Legal Service India.

com

Law Articles
SEARCH

Framing of Charge In Criminal Cases

There is some criticism in some trial courts that the important task of framing charge is being entrusted to
stenos by the trial judges. A fortiori, inasmuch as the Supreme Court laid down that the purpose of
framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the
nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial, it is primary duty of a
judicial officer to remove such criticism from the minds of litigant public. This article may be helpful to
newly recruited Junior Civil Judges as to this aspect.

Author Name:   YSRAO JUDGE

There is some criticism in some trial courts that the important task of
framing charge is being entrusted to stenos by the trial judges. A
fortiori, inasmuch as the Supreme Court laid down that the purpose
of framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear,
unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the
accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial, it is primary
duty of a judicial o cer to remove such criticism from the minds of
litigant public. This article may be helpful to newly recruited Junior
Civil Judges as to this aspect.

Framing of Charge In Criminal Cases

There is some criticism in some trial courts that the important task of framing charge
is being entrusted to stenos by the trial judges. A fortiori, inasmuch as the Supreme
Court laid down that the purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to the
accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the
accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial, it is primary duty of a judicial
officer to remove such criticism from the minds of litigant public. This article may be
helpful to newly recruited Junior Civil Judges as to this aspect. Top
The purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear,
unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called
upon to meet in the course of a trial. (See V.C. Shukla v. State Through C.B.I.,1980
Supplementary SCC 92 at page 150 and paragraph 110 of the report). Either it is a
warrant case or a summons case, the point is that a prima facie case must be made
out before a charge can be framed. Basically, there are three pairs of sections in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Those are Sections 227 and 228 which relating to
sessions trial; Sections 239 and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and Sections
245(1) and (2) qua trial of summons cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mohan
Singh v. State of Bihar, has examined the law relating to charge while highlighting the
purpose of framing a charge against the accused in criminal cases.

Strict Comply Of Section 226 Of Cr.P.C:

Trial Judge must insist the prosecution to comply with section 226 of Cr.P.C. if this be
done, accused can be discharged in case of there is no prima facie case. thus, arrears
of cases can be cleared quickly.
Before invoking provisions of Sections 227 and 228 dealing with trials before the
Court of Session, Courts shall take note of Section 226 which obliges the prosecution
to describe the charge brought against the accused and state by what evidence the
guilt of the accused would be proved.

In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another [(1996) 9 SCC 766], a two judge
Bench judgment, it was observed that if the accused succeeds in producing any
reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge which might
fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no
such material should be looked into by the court at that stage. It was held that the
object of providing an opportunity to the accused of making submissions as
envisaged in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the
Code') is to enable the court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct
the trial. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would
clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need be
produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. It was
further observed that there is nothing in the Code which shrinks the scope of such
audience to oral arguments and, therefore, the trial court would be within its power
to consider even material which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated
in Section 227 of the Code.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in [(1996) 9 SCC 766], essayed on the rationale of Section
226 thus:

Section 226 of the Code obliges the prosecution to describe the charge brought
against the accused and to state by what evidence the guilt of the accused would be
proved. The Next provisions enjoins on the Session Judge to decide whether there is
sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In so deciding the Judge has to
consider (1) the record of the case and (2) the documents produced therewith. He has
then to hear the submissions of the accused as well as the prosecution on the limited
question whether there is sufficient ground to proceed.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in [(1996) 9 SCC 766], essayed on the rationale of Section
227 thus:
The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the code
is to enable the Court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the
trial. If the case ends there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human
efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage
would clinch the issue, why should the Court shut it out saying that such documents Top
need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings.
Hence we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider
Hence, we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider
even material which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section
227 of the Code.

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the same ruling[(1996) 9 SCC 766],, examined the purpose
of Section 239 and observed:
Similar situation arise under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant
cases on police report). In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution
and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report
and the documents sent therewith. At these two State the Code enjoins on the Court
to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the
next State. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code
which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds
in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the
very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be
looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the "ground" may be any valid ground
including insufficiency of evidence to prove charge.

