This document is a memorandum filed with the High Court of Madras regarding criminal cases and petitions. It summarizes several criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner against various government officials and departments. It requests the court to direct the respondents to submit reports and records regarding the cases, and to take necessary action against the accused officials to recover losses and prevent them from escaping punishment. It provides details of several FIRs filed, departmental investigations conducted, and complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities over allegations of corruption and misconduct.
1) The petitioner, Dominic Presentation, filed a petition in the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him as the 3rd accused in a case of unlawful assembly and obstructing traffic during a protest.
2) The prosecution case is that on June 27, 2016, the petitioner led around 200 workers in a procession in Ernakulam, Kerala in protest against the arrest of two Dalit girls. This allegedly caused obstruction to the public and traffic.
3) The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations do not disclose any offence, as holding a peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Further, the ingredients to prove unlawful assembly or traffic obstruction under IPC sections cited were not
The document appears to be a memorandum submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding a criminal original petition. It summarizes objections to a counter filed by the 8th respondent (Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore). It denies statements made in the counter and argues the case involves corruption and loss of government funds that were not properly recovered or investigated against multiple officials and contractors across three districts. It requests the court to direct a full investigation and recovery of lost funds. The memorandum is submitted along with additional documents in support of the petitioners arguments against the 8th respondent's counter.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Asor Uddin challenging a ex-parte order from the Foreigners' Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh proceedings. However, the petitioner was ordered to remain on bail, appear before the Superintendent of Police, and the Foreigners' Tribunal by certain dates or the ex-parte order would be revived.
1) The document appears to be a court order from the Court of ADJ-III in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India regarding a petition filed by 12 accused persons seeking discharge from various criminal charges.
2) The petitioners are 10 Indonesian citizens and 2 Indian citizens who have been charged under sections of the Foreigners Act, Epidemic Diseases Act, and Indian Penal Code relating to violating lockdown orders and hosting foreigners without permission.
3) After examining the charges and investigating materials, the court finds no evidence that the Indonesian petitioners entered India using forged passports or violated the terms of their visas. The court also finds no evidence that the Indian petitioners ab
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
1) The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring her a foreigner.
2) The Court remanded the case back to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration, noting communication issues with the petitioner's counsel resulted in her missing hearings.
3) The Court will allow the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal again to prove her citizenship, as this is an important right that should be decided on the merits rather than by default.
4) The impugned Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner is set aside, and she must appear before the Tribunal within one month to prove she is an Indian citizen.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
1. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir heard appeals against an order rejecting bail applications for appellants arrested in connection with a case under unlawful activities laws.
2. The Court found that the trial court misdirected itself by extending detention periods based on investigating officer applications instead of reports from the public prosecutor as required by law.
3. As the charge sheet was filed beyond the mandatory 90 day period, the appellants had an indefeasible right to default bail that the trial court failed to consider. The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court order, granting the appellants bail.
1) The petitioner, Dominic Presentation, filed a petition in the High Court of Kerala seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him as the 3rd accused in a case of unlawful assembly and obstructing traffic during a protest.
2) The prosecution case is that on June 27, 2016, the petitioner led around 200 workers in a procession in Ernakulam, Kerala in protest against the arrest of two Dalit girls. This allegedly caused obstruction to the public and traffic.
3) The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations do not disclose any offence, as holding a peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Further, the ingredients to prove unlawful assembly or traffic obstruction under IPC sections cited were not
The document appears to be a memorandum submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding a criminal original petition. It summarizes objections to a counter filed by the 8th respondent (Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore). It denies statements made in the counter and argues the case involves corruption and loss of government funds that were not properly recovered or investigated against multiple officials and contractors across three districts. It requests the court to direct a full investigation and recovery of lost funds. The memorandum is submitted along with additional documents in support of the petitioners arguments against the 8th respondent's counter.
The document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Asor Uddin challenging a ex-parte order from the Foreigners' Tribunal declaring him to be a foreigner. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter back to the Foreigners' Tribunal for fresh proceedings. However, the petitioner was ordered to remain on bail, appear before the Superintendent of Police, and the Foreigners' Tribunal by certain dates or the ex-parte order would be revived.
1) The document appears to be a court order from the Court of ADJ-III in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India regarding a petition filed by 12 accused persons seeking discharge from various criminal charges.
2) The petitioners are 10 Indonesian citizens and 2 Indian citizens who have been charged under sections of the Foreigners Act, Epidemic Diseases Act, and Indian Penal Code relating to violating lockdown orders and hosting foreigners without permission.
3) After examining the charges and investigating materials, the court finds no evidence that the Indonesian petitioners entered India using forged passports or violated the terms of their visas. The court also finds no evidence that the Indian petitioners ab
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
1) The petitioner challenged a Foreigners Tribunal order declaring her a foreigner.
2) The Court remanded the case back to the Foreigners Tribunal for reconsideration, noting communication issues with the petitioner's counsel resulted in her missing hearings.
3) The Court will allow the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal again to prove her citizenship, as this is an important right that should be decided on the merits rather than by default.
4) The impugned Foreigners Tribunal order declaring the petitioner a foreigner is set aside, and she must appear before the Tribunal within one month to prove she is an Indian citizen.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
1. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir heard appeals against an order rejecting bail applications for appellants arrested in connection with a case under unlawful activities laws.
