Hi All on this thread
The response so far only seems motivated by a desire to show off and in the process make ill informed ( and in some instances plainly wrong statements ). While I have clearly asked NOT for opinions but those based on Law so that learnings can be there.
How can a “ expert” fail to understand simple English and yet continue to express just opinions - sometimes plainly against Law - I fail to understand !
==============
Firstly, let me put aside some personal remarks cited at me so that all know the background :
Tajobsindia says :
7) ……..“ I do not want to discuss them one by one with you guessing your wavelength. “
While Tajobsindia can guess my wavelength ( whatever he understands by that ! ) others can’t. And can’t guess his too So , for everyone’s help they are pointed to this link :
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Whether-concubine-have-any-right-for-maintenance--93147.asp
Happy Reading !
Whenever the issue of my or Tajobsindia “ wavelength” is at hand, above link should be attached . Otherwise imputing any “ wavelength” to any is pretty useless.
Further on Tajobsindia says :
11) “ The alleged blog’s cause of action if any does not fall under ‘civil laws forum’ on behalf of victim future legal showcause I say so. Learn to put query in right forum at Lawyers Club of India”
Since Tajobsindia being an “ expert” member is well aware of the “ suitable” forums, at Lawyers Club of India, it’d have been more appreciated had he also put along with his suggestion on the right forum to which he thinks this post belongs.
But then maybe some “experts” just believe in showing off their arrogance rather than being helpful ?
Be that as it may, it did get his interest . Why ?
As far as I am concerned the post was put into “ civil laws” based upon part “ c” of my question - loss of reputation which could be proceeded both as a civil as well as a criminal case ( As far as I know.. but I am open to learning.. )
But then perhaps Tajobsindia doesn’t know about this / didn’t read that far….
==============
Given this kind of approach to a simple query with the stated objective of learning, I am responding accordingly to the " substance " of what Tajobsindia puts forward:
Tajobsindia says :
“ 4. The alleged victim has to initiated wheel of law, if she is interested that the world should know the 'truth'. “
Tajobsindia doesn’t seem to be aware of what some recent SC decisions say. He/ others may kindly see :
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/former-dean-files-complaint-in-law-intern-harassment-case/article5351957.ece
And to quote :
“ Although no case was registered in the matter till late on Thursday evening, legal experts are of the view that the police are left with no other option in view of the recent Supreme Court directive, making it compulsory for the enforcement agency to register the First Information Report on receipt of a complaint if the information discloses cognisable offence. According to the apex court’s order issued on Monday, no preliminary inquiry is required in such a situation.
“In the light of the Supreme Court directive, it becomes imperative for the police to register a case on the basis of my complaint alleging a cognisable offence. If an FIR is not registered, it would amount to contempt of court,” said Prof. S.N. Singh, the former Faculty of Law dean who filed the complaint.
Also see :
https://www.kractivist.org/india-supreme-court-judgment-on-registration-of-fir/
The Five judge constitutional bench of SC on 12th Nov 13 in Lalita Kumari v State of UP and ors (WP (CRIMINAL) NO. 68 OF 2008) decided upon the issue: whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”
Through Para 111, SC has concluded and given the following directions:
11) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
So to say that the Victim has to initiate the “ wheel of law” doesn’t seem to be correct. The State can take cognizance by itself. And indeed many a times does.
Maybe Tajobsindia can argue further with the people cited above if he has some valid points based upon settled LAW of which he claims expertise …..
==================
Tajobsindia says :
7. In Indian scenario there is no parallel case law. ….
This is not correct .
For a plethora of Sexual harassment cases see :
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=s*xual%20harassment%20cases
and similarly for defamation cases see :
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=defamation%20cases
So, there are many cases in India also on both Sexual Harassment and Defamation.
Which ones of those closely approximate the situation at hand and so could become precedents takes knowledge and experience. Those who have such knowledge and experience will be able to cite such cases. Others such as Tajobsindia will simply say there are none !
=============
Tajobsindia says :
8. Such institution's old boys club need not protecting its own. (emphasis is mine)!
Since ONLY the emphasis is his, maybe this is a Statement from a case. If so, at least he could have given the case citation so that the context can be looked into. Otherwise, what is the point ?
============
Tajobsindia says :
10. This query cannot be answered in straight jacket way, if no 'opinion', it is told to attract!
In my query I have asked for law and citations. As long as those are provided and opinion is based on that, it is welcome and helps everyone learn. Which is the purpose of my query as CLEARLY set out therein.
If only Opinions - some of which seem to be patently against established Law as I have proven above- are brandished about by an “ expert “ , all that is shown is such expert’s arrogance and ignorance.
Having set to rest what the “ expert” said ( and as is clear, more from a desire to put me down rather than to add anything substantial so that I/ readers can learn which is what the Query asks for ... ) , let me put hereunder what I have learnt so far ( thanks to Keshav for inputs herein )
a) The issue of Weak Evidence
Even if the Ex-Intern cooperates and FIR is properly constituted,evidence could be considered weak...
Reference is made to :
https://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr/2012_v5_pi.pdf
JAI PRAKASH SINGH v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 525-526 of 2012)
If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/ deliberations. [Paras 11 and 12]
So, a substantially more stronger proof than just oral / written statements would be needed.
In case such are provided, case may proceed further to a conviction. If not, a closure will result.
b) What then ?
In that case, the Ex SC Judge has the OPTION to file a Defamation claim. This can be either under IPC ( S. 499 to s. 502 ) This being a NON -Cognizable Offence, he would have to take the initiative in this matter.
OR he can go under a Civil Case ( Law not codified in India- not sure about this, maybe some here can correct/ add in ? ) if damages are being sought .
This concludes what I have to say the moment. Hope those interested in learning, find it useful. I welcome their additional inputs in a mature fashion, citing settled Law and opinions.
Comments from " experts" just interested in showing their unfounded expertise and in putting people down are NOT welcome.
(NOT the Last Reply : Welcome more inputs, along with Case Citations / Law, not just half baked opinions since that is NOT asked for in the query !)