Reasons For Charge:

It is seminal to refer the ruling State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC
659. In this ruling, it was observed as: ‘ before adverting to what was stated in
Antulay's case, let the view expressed in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy), 1977
(3) SCR 113 be noted. Therein, Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) speaking fore a three
Judge Bench stated at page 119 that at the stage of framing charge the Court has to
apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the
commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a person's
liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order
was emphasised.’ In one of the case under TADA, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the
Designated Court should give reasons for framing charges because framing of
charges substantially affects the liberty of the person concerned.

The Purpose Of Framing Charge:

In the ruling of a four-Judge Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla v.
State Through C.B.I.,1980 Supplementary SCC 92 at page 150 and paragraph 110 of
the report). Justice Desai delivering a concurring opinion, opined that ‘ the purpose of
framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and
precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in
the course of a trial’.

How To Interpret The Words In A Charge?

What To Be Done, If There Is Any Error In The Framing Of The Charge?
To give appropriate answers for these two important questions, I deem it is apt to see
the recent ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (2011) in Mohan Singh vs State Of
Bihar, wherein it was observed as infra:

The purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear,

unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called
upon to meet in the course of a trial. (See decision of a four-Judge Bench of this Court
in V.C. Shukla v. State Through C.B.I., reported in 1980 Supplementary SCC 92 at page
150 and paragraph 110 of the report). Justice Desai delivering a concurring opinion,
opined as above.

17. But the question is how to interpret the words in a charge? In this connection, we
Top
may refer to the provision of Section 214 of the Code. Section 214 of the Code is set
out below:
214. Words in charge taken in sense of law under which offence is punishable. In
every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used
in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is
punishable."

18.The other relevant provisions relating to charge may be noticed as under:

211. Contents of charge.- (1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with
which the accused is charged. (2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any
specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.

(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of
the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the
matter with which he is charged.

(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been
committed shall be mentioned in the charge.

(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal
condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the
particular case.

(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.

(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason
of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different
kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction
for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award
for the subsequent offence, the fact date and place of the previous conviction shall be
stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at
any time before sentence is passed.

215. Effect of errors. No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required
to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars,
shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact
misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.

464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. (1) No finding
sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid
merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error,
omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in
the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in
fact been occasioned thereby.

(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice
has in fact been occasioned, it may-

(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and
that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the
charge;

(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to Top
be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit:
Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid
charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall
quash the conviction;

19. While examining the aforesaid provisions, we may keep in mind the principles laid
down by Justice Vivian Bose in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (1955) 2 SCR 1140. At page 1165 of the report, the learned judge
observed:- ;We see no reason for straining at the meaning of these plain and
emphatic provisions unless ritual and form are to be regarded as of the essence in
criminal trials. We are unable to find any magic or charm in the ritual of a charge. It is
the substance of these provisions that count and not their outward form. To hold
otherwise is only to provide avenues of escape for the guilty and afford no protection
to the innocent."

20. The aforesaid observation of Justice Vivian Bose in William Slaney (supra) has been
expressly approved subsequently by this Court in V.C. Shukla (supra).

21. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in the case
of Tulsi Ram and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1963 SC 666. In that
case in paragraph 12 this Court was considering these aspects of the matter and
made it clear that a complaint about the charge was never raised at any earlier stage
and the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the charge was fully understood
by the appellants in that case and they never complained at the appropriate stage
that they were confused or bewildered by the charge. The said thing is true here.
Therefore, the Court refused to accept any grievance relating to error in the framing
of the charge.

22. Subsequently, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara

Rao and another reported in AIR 1963 SC 1850, this Court also had to consider a
similar grievance. Both in the case of Tulsi Ram (supra) as also in the case of
Cheemalapati (supra) the charges were of conspiracy. The same is also a charge in the
instant case. Repelling the said grievance, the learned Judges held that the object in
saying what has been set out in the first charge was only to give notice to the accused
as to the ambit of the conspiracy to which they will have to answer and nothing more.
This Court held that even assuming for a moment that the charge is cumbersome but
in the absence of any objection at the proper time and in the absence of any material
from which the Court can infer prejudice, such grievances are precluded by reason of
provision of Section 225 of the Cr.P.C. Under the present Code it is Section 215 which
has been quoted above.