2. The Court found that the trial court misdirected itself by extending detention periods based on investigating officer applications instead of reports from the public prosecutor as required by law.
3. As the charge sheet was filed beyond the mandatory 90 day period, the appellants had an indefeasible right to default bail that the trial court failed to consider. The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the trial court order, granting the appellants bail.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
1) P. Chandira and R. Thangavel have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking various reliefs regarding their employment at Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC).
2) They are seeking to quash certain proceedings against R. Thangavel regarding his transfer and disciplinary action. They are also seeking fixation of R. Thangavel's seniority and monetary benefits.
3) They allege harassment, victimization, and delay in various proceedings by NLC authorities. They pray that they be allowed to jointly file a single writ petition to address their grievances.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
High court single bench judgment soman case - wpc no 21529 of 2012keralawatchnews
1. The document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by V.S. Achuthanandan, a former Chief Minister of Kerala, seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for alleged offenses of corruption and criminal misconduct.
2. The FIR was registered based on a vigilance inquiry ordered by the new government into the assignment of government land to a relative of Achuthanandan during his tenure as Chief Minister.
3. Achuthanandan contends that there was no illegality in the land assignment or subsequent decision to exempt the assignee from alienation restrictions. The government argues there is evidence of abuse of power and conspiracy to provide wrongful gain.
4.
1. The court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
The court considered an application for suspension of sentence from appellant Lalji Singh who was convicted of murder and other charges, and granted a further 90 day suspension of his sentence due to his heart ailment and the lack of proper medical facilities and transport in the jail. The court directed the state to improve primary healthcare in jails, including establishing on-site health centers, and to submit a report on current medical facilities, citing precedents requiring protection of prisoners' human rights.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
The convict petitioner Rakesh had served 14 years of life imprisonment and was granted parole for the first time. However, he was unable to furnish the required surety bonds due to poverty. The court noted the poor conditions of the petitioner. It directed legal and prison authorities to prepare a database of all convicts to better consider them for parole and reintegration. Considering the long imprisonment, the court granted the petitioner 40 days parole upon furnishing a personal bond and undertaking to return to prison after. It aimed to follow reformative punishment and uphold convicts' rights per the constitution.
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
1. The petitioner filed two criminal petitions seeking transfer of investigation into her complaints to other agencies like the Vigilance department or CBI, alleging a perfunctory investigation by the police.
2. The police counter stated that they summoned the petitioner and others for inquiry but the petitioner did not cooperate or provide documents. The inquiry found that work was awarded to a contractor through proper tender process, not the petitioner.
3. The court dismissed the petitions, saying the complaints were an attempt to avoid disciplinary action for irregularities. It imposed a fine on the petitioner for filing frivolous petitions.
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been subverted most blatantly and with impunity by the information commissioners appointed to enforce the very same law. Here is a complaint I had sent to the President of India against Basant Seth, one such information commissioner at the Central Information Commission. This is of necessity somewhat long and would need your indulgence for quite some time!
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the state government respondents for the death of the minor son/brother of the petitioners, who died due to police firing on September 23, 2021 at their village in Darrang District, Assam. The court issued notice to the respondent state government officials, returnable by December 1, 2021. The petitioners were also directed to serve copies of the writ petition and annexures to the state government advocate by October 26, 2021. The case was listed for further proceedings.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
This document discusses various legal cases and complaints filed by the author regarding corruption in awarding government contracts and honors. It mentions the author's applications for the Kalpana Chawla Award in 2007, 2012, and 2014, and alleges corruption in the selection process. It also describes complaints filed with police and vigilance departments against contractors and officials in various districts regarding corruption and harassment, but claims no action has been taken. The author requests sanctions for prosecution and investigations into the alleged corruption.
Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)sabrangsabrang
The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
1) P. Chandira and R. Thangavel have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking various reliefs regarding their employment at Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC).
2) They are seeking to quash certain proceedings against R. Thangavel regarding his transfer and disciplinary action. They are also seeking fixation of R. Thangavel's seniority and monetary benefits.
3) They allege harassment, victimization, and delay in various proceedings by NLC authorities. They pray that they be allowed to jointly file a single writ petition to address their grievances.
The court quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners who were accused of protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. The court found that while the petitioners' protest was unlawful for lacking proper permission, it was a peaceful protest and no criminal acts occurred. Further, witness statements did not properly identify the petitioners as being involved. Prior court rulings established the right to peaceful protest. Thus, the court concluded there was no prima facie evidence against the petitioners and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
High court single bench judgment soman case - wpc no 21529 of 2012keralawatchnews
1. The document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by V.S. Achuthanandan, a former Chief Minister of Kerala, seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for alleged offenses of corruption and criminal misconduct.
2. The FIR was registered based on a vigilance inquiry ordered by the new government into the assignment of government land to a relative of Achuthanandan during his tenure as Chief Minister.
3. Achuthanandan contends that there was no illegality in the land assignment or subsequent decision to exempt the assignee from alienation restrictions. The government argues there is evidence of abuse of power and conspiracy to provide wrongful gain.
4.
1. The court order considers Gulfisha Fatima's application for bail in case FIR No. 50/2020 relating to offenses under IPC and Arms Act registered after communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020.
2. The prosecution opposed bail, alleging Gulfisha conspired to instigate protests through inflammatory speeches, blocked roads, and directed rioters, based on video evidence.
3. Gulfisha's counsel argued she was falsely implicated without evidence and should be granted bail like her co-accused, as she has clean records and resides locally with family.
