Mecca Masjid blast case

Special NIA judge K Ravinder Reddy, who acquitted Swami Aseemanand and four others in the 11-year-old Mecca Masjid blast case,

tendered his resignation, citing "personal" reasons.

Reddy said his resignation had nothing to do with today's judgement, according to a senior judicial officer, who did not want to be named.

"He has sent the resignation letter to Metropolitan Sessions Judge (MSJ)... he has cited personal grounds and it has nothing to do with today's verdict in the Mecca Masjid blast case," the senior judicial officer told PTI.

Reddy had apparently taken the decision to resign sometimes back itself, the officer said.

Earlier today, all the five accused in the Hyderabad's Mecca Masjid blast case, including Swami Aseemanand were acquitted due to lack of clinching evidence.

The president of All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen Party (AIMIM) Asaduddin Owaisi called the resignation "Intriguing" and tweeted:

"Judge who gave acquittal to all accused in Mecca Masjid Blast RESIGNS very intriguing and I am surprised with the Lordship decision."

“The judge in his order observed that not a single allegation levelled by the prosecution could be proved, and hence he declared all the accused acquitted,” said JP Sharma, the defence advocate.

A powerful blast, triggered by remote control, had ripped through the over four-century-old mosque here on May 18, 2007, when devotees had gathered for Friday prayers, killing nine people and wounding 58.

The case was initially probed by the local police before being transferred to the CBI, and finally in 2011 to the NIA, the country's premier anti-terror investigation agency.

Altogether, 10 persons owing allegiance to right-wing organisations were named accused in the case.

But only five of them, Lokesh Sharma, Swami Aseemanand alias Naba Kumar Sarkar, Devendra Gupta, Bharat Mohanlal Rateshwar alias Bharat Bhai and Rajendra Chowdhary were arrested in the case.

Sandeep V Dange and Ramchandra Kalsangra, two other accused are absconding, while another accused Sunil Joshi died.

The NIA examined a total of 226 witnesses during the trial and as 411 documents were exhibited.

Swami Aseemanand and Bharat Mohanlal Rateshwar were out on bail while three others were lodged in jail. In March 2017, a Rajasthan court had sentenced Gupta and another convict to life imprisonment in the Ajmer dargah blast case.

Car insurance 'ghost broker' jailed after fake policies scam

A ‘GHOST broker’ has been jailed after he was caught out making up more than £320,000 worth of car insurance policies, which he sold to unsuspecting drivers.

Abdul Hakim, 27, enticed dozens of drivers with cheap policies that he registered in low-cost rural areas — and then faked car accidents to make claims on their policies.

He made more than £3,000 from a single victim on the difference in price between what he paid for the policy and what he charged them — and also used his victim’s details to claim compensation from insurers from fictional road accidents.

So-called ‘ghost brokers’ often target young drivers by offering cheaper deals, but no insurance is ever put in place.

Motorists only discover they do not have cover when claims go unanswered.

Fraud investigators blasted the broker saying his scams increased the costs of car insurance after he was jailed for three years and eight months.

Hakim, of Oldham, Greater Manchester, pleaded guilty to a string of frauds by false representation charges at Bradford Crown Court.

He admitted trying to steal more than £321,000 by selling 21 fake car insurance policies and making 18 fraudulent motor insurance claims for fictional car accidents.

Hakim was arrested on March 13 after fraud investigators spotted his victims did not live at the addresses given in his fake policies.

The Insurance Fraud Bureau and insurance companies raised the alarm after he made up road accidents for cars that were already written-off.

After the fraudster was jailed for three years and eight months, a spokesman for City of London Police said: ‘Once Hakim incepted the policies using the fake "low-value" addresses, he would then alter them again with the victim’s actual address so they remained unaware that the policy was fake.

‘While his victims thought they were getting a good deal, Hakim was stealing their money by incorporating a "finder’s fee" and also charging them hundreds or thousands more than what it had originally cost him to purchase the policy using the low-value address. In some instances, there was over £3,000 in the difference.

‘Hakim would search legitimate websites which advertised damaged vehicles for sale and use these vehicles to fabricate an accident that never happened.

‘With access to his victim’s online insurance account, he’d then contact the insurer, pretending to be the policy holder and provide details of the crash and accept fault for it.

‘Hakim would then go on to contact the same insurer, but this time posing as the other driver involved in the accident — either directly as them or their claims management company.

‘He’d provide identical details of the accident and make a claim for compensation.

‘To substantiate his false claims and generate as big a pay-out as possible, Hakim would provide falsified engineer reports, heavily inflated credit hire charges and fake evidence for personal injuries sustained during the accident.

‘On a few occasions, Hakim also called purporting to be from solicitors representing the claimant.’

Det Con Jamie Kirk, who led the investigation, said: ‘By selling fake car insurance, Hakim put these drivers at risk as they were completely unaware that they were driving illegally.’

Wife Not An Object, You Can't Force Her To Stay With You": Supreme Court

A woman isn't her husband's possession or an "object" and is she doesn't wish to stay with him, she can't be forced to do so, the Supreme Court said today. 

The top court was hearing a woman's plea who accused her husband of cruelty and wished to part ways. She told the bench that she doesn't want to stay with him, but her husband thought otherwise. 

"She is not a chattel. She does not want to live with you. How can you say that you will live with her? You (man) cannot force her," a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta asked him. 

The judges suggested that he "reconsider" his decision. 

"How can he (man) be so unreasonable? He is treating her as a chattel. She is not an object," the bench told the lawyer appearing for the man and posted the matter for hearing on August 8. 

Meanwhile, the woman's lawyer appealed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and informed the court that her client isn't expecting alimony. 

The court had earlier referred the matter for mediation so that they can try to settle their matrimonial dispute instead of going for litigation which may prolong their pain. 

However, the couple were unable to resolve their issues, the bench was told.

An unmarried woman is entitled to claim. maintenance from her father if her parents are divorced or estranged, the Bombay High Court has ruled.

 A woman can file an application on behalf  her adult daughter to seek maintenance, Justice Bharti Dangre ruled yesterday. 

The high court was hearing a petition filed by a city-based woman challenging the family court's order dismissing her application seeking maintenance from her estranged husband for the couple's 19-year-old daughter. 

The couple, which got married in 1988, got separated in 1997. Their three children -- two boys and one girl -- lived with the mother. 

Till the time the children were minors, their father paid a monthly maintenance for each child to their mother. 

However, after the daughter crossed 18 years of age, the father refused to pay maintenance for her. 

Her mother, in her petition in the high court, claimed that though her daughter had attained adulthood, she was still financially dependent on her as she was pursuing higher education. 

The woman also said that her two sons were not in a position to help out, as one of them was repaying his education loan and the other was yet to get a job. 

The woman, who is getting a monthly maintenance of Rs 25,000 from her husband, sought additional Rs 15,000 for the daughter. 

The family court rejected her plea, saying that under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), maintenance is to be paid only for minor children. 

Justice Dangre said in her ruling that as per the CrPC an adult son or daughter is entitled for maintenance only if he or she is not able to maintain herself or himself due to any physical or mental problem. 

But past judgements of Supreme Court and high courts have held that an unmarried adult daughter can also seek maintenance if she is not financially independent (even if she doesn't suffer from any disability), the judge noted. 

She directed the Principal Judge of the family court to consider the petitioner's claim afresh