23. Reference in this connection may also be made in the decision of this Court in
Rawalpenta Venkalu and another v. The State of Hyderabad reported in AIR 1956 SC
171 at para 10 page 174 of the report. The learned Judges came to the conclusion that
although Section 34 is not added to Section 302, the accused had clear notice that
they were being charged with the offence of committing murder in pursuance of their
common intention. Therefore, the omission to mention Section 34 in the charge has
only an academic significance and has not in any way misled the accused. In the
instant case the omission of charge of Section 302 has not in any way misled the
accused inasmuch as it is made very clear that in the charge that he agreed with the
others to commit the murder of Anil Jha. Following the aforesaid ratio there is no
doubt that in the instant case from the evidence led by the prosecution the charge of
murder has been brought home against the appellant.
Top

24. In K. Prema S. Rao and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others reported in
 . . e a S. ao a d a ot e . ad a S asa ao a d ot e s epo ted
(2003) 1 SCC 217 this Court held that though the charge specifically under Section 306
IPC was not framed but all the ingredients constituting the offence were mentioned in
the statement of charges and in paragraph 22 at page 226 of the report, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court held that mere omission or defect in framing of charge does not
disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found
to have been proved on the evidence on record. The learned Judges held that
provisions of Section 221 Cr.P.C. takes care of such a situation and safeguards the
powers of the criminal court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not
charged although on facts found in evidence he could have been charged with such
offence. The learned Judges have also referred to Section 215 of the Cr.P.C., set out
above, in support of their contention.

Can Conviction Is Sustainable If There Is No Charge?

To know answer for this wuestion, see ruling Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar; decided
in 2011 . In this ruling, it was observed in para 25 as under:
25. Even in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2004) 5 SCC 334, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C. it is possible
for the appellate or revisional court to convict the accused for an offence for which no
charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion that the failure of justice will
occasion in the process. The learned Judges further explained that in order to judge
whether there is a failure of justice the Court has to examine whether the accused
was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and
whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him
clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. If we follow these tests,
we have no hesitation that in the instant case the accused had clear notice of what
was alleged against him and he had adequate opportunity of defending himself
against what was alleged against him.

Is It Mandatory To Mention Section Of Law In The ‘Charge’?

In K. Prema S. Rao and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others reported in (2003) 1
SCC 217 the Supreme Court held that though the charge specifically under Section
306 IPC was not framed but all the ingredients constituting the offence were
mentioned in the statement of charges and in paragraph 22 at page 226 of the report,
a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that mere omission or defect in
framing of charge does not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for
the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. His
Lordships held that provisions of Section 221 Cr.P.C. takes care of such a situation and
safeguards the powers of the criminal court to convict an accused for an offence with
which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence he could have been
charged with such offence. The learned Judges have also referred to Section 215 of
the Cr.P.C., set out above, in support of their contention.

Even in the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2004) 5 SCC 334, a three-
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, Court held that in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C. it is
possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict the accused for an offence for
which no charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion that the failure of
justice will occasion in the process. Their Lordships Judges further explained that in
order to judge whether there is a failure of justice the Court has to examine whether
the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being
convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were
explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. If we
follow these tests, we have no hesitation that in the instant case the accused had
clear notice of what was alleged against him and he had adequate opportunity of Top
defending himself against what was alleged against him.
In Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2009) 12 SCC
546 the Supreme court dealt with the same question and referred to Section 464 of
Cr.P.C. In paragraph 55 at page 567 of the report, the Supreme Court held that if the
ingredients of the section charged with are obvious and implicit, conviction under
such head can be sustained irrespective of the fact whether the said section has been
mentioned or not in the charge. The basic question is one of prejudice.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rawalpenta Venkalu and another v. The State of
Hyderabad reported in AIR 1956 SC 171 at para 10 page 174 of the report. The
learned Judges came to the conclusion that although Section 34 is not added to
Section 302, the accused had clear notice that they were being charged with the
offence of committing murder in pursuance of their common intention. Therefore,
the omission to mention Section 34 in the charge has only an academic significance
and has not in any way misled the accused. In the instant case the omission of charge
of Section 302 has not in any way misled the accused inasmuch as it is made very
clear that in the charge that he agreed with the others to commit the murder of Anil
Jha. Following the aforesaid ratio there is no doubt that in the instant case from the
evidence led by the prosecution the charge of murder has been brought home
against the appellant.