This document is a court judgement regarding a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of Gulfisha Fatima, who had been arrested. The key details are:
1) Gulfisha Fatima was arrested on April 9, 2020 in connection with two FIRs - one for various IPC offenses and the other for offenses under the UAPA.
2) She was granted bail in the first FIR but remained in custody due to the second FIR.
3) The petition argued her continued detention was illegal as special courts empowered to extend remand in UAPA cases had not been sitting due to the COVID-19 lockdown.
4) However, the court notes she has been
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
The court considered an application for suspension of sentence from appellant Lalji Singh who was convicted of murder and other charges, and granted a further 90 day suspension of his sentence due to his heart ailment and the lack of proper medical facilities and transport in the jail. The court directed the state to improve primary healthcare in jails, including establishing on-site health centers, and to submit a report on current medical facilities, citing precedents requiring protection of prisoners' human rights.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
The court order denies the application of accused Gulfisha Fatima for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It notes that Gulfisha was arrested on April 11, 2020 in the present case. While over 183 days had passed since her arrest, the charge sheet was filed within the extended period of investigation on September 16, 2020. It also finds that the court has jurisdiction in this matter based on notifications and orders issued by the Delhi government and Delhi High Court designating the court to try cases related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Therefore, the court dismisses Gulfisha's application for statutory bail as no grounds for it exist.
The convict petitioner Rakesh had served 14 years of life imprisonment and was granted parole for the first time. However, he was unable to furnish the required surety bonds due to poverty. The court noted the poor conditions of the petitioner. It directed legal and prison authorities to prepare a database of all convicts to better consider them for parole and reintegration. Considering the long imprisonment, the court granted the petitioner 40 days parole upon furnishing a personal bond and undertaking to return to prison after. It aimed to follow reformative punishment and uphold convicts' rights per the constitution.
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
1. The petitioner filed two criminal petitions seeking transfer of investigation into her complaints to other agencies like the Vigilance department or CBI, alleging a perfunctory investigation by the police.
2. The police counter stated that they summoned the petitioner and others for inquiry but the petitioner did not cooperate or provide documents. The inquiry found that work was awarded to a contractor through proper tender process, not the petitioner.
3. The court dismissed the petitions, saying the complaints were an attempt to avoid disciplinary action for irregularities. It imposed a fine on the petitioner for filing frivolous petitions.
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been subverted most blatantly and with impunity by the information commissioners appointed to enforce the very same law. Here is a complaint I had sent to the President of India against Basant Seth, one such information commissioner at the Central Information Commission. This is of necessity somewhat long and would need your indulgence for quite some time!
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the state government respondents for the death of the minor son/brother of the petitioners, who died due to police firing on September 23, 2021 at their village in Darrang District, Assam. The court issued notice to the respondent state government officials, returnable by December 1, 2021. The petitioners were also directed to serve copies of the writ petition and annexures to the state government advocate by October 26, 2021. The case was listed for further proceedings.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
This document discusses various legal cases and complaints filed by the author regarding corruption in awarding government contracts and honors. It mentions the author's applications for the Kalpana Chawla Award in 2007, 2012, and 2014, and alleges corruption in the selection process. It also describes complaints filed with police and vigilance departments against contractors and officials in various districts regarding corruption and harassment, but claims no action has been taken. The author requests sanctions for prosecution and investigations into the alleged corruption.
Brinda karat and anr. v. state and anr. (defects cleared)sabrangsabrang
The petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing their application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC seeking investigation and registration of an FIR for alleged hate speech by two Members of Parliament. The Magistrate held that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was required at this initial stage, which was not obtained. The petitioners argue that sanction is only required at the stage of cognizance, not investigation under Section 156(3). They further argue that the cases relied upon by the Magistrate are distinguishable and that requiring sanction at this stage would hamper access to justice. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and issuance of directions.
1) The petitioner, M. Ananthan, was arrested in 2018 for drug offenses involving commercial quantities of ganja and has been in judicial custody since.
2) While the petitioner satisfies one requirement for bail under the NDPS Act by not having a criminal record, the court found he did not satisfy the second requirement that he is not likely to have committed the offense based on evidence.
3) However, the court determined the petitioner's right to a speedy trial had been violated as the trial had not commenced for over two years. As such, the court directed the prosecution to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and for the trial to conclude within three months.
This document is an affidavit filed in support of a writ petition before the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai. It summarizes the career history and promotions of the 2nd petitioner from 1983 to 2013 within Neyveli Lignite Corporation. It details legal proceedings between the petitioners and NLC regarding the 2nd petitioner's transfer and non-promotion. The petitioners claim the actions of NLC were malicious and caused harassment. The petitioners seek orders directing NLC to submit reports, calling for relevant records, and regularizing the petitioners' periods of service with compensation.
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to
direct the respondent to register FIR, investigate and file a final
report on the complaint dated 12.08.2015 given by the petitioner.
2
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
3. On a complaint lodged by one Ramachandran (the first
petitioner herein), a case in Crime No.21 of 2014 has been
registered by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch,
Tiruvallulur, against Kannan Iyer (A1), who was working as
Manager in Central Bank of India, Pattaraiperumbudur Branch. The
allegation against the accused is that, he has forged the signature
of Bank customers and had defalcated the amounts. Now these
petitioners have given a complaint dated 12.08.2015 against one
Sathyamurthy, Viswanathan and Emanuel, whom the petitioners
alleged were accomplices of the said Kannan Iyer.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, no second FIR.,
can be registered for the same transaction. During the course of
investigation, if material surfaces about the involvement of said
accused, it is needless to state that the Police shall make them as
accused and take action in accordance with law.
