The document is a request for information filed under India's Right to Information Act regarding a case of non-implementation of section 7(1) of the RTI Act that resulted in the planned judicial murder of appellant Asha Rani Devi on November 11, 2017. The request seeks information from the Department of Justice on 8 questions related to a case in Begusarai court involving the appellant and accusations of a shielded magistrate. The request involves matters related to imminent danger to life and liberty and concerns cases filed in multiple states and the Supreme Court of India.

1. 5/31/2018 RTI Online :: Request/Appeal Form Details
https://rtionline.gov.in/request/regdetails.php?regId=tIogJVtFkW9va0WMaQ4%2FlDkhX%2Fndo%2FUMjf3uLXDZGa8%3D 1/2
OnlineRTIRequestFormDetails
RTI Request Details :-
RTI Request Registra on number JUSTC/R/2018/51096
Public Authority Department of Jus ce
Personal Details of RTI Applicant:-
Name OM PRAKASH
Gender Male
Address RZF-893 , NETAJI SUBHASH MARG , RAJ NAGAR PART-2 PALAM COLONY NEW DELHI
Pincode 110077
Country India
State Delhi
Status Urban
Educa onal Status Literate
Phone Number +91-9968337815
Mobile Number +91-9968337815
Email-ID om[dot]poddar[at]gmail[dot]com
Request Details :-
Ci zenship Indian
Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ? Yes
BPL Card No.
(Proof of BPL may be provided as an a achment)
02AA084202
Year of Issue 2012
Issuing Authority OATH COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(Descrip on of Informa on sought (upto 500 characters)
Descrip on of Informa on Sought
NON IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 7(1) OF RTI ACT RESULTED IN PLANNED JUDICIAL MURDER OF APPELLANT NUMBER 02 SMT ASHA RANI DEVI ON 11
TH NOV 2017 AND FORCED APPELLANT NO 01 OM PRAKASH TO BECOME UNDERGROUND DUE TO IMMINENT DANGER TO THE LIFE AND LIBERTY
This is with reference to RTI reply memo No. 438 dated 27.08.2016 by C.J.M Cum PIO and FAA reply memo no.4036 dated 20.09.2017 by District &
Session Judge Cum Appellate Authority Civil Courts Begusarai under the judicature of Patna High Court
Since ma er is same and jurisdic ons of two states are involved into it and the same ma er has been se led by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in
MATT. APPL. 7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 therefore Department of Jus ce is the competent authority to supply complete informa on.
Ma er pertains to imminent danger to life and liberty and N.B.W. has been issued and kept it secret since 08.09.2011 against which Writ Pe on
(CRIMINAL) 136 of 2016 Writ Pe on CRIMINAL NO....OF 2017 D.NO.2188 Miscellaneous Applica on (CRIMINAL) 84 OF 2017 & le er to CJI vide
D.NO.78087 dated 23.05.18 have been filed before Supreme Court of India and appellant no.02 Smt. Asha Rani Devi has been succumbed to planned
judicial murder on 11.11.2017 at New Delhi and appellant no.01 Shri Om Prakash has been forced to become underground due to imminent danger to
his life & liberty. Shielded Magistrate Ms. Meena kumari court no.16 Begusarai Court, under Supreme Court of India dared to extend next date of
hearing in non-maintainable, false and frivolous Case No.5591 of 2013 on 28.06.2018.
1. Why no ce of appearance not being served on the accused within two weeks from the date of ins tu ons of case on 07.02.2011
2. Why Magistrate did not order of arrest of the accused since 5 years from the ins tu ons of case on 07.02.2011 to ll date
3.Why accused not being charge sheeted since 5 years from the ins tu on of case on 07.02.2011 to ll date
4.Why did the first hearing has been fixed on 05.12.2013 a er Two and half years of ins tu on of the case on 07.02.2011
5.Why Ld. district Court Begusarai supplied the informa on against case no. 5591 of 2013 while the informa on was sought by the pe oner against the
case no. 9P/2010
6.What is the Correla on between case no. 9P of 2010 and case no. 5591 of 2013

2. 5/31/2018 RTI Online :: Request/Appeal Form Details
https://rtionline.gov.in/request/regdetails.php?regId=tIogJVtFkW9va0WMaQ4%2FlDkhX%2Fndo%2FUMjf3uLXDZGa8%3D 2/2
7.Why Magistrate did not take the cognizance of replica on and cancella on of NBW filed by the pe oner against the case no.9P of 2010 through his
advocate on 03.03.2011 where it has been clearly men oned that the complainant has appeared before the Ld. Trial Court in case no. HMA 700 of 2010
at New Delhi and has inten onally concealed this material fact from this Court
8.Why Magistrate did not order or direct the complainant to pursue the HMA 700 of 2010 where she has already appeared on 09.02.2011 at New Delhi
because the jurisdic on of case falls within South West district of Delhi
A ached complete RTI request with Argument.
Concerned CPIO Nodal Officer
Suppor ng document (only pdf upto 1 MB)
Print Close