It is thus clear that no prejudice will be caused to the accused for non-mentioning of
Section of law in the charge when all the ingredients of the offence were disclosed
and the accused had full notice and had ample opportunity to defend himself against
the same and at no earlier stage of the proceedings, the accused had raised any
grievance.

To know more, the following rulings are useful as to framing of Charge in Criminal
Cases.
1) Sanichar Sahni vs State Of Bihar on 26 May, 2009
2) Santokh Singh vs Izhar Hussain And Anr on 25 April, 1973
3) Tilak Nagar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 October, 2011
4) Mahesh And Ors. vs State Of M.P. : 1988 CriLJ 1565
5) Kenaram Alias Kinuram Majhi vs The State: 1995 CriLJ 3026
6) In Re: Saroja vs …; Madras High Court Judgment.
7) K. Dhanasekaran vs State By Inspector Of Police: 2003 (1) CTC 223
8) Sureshbhai Jayantilal Shah vs State Of Gujara : (2005) 3 GLR 1918
9) Tatikayala, Ayyappa Naidu And ... vs State on; Andhra Pradesh HIGH Court
Judgment.: 1956 CriLJ 580
10) Public Prosecutor vs K. Jalayya And Anr : AIR 1954 Mad 303
11) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh ; (2009) 6 SCC 372

Conclusion:
To understand the scope of section 226, 227, 228 and 239 of Cr.P.C, it is better to go
through the observations in Satish Mehra case and Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra ((1972) 3 SCC 282), State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy ((1977) 2
SCC 699. Further more, after considering the entire law on the point of section 120
IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Gandhi murder case (State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC
253) laid down broad principles to be observed in framing a charge of conspiracy. A
fortiori, besides the above listed 11 important judgments, it is important to go
through the observations of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.;
Rawalpenta Venkalu and another v. The State of Hyderabad reported in AIR 1956 SC
171; Sambasiva Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2009) 12 SCC 546; K.
Top
Prema S. Rao and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC
217; State of Andhra Pradesh v Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another reported
 217; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another reported
in AIR 1963 SC 1850; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh; V.C. Shukla v.
State Through C.B.I.; State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy), Satish Mehra v. Delhi
Administration and Another [(1996) 9 SCC 766], and 2011 ruling in Mohan Singh vs
State Of Bihar.

ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3

Print this Article

Author Bio:   Y.SRINIVASA RAO, M.A(English).,B.Ed.,LL.M.; Judicial Magistrate of I Class;

Topper in LL.M

Email:   y.srini.judge@gmail.com
Views:  41015
Website:   http://articlesonlaw.wordpress.com
Comments  :  

John Bosco.R. : it is very nice for the junior Lawyers. Thanks for this kind of
information

How To Submit Your Article:

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles
Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com

File Your Copyright - Right Now!

Online Copyright Registration in India

Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com

File Divorce in Delhi - Right Now!

File Your Mutual Divorce -
Call us Right Now at: 9650499965 / or email at: tapsash@gmail.com
Top
The Power of The Magistrate Under
Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C

Professional misconduct of lawyers in

india

Section 91(1) CrPc: An analysis of

Constitutional Validity

Bail conditions

Chances of getting Anticipatory Bail in

cases of 498a/406

Quash 498a -Vague allegations in Fir

SC Issues Directions on Examination of

Witnesses In Criminal Trial

Supreme Court of India Judgments - Case

laws, Verdicts, Latest Updates, India Law...