- The document summarizes 3 writ petitions challenging the publication of petitioners' names on lists of top 10 criminals displayed at various police stations in Uttar Pradesh.
- The petitioners argue this violates their right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. They claim their inclusion on the lists is due to false cases or political vendettas.
- The court heard arguments from the petitioners' counsel and amicus curiae on the right to privacy being integral to Article 21 and protected under Indian and international law. Displaying individuals' criminal histories and status violates this right if not done according to proper legal procedure.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court to quash an FIR registered against him and others for conducting a peaceful demonstration against the CAA and NRC amendments. While there was prima facie evidence for an FIR, the court noted that no untoward incidents occurred during the peaceful protest. Since continued prosecution was not warranted given the lack of violence, the court quashed the FIR to secure the ends of justice, with the benefit also applying to the non-petitioning accused mentioned in the FIR.
The document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a suspect who was directed by a Magistrate to file an affidavit admitting liability, despite not being formally charged. The Court of Appeal makes the following key points:
1) A Magistrate does not have the power to direct a suspect, rather than an accused, to file an affidavit admitting liability. Criminal proceedings must be formally instituted first.
2) Any purported admission made through the suspect's lawyer is inadmissible, as it does not originate directly from the suspect and was not certified as voluntary.
3) The Magistrate erred in remanding the suspect until an installment was paid, as there was no valid admission under the law and
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of a case involving the collection of around Rs. 300 crores in deposits by a company to the CBI. The court noted that the case is currently being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing and that the investigation is progressing well with movable properties seized and 19 immovable properties identified based on confession statements. While there is usually a demand for CBI investigation, transferring the case now would adversely affect the ongoing investigation. The court thus denied the petitioner's request and hopes the Economic Offences Wing will attach properties and file a charge sheet swiftly.
The petition sought a writ of mandamus to transfer a case being investigated by the local police to the CBI for a fair investigation, citing lack of progress and credibility issues. The court noted the usual argument put forth by the CBI about lack of resources but felt a premier agency like the CBI should investigate sensitive cases impartially. However, the local police had made some progress by attaching properties and arresting accused, and were continuing their investigation. The court sought a status update from the police on the investigation.
This order denies a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner, a political leader, was charged for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for remarks made during a political event. While the petitioner argued the remarks were not intended to disrespect judges or members of scheduled castes, the court found the remarks prima facie showed he remarked that people outside of Tamil Nadu are idiots and no one from scheduled castes had become a high court judge in another state until certain political leaders intervened. The court held it is not justified to embark on an inquiry into the reliability of allegations at this stage, and the petitioner must face trial based
The petitioner filed a criminal petition seeking police protection from the third respondent and his brother who were interfering with her property possession and threatening her. However, the court dismissed the petition stating that there is a pending civil dispute between the petitioner and third respondent regarding the same property. The court noted that the police cannot interfere unless directed by the civil court handling the property dispute case. The petitioner was given liberty to seek appropriate remedies from the lower civil court, including police protection or initiating contempt proceedings.
20201018 andheri mm court 20 tablighis acquitted(1)sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes a court case in Mumbai, India involving 10 individuals from Indonesia who were charged with violating lockdown orders issued due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The prosecution presented evidence from two witnesses, police officers who discovered the individuals at a local mosque on April 5, 2020, allegedly in violation of restrictions. The defense disputed the evidence and cited other court rulings that discharged defendants in similar cases. The judge considered the arguments from both sides to determine if the prosecution had sufficiently proven their case.
Mamma Affidavit to correct rating and regularisation of periodchandira thangavel
This document is an affidavit filed in the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira (1st petitioner) on behalf of herself and her husband R. Thangavel (2nd petitioner). It summarizes the career history of the 2nd petitioner in Neyveli Lignite Corporation spanning over 30 years, details allegations of harassment and victimization faced by the petitioners, and lists 12 orders passed in previous legal proceedings that the petitioners are seeking relief from through this writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the respondents to submit reports in the case and for records pertaining to the previous legal proceedings to be called for, in order to regularize the service period of the petitioners
The document is a court judgment from the Court of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala, Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in the case of State v. Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu etc. involving charges of rioting and arson. Four accused were charged but all were acquitted. The judgment provides details of the charges, evidence presented, and arguments of the prosecution and defense. It finds that the identification of the accused was not proven and acquits all accused persons.
Register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
P. Chandira has filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking permission to represent her husband R. Thangavel and her father P.P. Pattappan in court cases. Chandira has submitted notarized copies of power of attorney documents from her husband and father authorizing her to represent them in legal matters. She is currently working as an Assistant Engineer but has also pursued various degrees including MBA and law. Chandira requests the court to issue a writ of mandamus or other directions allowing her to represent her husband and father in court.
1) This memorandum outlines a writ petition filed in the Madras High Court regarding a property dispute and allegations of forgery.
2) It details the family history and property ownership of the late Perumal Mudhaliar and his sons, including complaints filed with the police by the petitioners against the respondent P. Kolandavel regarding a disputed will and efforts to seize the family property.
