Sep 2017

Will never get justice

Suresh
 - 
Monday, 18 Sep 2017

Nothing new in this?  Dirty law of India

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 22,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 22: Thanks to joint efforts by the Protector of Emigrants in Bengaluru and Indian Embassy in Qatar, a 26-year-old woman from Karnataka who had been kept in confinement in Qatar has been rescued and brought back to India.

Anupama (name changed) from Holenarasipura in Hassan district arrived in Bengaluru on Thursday night. She was allegedly locked up in a house for 14 days, restrained from using a mobile and wasn't fed. There were three other women with her. On the midnight of February 12, they broke the window panes and fled before contacting local police.

Anupama, a diploma graduate in computer science, was jobless and her friend working in Kuwait suggested she try for a job abroad. She contacted an agency based in Chikkamagaluru which offered her a nanny's job in Qatar. After document verification, the agency demanded she pay Rs 2 lakh but she said she didn't have that kind of money.

The agency sent Anupama on a visitor visa but told her if questioned by immigration officials, she must claim she was visiting her sister. They also gave her a return ticket.

As Anupama was travelling abroad for the first time, she said she was ignorant about several things.

On January 12, Anupama left Bengaluru. But as she reached Qatar, all her documents, including passport, were confiscated by the agency. Her return ticket was cancelled and she was sent to a house to work as babysitter-cum-cook for Rs 30,000. She lived with four other maids in the same house, where they were made to work for 16-18 hours a day.

"I used to wake up around 5.30am every day and had to prepare breakfast for the employers by 6.30am. My work would end around 11pm every day. We never even got time to eat," Anupama told media on Friday. Four days into work, Anupama's nose started bleeding. However, the employers cared little and insisted she continue to work. After 18 days, she requested her employers that she be relieved.

The agency sent her to a house where three women were already present and locked her up with them. "They used to give us a glass of raw rice, an onion, tomato and potato to cook for ourselves. While we got rice every day, we had to use the vegetables for three days. We were not supposed to use mobiles or go out. Two people were monitoring us," she recalled.

Anupama and the others decided to approach police but for that they needed to escape. Around 1.30am on February 12, the four women managed to break window panes and jumped out. They ran for more than a kilometre and managed to approach police, who summoned the agency and got the women to speak to their families.

Anupama called her brother-in-law, who approached the Protector of Emigrants office in Koramangala, Bengaluru. Shubham Singh, PoE in Bengaluru, said they took up the issue with the Indian Embassy in Qatar, which immediately got in touch with Qatar police. Anupama said, "We were kept in prison for a couple of days and were sent to the deportation centre later."

Meanwhile, the Indian embassy got the agency to return the women's documents. However, the agents did not pay their salaries. Two of the women were sent to Hyderabad and the third to Kerala. On Friday, Anupama met Singh at his office, where her statement was recorded. "We have started the process of initiating action against the agency in India," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 7,2020

New Delhi, Feb 7: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Central government on a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and effective implementation of the Assam Accord.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde also sought Centre's response on the plea filed by Assam Social Justice Forum.

The petition sought appropriate directions for taking effective steps for the implementation of Assam Accord, 1985 in letter and spirit and for conservation and preservation of the of a distinct culture, heritage and traditions of the indigenous people of Assam.

The Assam Accord, 1985, had fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of all illegal immigrants irrespective of their religion.

The Bench also sought Centre's response on another fresh batch of pleas challenging CAA and tagged them along with other petitions pending in the matter.

One of the petitions, filed by the Association of Advocates from Maharashtra among others, sought to declare the Citizenship Amendment Act as discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal and consequently set aside the impugned act as ultra-vires the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, over a hundred petitions have been filed in the apex court, for and against the amended citizenship law, which is facing opposition and protests across the country.

CAA grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan and took refuge in India on or before December 31, 2014.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 7,2020

Maddur, Feb 7: Two daily wage workers were buried alive after a heap of mud collapsed on them near the Agriculture Department office on the Bengaluru-Mysuru highway, in Maddur of Mandya district on Thursday night, police said on Friday.

Police said that the deceased, Kashinath (37), and Rajgandh (30), were working at a site of the ongoing Bengaluru-mysuru highway development project.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.