Supreme Court of India Judgments - April

2008 - Supreme Court Verdicts - Case...

Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court -

Kailas & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra...

Top
 Lawyers in India - Search By City

Delhi Mumbai Kolkata Chennai

Chandigarh Pune Siliguri Chandigarh
Allahabad Nagpur Durgapur Hyderabad
Lucknow Nashik Janjgir Coimbatore
Noida Ahmedabad Jaipur Eluru
Gurgaon Surat Ludhiana Belgaum
Faridabad Indore Dimapur Cochin
Jalandhar Agra Guwahati Rajkot
Vapi Jalgaon Amritsar Jodhpur

332 Comments Sort by Top

Add a comment...

Kartik Bagchi
The Union Cabinet is all poised to table an amendment to the marriage laws, which, in the event of a
divorce, would give the wife an equal share of not only the property acquired by the husband during or
before the marriage, but also his inherited or inheritable property. This proposed amendment is already
creating a furore.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 17 · 6y

Mallikarjuna Sharma
That is quite insane proposal. Self-acquired property can be disposed of at will - is the established
law and this contradicts it. Even if elements of social or public interest are there, those should not
totally drown the established law. The maintenance provisions should be made more stringent and
adequate by reform but not such divesting of property for a song.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 10 · 2y

Veeraswami Panjan
Mallikarjuna Sharma It is not divesting of property for a song Sharmaji, when two join in wedlock,
they flurish and family become established. This society was men dominated, is being men
dominated and I feel bad and continue to be men dominated. Hence, to safeguard the interest of
women folk who have to face so many illtreatment are protected through this historic measure.
Why not we support.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2 · 1y

Lakshmirajyam Jonnalagadda
Execute documents of all the property in the name of your beloved wife and then you will face the
music. men are the strong enemeies of the men and idiotically they see cruelity in men and the
regular and continuous female mess in houses which lead to the disastrous state of affairs forTopthe
men folk and it has become a regular irony and more than 90% of women who seek divorce recite
the stupid stanza that their live is full of thorns and many impedements espeically after marriage
 the stupid stanza that their live is full of thorns and many impedements espeically after marriage
as if their life at their parental houses ran on golden carpet. Present day should be taken into
consideration to ascertain present day oproblems and the days of great great grand fathers or the
inception times of this Kali Yuga.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 6 · 42w

Show 2 more replies in this thread

Tukaram Gaude
hi
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 5 · 5y

Angel Vijayvidya
Can anyone help me.i am suffering from dowry harassment.i am mentally have depressed from my
husband.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 3 · 5y

Nilesh Pawar
Go to Police Station and file Section 498A of IPC
if getting Physical harrasment you can file Domestice Violence in the appropriate Court and get
Protection from Husand & relatives of husband
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 9 · 2y

Abhinav Vishnu
What's ur actual problem, u r not mentioned facts here
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2 · 2y

Abhinav Vishnu
Is it belongs to dowry ,or, cruelty,or , harrassment, domestic violence,or ,adultry,or, desertion, what
is ur actual problem
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 1 · 2y

Show 10 more replies in this thread

Anita Rao
India being democratic country and having protective laws for women , its high time to have special courts
for women to try cases exclusively women cases only...........
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 18 · 5y

Sharon Chatterjee
woman courts is no solution it fact we need capable judges who are not appointed politically
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 28 · 4y

A Singh
Sharon Chatterjee Right
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 6 · 1y
Top
Muneeta Dhiman
By demanding women courts we ourselves are encouraging gender discrimination in our country
 By demanding women courts, we ourselves are encouraging gender discrimination in our country.
We can't encourage and demand gender discrimination at the same time. It's time to have more
courts and efficient judicial system. Let's demand and create that!!!
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 11 · 47w

Show 10 more replies in this thread

Load 10 more comments

Facebook Comments Plugin

Top
Top