3) The petitioners allege that P. Kolandavel has filed fraudulent court cases and harassed family members in order to grab the property, and that a police investigation is needed to determine if the disputed will is forged. They seek dismissal of the civil case regarding the property.
The document is a letter from P. Chandira requesting permission to conduct a fast before the Chennai High Court. Chandira references 10 previous court orders from the Chennai High Court where he represented himself as aggrieved party. He states he sees the High Court as the "Temple of Justice" and the judges as "Gods". However, he is aggrieved by the orders passed. Specifically, Justice Manikumar did not allow him to argue as a party-in-person in one case. He humbly requests permission to fast either before the High Court or the Governor's office to seek justice.
This memorandum summarizes a writ petition filed before the High Court of Chennai by P. Chandira and R. Thangavel against 9 respondents. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to regularize periods of absence from work as duty periods and to enforce an apartment agreement. They are also seeking compensation of 7 crores for losses and mental agony suffered due to the acts of the respondents. The petition provides background on each of the petitioners and respondents and the circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed this writ petition challenging illegal charge memos and proceedings against him.
2) The petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions - one in 2012 challenging charge memos by the third respondent, and another in 2012 seeking national awards.
3) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to amend prayers and add respondents to his previous petitions. He asks the court to award him several state and national prestigious awards for 2007, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, and to quash respondent's opposing proceedings and resolutions.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed writ petitions in 2012 and 2015 seeking various state and national awards for 2007, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, including the Kalpana Chawla Award and Padma/Asoka Chakra Awards.
2) The petitions challenged the selection processes and awarding of the honors to other individuals. Notices were issued to government respondents but no replies were submitted.
3) The petitioner provided documentation of the selection processes for the Kalpana Chawla Awards to argue that he was the most deserving applicant. He asked the court to transfer those awards to him and provide the others he sought.
The petitioners, Chandira and Thangavel, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings related to their purchase of apartments in Pondicherry and Chennai. They allege undue harassment and mental agony by the respondents regarding the apartment deals from 2008 onward. They seek compensation of 7 crores and permission to jointly file this single writ petition as their grievances are common regarding the jointly purchased properties.
The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Madras seeking an order directing police to investigate the forgery of her grandfather's signature on a 1999 partition deed. The court notes that the police had already investigated and filed a report in 1999. The court ruled that a direction for new investigation in 2015 cannot be given for an incident from 1999, but that the petitioner can challenge the deed in a civil court. The petition was therefore closed and the registry's objection upheld.
Mrs. P. Chandira, an assistant engineer at the National Highways in Nagercoil, wrote to the Chief Vigilance Officer regarding Thiru. Natarajan cheating her without purchasing an apartment in Valasaravakkam, Chennai. Though Natarajan received money for the apartment, he did not register the property and made excuses when asked about it. Chandira requested the officer to take immediate steps in the matter.
1) The document details an agreement between two parties to construct a multi-story apartment building. The first party had originally been tasked with construction but could not, so they brought in the second party.
2) The first party had already spent Rs. 6,50,000 for approvals and work. This amount was received from the second party.
3) The agreement specifies that the first party will provide 14 apartments to the second party before any other units are sold.
This document is an affidavit filed in support of a writ petition being filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira and R. Thangavel against 9 respondents from NLC, Neyveli. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to promote R. Thangavel to Deputy General Manager, regularize his transfer period as duty, quash disciplinary proceedings against him, correct his performance rating, and provide compensation for losses suffered due to harassment. The petitioners state they have common grievances and are seeking permission to jointly file a single writ petition.
1. The document is a response from the Central Public Information Officer of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited to an application under the Right to Information Act regarding employees posted to the Barshingsar Project.
2. It provides the names and details of employees posted to the Barshingsar Project in an annexure.
3. It also explains that as per terms of appointment and promotion orders, employees of the corporation are liable to be transferred to any branch, department, or subsidiary of the corporation anywhere in India, and experienced executives have been transferred to the Barshingsar Project for its successful implementation.
1. Shri. R. Thangavel has been posted as Deputy Superintendent/Mechanical in the scale of pay of Rs. 4600-150-5350-160-6470 at the Barshingsar Mining and Power Projects in Rajasthan.
2. He will be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade as per the time bound promotion policy and fixation of pay as per rules.
3. He will receive allowances such as Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, and City Compensatory Allowance as per rules and Project Allowance of 250 of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 per month.
1. The document is a letter from R. Thangavel's wife requesting monetary benefits and promotion to Deputy General Manager based on his outstanding performance and selection for a project in 1991.
2. It details Thangavel's career history in NLC since 1983 and argues the charge memo and delays in his case were illegal.
3. The letter references many legal documents and court orders, and requests his period of service be regularized and he receive benefits due based on a Supreme Court order on performance ratings.
This document is a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding whether all entries in an employee's annual confidential report (ACR), or only adverse entries, must be communicated to the employee. The Court held that all entries, not just adverse entries, must be communicated so that the employee has an opportunity to make representations and request upgrades if they feel an entry is unjustified. Not communicating an entry was found to violate principles of natural justice and be arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, rules or policies stating only adverse entries need be communicated were found to be illegal.
Mrs. Pattappan Chandra Thangavel is a 47-year-old female Indian citizen from Tamil Nadu who is being recommended for the Padma Award. She currently lives in Neyveli-3, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu with her husband and works as an Assistant Engineer (H) for Nabard & Rural Roads in Panruti. She has previously received the Kalpana Award in 2007, 2012 and 2014 and a Central Award in 2012 for her work in public interest affairs.
1. 1
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
M.P.No:1/15
In
Crl.O.P. /15.
(F.I.R.No:10/03 filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department, Cuddalore on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Cuddalore and Highways &Minor Ports,(HL1)
Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 in his Lr No: 11477/HL-1/04-22
Dt:13.10.08 and the resolution process of the Chief Secretary to
Tamilnadu Chief Minister for Kalpana Chawla Award
2007,12&14,the petitioner’s application for Kalpana Chawla Award
2007,2012 and 2014 has purposely removed to permit the accused to
escape from clutches of law and FIRNo:969/12 filed by the Inspector
of Police,Vadasery on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-
II,Nagercoil and CSRNo:477/13 issued by the Sub-Inspector of
Police,Bhavani,the complainants submitted before the Judicial
Magistrate Court-II in CMP.No:9869/13 and CMP.No:10510/09 and
the complaints submitted to the Inspector of Police,Pondicherry,and
to the Chief Vigilance officer,Neyveli Lignite Corporation,Neyveli
on 27.05.2012).
P.Chandira, M.E,(M.B.A)(BGL).,
Assistant Engineer,Highways,Nabard and Rural Roads,
Panruti, Cuddalore District. ----- Petitioner.
-Vs-
1) The Director, Vigilance &Anti-Corruption Department,
Aryapuram,Chennai.
2. 2
2) The Director General of Police,Chennai.
3) The State Represented by the Chief Secretary
to Chief Minister, Secretariat,Chennai-9.
4) The State Represented by the Secretary
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Secretariat,Chennai-9.
5) The Director (General),Highways,
Chepauk,Chennai-5.
6) The State represented by the Secretary (General)
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
7) The District Collector,Cuddalore.
8) The Inspector of Police,V&AC,Cuddalore.
9) The Inspector of Police, District Crime, Nagercoil.
10) Thiru.Vijaya Kumar,
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Bhavani.
11) The Superintendent of Police, Erode District.
12) The Inspector of Police,
Danvantri Nager,Pondicherry.
13)The Chief Vigilance officer,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation,Neyveli.
14) The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
Neyveli --------Respondents
3. 3
PETITION UNDER 482 CRPC.
The Petitioner respectfully states as follows and submits this
petition under 482 of Crpc, the inherent power of the Hon’ble High
Court, not to harass the petitioner by the respondents, and to take
necessary investigation based upon the complaints submitted by the
petitioner and to take against the accused in accordance with law and
to recover the loss to the Government money and recall Kalpana
Chawla Award 2012 from Mrs.Rajaslakshimi and Miss.Sivaranjani
and Kalpana Chawla Award 2014 from Mrs.Ponni,the former
S,P,Nagapattanam and confer the Kalpana Chawla Award 2007,2012
and 2014 to the petitioner and thereby render justice.:
At the outset I wish to thank before this Hon’ble High Court
for permitting me to appear as party-in-person. The address for
service of all notices and process on the Petitioner is stated as above
furnished in the cause title and the petitioner is appearing as party-in-
person. The address for service of all notices and process on the
Respondent are on the address of the State Public Prosecutor, High
Court, Chennai as stated above.
The above Criminal Original Petition is filed against the First
Information Report No: 10/03 filed by the first respondent
Department on 10.11.2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Cuddalore and the consequential proceedings of
the respondents to permit the accused to escape from clutches of law
without taking any action to recover the loss to the Government and
causing undue harassment to the petitioner and thereby this Criminal
Original Petitioner filed with miscellaneous petition to call for the
records on the file of the respondents and thereby render justice to
the petitioner with damaged relief and justice:
5. 5
accused officers. The said authority has recommended sanction for
prosecution against the accused officers in respect of the main
allegation and departmental action in respect of incidental allegation.
The Government have examined the report of the said authority and
have decided not to launch prosecution but to initiate departmental
disciplinary proceedings against the accused officers 1 to 5 in respect
of both the main and incidental allegation no:2 in respect of
Thiru.Tamilselvan,the formerly Divisional Engineer(H)now Special
Chief Engineer(Retd). The Disciplinary Proceedings is possible
under pension rules and hence further action against him has been
dropped in G.O(D)No:192.Highways &Minor Ports Department
Dated:13.10.2008. The second respondent therefore to request the
fifth respondent to send separate draft charge letters for main and
incidental allegation No:2 to be issued at Government level in
respect of the five accused officers mentioned in Para No:1 above
except Thiru.Tamilselvan,Special Chief Engineer(Retd)Urgently. In
view of the above position the second respondent was to request the
fifth respondent to cancel the proceedings No:7058/Con.II/
2003,Dated:26.02.2007 according to prosecution against
Tvl.D.Haribabu, formerly Junior Engineer(H) and Thiru.
M.Mohammed John,formerly Divisional Accountanant-cum-
Manager.
3. The order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court,Cuddalore to action drop action against the accused in
F.I.R.No:10/03 Dated: 10.11.2003 is against law and justice.
4. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department, Cuddalore, the investigation authority failed to get
sanction for prosecution and failed to recover the loss to the
6. 6
Government from the contractors and the officials.Any case should
not be delayed on delay in getting sanction as per Supreme Court
Judgements.
5. The Inspector of Police,Vadasery has registered a case
F.I.R.No:969/12 u/s 420,409,465,468,469IPC r/w 13(1)(c)Prevention
of Corruption Act1988 Dated:07.06.2012 which is transferred to
District Crime branch by the S.P.Nagercoil in his proceeding
C1/29669/2012 Dated:29.06.2012.The Inspector of Police,District
Crime,Nagercoil has not conducted forensic investigation for
comparation and has not transferred the case to the Vigilance
Department for further investigation.The Inspector of Police,District
Crime,Nagercoil failed to call for the records from 1)The Divisional
Engineer(NH)Tirunelveli 2)The Divisional Engineer,C&M,
Nagercoil 3) The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (NH), Nagercoil 4)
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, V&AC,Tirunelveli 5) The
Deputy Superintendent of Police, V&AC,Nagercoil 6)The Project
Director,NHAI,Tirunelveli and 7)the Superintending Engineer,
National Highways,Tirunelveli.The petitioner requested the
Superintendent of Police,Kanniyakumari District to change the
investigation to CBCID. But the Inspector of Police,District
Crime,Nagercoil without conducting a proper enquiry closed the case
a mistake of fact.
6. The petitioner is the complainant in CSRNo.477/13 before the
Sub-Inspector of Police,Bhavani. Thiru. Shanmugham, the Inspector
of Police, Bhavani, Thiru.Vijayakumar, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Bhavani, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani has failed to
obey the direction of law in accordance in CMP.No:9869/13 and in
CMP.No:10510/14 which is in violation of the Principles of Natural
7. 7
Justice and caused torture to the approver Thiru. Purushothaman as
stated before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhavani in the presence of
the Petitioner on 25.11.2013 as per the CSR.No:477/13 registered on
25.11.2013 and they failed to register the First Information Report
against the accused 1)P.Kolandavel 2)Gopalan 3)Murugan
4)Purushothamman & 5)Subramanian. It is submitted that the Trial
court had failed to note the Erode District Police official has failed to
conduct enquiry in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice
and to register the case against the accused. The Trial court has
already adjourned the case to 18.12.2013 on 05.12.2013and on the
same day dismissed without permitting the petitioner to cross
examine the accused .The judgment passed on 05.12.2013 in
CMP.No:9869/13 which is arbitrary and unreasonable.
7. The respondents are failed to act in accordance with law
with the intension to save Government money and passing the illegal
proceedings with the intension to harass the petitioner and they failed
to act in accordance with law.
8. In the above circumstances this Hon’ble Court may please
to direct the respondents to submit their report with the related
records before this Hon’ble Court and the necessary action taken by
them in F.I.R.No:10/03 filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore on the file of Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore and Highways &Minor
Ports,(HL1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 in his Lr No:
11477/HL-1/04-22 Dated:13.10.08 and the resolution process of the
Chief Secretary to Tamilnadu Chief Minister for Kalpana Chawla
Award 2007,12&14 and FIRNo:969/12 filed by the Inspector of
8. 8
Police,Vadasery on the file of JM-II Court,Nagercoil,The
CSRNo:477/13 issued by the S.I,Bhavani on the file of the J.M-II
Court,Bhavani in CMPNo:9869/13 and in CMPNo:10510/14 is
violation of justice to permit the accused to escape from their
offence. The Petitioner submitted two complaints to the Chief
Vigilance officer, Neyveli Lignite Corporation on 27.05.2012 against
Thiru.Ananthakrishnan and Thiru.Natarajan. the petitioner submitted
a complaints on 20.05.2014 to 1) the Superindent of
Police,Cuddalore,2) the Super indent of Police, Erode District,3)the
Superintending Engineer,Nabard&RR, Chengalpattu,4)the petitioner
submitted a Crl.O.P.SRNo:23266 on 20.05.2014 through her
advocate and Kalpana Chawla Award 2014 to 5) the District
Collector, Cuddalore and to the Director(General)Chepauk,Chennai-
5 on 20.05.2014 along with six pages of Public representations. The
District Collector, Cuddalore requested the report from the Director
(General) Highways, Chepauk, Chennai-5 on 11.08.2014. The
petitioner submits the following documents in typed set 1)
F.I.R.No:10/03 filed by the Inspector of Police, V&AC, Cuddalore
on 10.11.03 2) Application for Kalpana Chawla Award 2007,the
District Collector,Cuddalore Lr and the Resolution process of the
Chief Secretary,Secretariat,Chenai-9 3) The Secretary,Highways and
Minor Ports Lr No: 11477/HL-1/04-22 dated:13.10.08 3)
F.I.R.No:969/12 filed by the Inspector of Police, Vadasery
Dated:07.06.12 4) Application for Kalpana Chawla Award 2012
Dated:16.06.2012 and the Resolution process of the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,Chenai-9 5) The complaint submitted to the Chief
Vigilance officer, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli against
Thiru.Natarajan&Thiru.Ananthakrishnan on 27.05.2012 6) The
complaint submitted to the Chief Vigilance officer,Neyveli Lignite
Corporation,Neyveli against Thiru.Natarajan on 27.05.2012 7) The
compliant submitted to the Sub-Inspector of Police,Vadasery and
9. 9
CSRNo:477/13 dated:25.11.2013 8) The compliant submitted to the
Inspector of Police,Danvantri Nager, Pondicherry. 9) Application for
Kalpana Chawla Award 2007, the District Collector,Cuddalore Lr &
the Resolution process of the Chief Secretary,Secretariat,Chenai-9.
The CMD,NLC has framed charges against 1)Thiru.Ananthakrishnan
and against 2)Thiru.Natarajan and the petitioner was called for
departmental enquiry. As the departmental enquiry against
Thiru.Ananthakrishnan was conducted at Barshingsar Project,
Rajasthan State the petitioner submitted twenty three pages of
documents by fax to the departmental internal enquiry officer. As the
departmental enquiry against Thiru.Natarajan was conducted at
CGM, Mine-I office, Block-26, Neyveli, the petitioner appeared in
all enquiries before the departmental enquiry officer
A.R.Ramachandran, from Trichy, the departmental external enquiry
officer submitted nineteen documents to him. The petitioner was
threatened by the Inspector of Police, Pudhupet on 24.05.2014 and
falsely implicated in C.C.No:41/14 before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Panruti.The Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Panruti is also from
Trichy. The petitioner filed discharge petition before the Judicial
Magistrate Court-II, Panruti on 09.06.2014 along with criminal
complaint against fourteen. As the Judicial Magistrate Court started
questioning without passing orders in discharge petition at 2.30P.M
on 09.06.2014. Hence the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No:54804 before
the Hon’ble High Court, Chennai on 20.06.2014. Subsequently as
per the advice of the advocate the petitioner represented the
discharge petition before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II,Panruti and
submitted twenty one documents on 10.10.2014 along with written
submission and arguments and twenty three to forty five documents
on 31.10.2014 along with written submissions. As the Judicial
Magistrate Court-II,Panruti has no power to discharge the petitioner,
the Tr.CMP.No:4786/14 filed before the District Sessions
10. 10
Court,Cuddalore and got the orders on 15.12.2014 and the case
transferred to District Munisiff Cum Judicial Magistrate
Court,Neyveli in C.C.No:38/15 on 11.02.2015. 1) The petitioner
filed C.C.No:314/02 before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II,
Chidambaram on 08.10.2002 against three. The case is pending due
to delay in the officials to produce related records from concerned
officials under 91CRPC submitted before the Court, Chidambaram
on 29.01.2003 hence filed Tr.CMP.No:4787/14 before District
Court,Cuddalore and reply submitted by the petitioner to counter
filed by the Accused. 2) The petitioner filed Criminal Compliant
before the District Munisiff Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli
on 20.10.14 fourteen. Subsequently the petitioner filed Criminal
Compliant before the District Munisiff Cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Neyveli on 20.10.2014 against five in CSRNo: 55/14. An
Accident happened in the thermal power station-I on 20.05.2014 and
the Thermal Police,Neyveli has registered a case in FIRNo:59/14,the
NLC management has conducted five member department enquiry
and disciplinary action is pending against some officials.
9) In the above circumstances this Hon’ble High Court may
please to direct the respondents to submit report before this Hon’ble
High Court with the related documents and to arrest the accused and
thus render justice.
10). It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law to take
necessary action against the said persons and to recover the loss to
the Government and to prevent the harassment of the petitioner by
the respondents and grant such other equitable relief deemed fit and
proper in the interest of justice and equity and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on 22nd day of Feb-15 Petitioner-in-Person.
11. 11
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
M.P.No:1/15
In
Crl.O.P. /15.
P.Chandira, M.E,(M.B.A)(BGL).,
Assistant Engineer,Highways, Nabard and Rural Roads,
Panruti, Cuddalore District. ----- Petitioner.
-Vs-
1) The Director, Vigilance &Anti-Corruption Department,
Aryapuram, Chennai &thirteen others ------Respondents.
TYPED SET
S.No Date Description of Documents P.No.
1 10.11.03 F.I.R.No:10/03 filed by the Inspectorof Police,
V&AC, Cuddalore.
2 17.04.07 Application for Kalpana Chawla Award 2007,the
District Collector,Cuddalore Lr and the
Resolution process ofthe Chief
Secretary,Secretariat,Chenai-9
3 13.10.08 The Secretary,Highways and Minor Ports
Lr No: 11477/HL-1/04-22
4 07.06.12 F.I.R.No:969/12 filed by the Inspector of Police,
Vadasery.
5 16.06.12 Application for Kalpana Chawla Award 2012 and
the Resolution process ofthe Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,Chenai-9
6 27.05.12 The complaint submitted to the Chief Vigilance
officer, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli
against Thiru.Natarajan&Thiru.Ananthakrishnan.
7 27.05.12 The complaint submitted to the Chief Vigilance
officer,Neyveli Lignite Corporation,Neyveli
against Thiru.Natarajan
8 25.11.13 The compliant submitted to the Sub-Inspector of
Police,Vadasery and CSRNo:477/13.
9 15.01.14 The compliant submitted to the Inspector of
Police,Pondicherry.
10 20.05.14 Application for Kalpana Chawla Award 2007,the
District Collector,Cuddalore Lr and the
Resolution process of the Chief
Secretary,Secretariat,Chenai-9
Dated at Chennai on 20.02.2015 Petitioner-Party-in-Person
12. 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(CRIMINAL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION).
M.P.No:1/15
In
Crl.O.P. /15.
P.Chandira (47),
Assistant Engineer (H),
Nabard and Rural Roads,
Panruti. -- Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs-
The Director,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
Chennai and thirteen others.
----Respondents/Respondents
AFFIDAVIT/
TYPED SET/
PETITION
P.CHANDIRA
Party-in-Person