Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 vide diary no. 41026

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CURATIVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2016
IN
REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 825 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2016
Curative Petition (Criminal) under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India arising out of the Order dated 01.12.2016 in Review
Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court, filed
against the final Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 21.10.2016 in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 136 of 2016 with A Prayer for setting
aside Final Order.
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT
I.A. NO. OF 2016
APPLICATION FOR AND ONBEHALF OF THE PETITIONER NO.
01 AND 02 FOR CANCELLATION OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANT
DATED 08.09.2011 PROCESS U/S 83 CR.PC. AND FOR
QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLAINT CASE
NO.5591 OF 2013 U/S 498A PENDING BEFORE SDJM COURT
NO.16 CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI BIHAR
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
PAGES FROM 01 TO 220
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH

FILING INDEX
CURATIVE PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2016
IN
REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL NO.825 OF 2016
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 136 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ………….PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …………….RESPONDENT
S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees
1. Memo of Appearance 1
2. ID Proof duly signed 1
3. Certified Copy of Order of R.P.
(Crl.) 825 of 2016
1+5
4. Certified Copy of Order of W.P.
(Crl.) 136 of 2016 under
Challenge
1+5
5. Curative Petition (Crl.) along
with Affidavit
1+5
6. Certificate 1+5
7. Annexures P-1 to P-18 1+5
8. Application for cancellation of 1+5

N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.
dated 08.09.2011 and quashing
of criminal proceedings u/s
498A along with Affidavit
Filed on: 09.12.2016 Petitioner in Person
Diary. No. 41026 Om Prakash
RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY
NEW DELHI-110077MOB:9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com

IN
REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL NO. 825 OF 2016
IN
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sir,
Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person
in the above mentioned matter:
New Delhi
Dated this the day of 2016
Yours faithfully,
(OM PRAKASH )
Petitioner-in-Person

INDEX
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Synopsis and list of dates A-K
2. Curative Petition (Criminal)
along with Affidavit in support.
3. Certificate
4. Annexure: P-1
True Copies of Police complaint
against installation of Public
Toilet without the permission of
petitioner no.02 by Mr. Bihari Lal
Bubna, an elected PRI leader to SP
Katihar by the petitioner dated
03.03.2016
5. Annexure: P-2
True Copies of photographs of
public toilets with posters having
‘text of public toilet for female’
pasted at the entry gate of the
House of the petitioner no.02 sent
by villagers through Watsup dated
05.03.2016 & 06.03.2016 to the
petitioner no.02
6. Annexure: P-3
True Copies of translated false
police enquiry report by S.P.
Katihar dated 07.05.2016 to the In

charge, Janta Darbar Cell, Police
Head Quarter Bihar, Patna
7. Annexure: P-4
A True Copy of online rejoinder
vide online complaint no.
99999-0303160113 against false
police enquiry report of S.P.
17.05.2016
8. Annexure: P-5
True Copies of the photographs of
the victims viz. above the knee
amputee, Headmaster, father, Late
Shri Deep Narayan Poddar (1939-
2007) and Oxygen dependent,
mother, Widow Asha Rani Devi,
petitioner no.02 herein in this
petition and wife of Late Shri
Deep Narayan Poddar (1946 to till
date) whose house is being turned
into public toilets w.e.f
28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016 by Mr.
Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected
Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI)
leader with the consent of S.P.
Katihar
9. Annexure: P-6

A True Copy of Letter-Petition
dated 19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India by the
Petitioner.
10. Annexure: P-7
A True Copy of RTI reply by Ld. CJM
cum PIO Begusarai dated 27.08.2016
to the petitioner
11. Annexure: P-8
A True Copy of application before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
for mentioning of fresh matter
urgently dated 03.10.2016 along
with Affidavit by the petitioner
through R&I as well as through
Registry.
12. Annexure: P-9
A True Copy of filing index of
Urgent Mentioning application
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India’s Court through Mentioning
Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the
petitioner through Caveat clearance
Counter without receipt.
13. Annexure: P-10
A True Copy of order dated
07.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble

Court in Writ (Crl.) 136 of 2016.
14. Annexure: P-11
Chief Justice of India by the
petitioner no.02.
15. Annexure: P-12
A True Copy of application for
constitution bench along with
Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide
diary no. 77878 filed against Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016
16. Annexure: P-13
A True Copy of certified copy of
office report dated 20.10.2016 by
the Registrar, Section X in Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016.
17. Annexure: P-14
A True Copy of final Order under
Challenge dated 21.10.2016 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in Writ
18. Annexure: P-15
A True Copy of email letter of
prayer by the petitioner for
urgent hearing of Second Appeal
vide diary no. 183722 dated

03.11.2016 via Central Information
Commission (CIC) on the ground of
Life or Personal liberty dated
30.11.2016
19. Annexure: P-16
A True Copy of email reply by
DS(CR) CIC turning down the
petitioner’s prayer for urgent
registration of Second Appeal on
the ground of ‘life or personal
liberty’ dated 02.12.2016
20. Annexure: P-17
A True Copy of online complaint by
the petitioner against Patna High
Court to CIC under the dropdown
box of ‘life or personal liberty’
to make the provision of section
7(1) applicable
21. Annexure: P-18
A True Copy of Order under
Challenge dated 01.12.2016 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in Review
22. Application for cancellation of
N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s
83 Cr.Pc. and quashing of criminal
proceedings u/s 498A withAffidavit

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The present Curative petition criminal
under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India is being filed by the Curative
petitioner for setting aside the order dated
21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016 of this Hon’ble Court on the ground of
abuse of process of court and gross
miscarriage of justice; whereby Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 preferred by
the petitioner was dismissed with liberty
and directed the petitioner to approach
Patna High Court and subsequently the
Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 filed
by the petitioner was also dismissed by this
Hon’ble Court by an order dated 01.12.2016
upholding its final order dated 21.10.2016
in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; which
would have far reaching consequences
against the interest of public at large
and against the right of Senior Citizen
Woman in particular and would shake the
public confidence by reason of the
association or closeness of judge with
the subject matter of dispute; establish
wrong precedent of procedural Judicial
system, encourage malfunctioning of the

State Apparatus; weaken the basic fabric
of the institutions; ignore
constitutional priority; which has caused
gross injustice, violated the principle
of natural justice, ignored the principle
of ex debito justitiae and resulted in
gross miscarriage of justice.
23.07.2013 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced
Judgment in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 in
favor of petitioner on the ground of
certified copy of Begusarai Court in
case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act and after three SLP(C)
no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013,
SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 before this
Hon’ble Court.
28.02.2016 House of the petitioner no.02 has been
turned into public Toilet with the
posters having text ‘public toilets
for female’ pasted at the entry gate
of the house w.e.f 28.02.2016 to
05.03.2016 by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an
elected PRI leader with the consent of
S.P. of Katihar without the permission
of the petitioner no.02 which has been

placed on record with Writ (C) 90 of
2016 before this Hon’ble Court through
interlocutory application.
03.03.2016 Police complaint against installation
of Public Toilet without the
permission of petitioner no.02 by Mr.
Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI
leader to SP Katihar by the petitioner
dated 03.03.2016
05.03.2016 The photographs of public toilet with
posters having ‘text of public toilet
for female’ pasted at the entry gate
of the House of the petitioner no.02
has been sent by the villagers through
Watsup dated 05.03.2016 & 06.03.2016
to the petitioner no.02.
07.05.2016 False police enquiry report submitted
by S.P. Katihar dated 7.05.2016 to the
Incharge, Janta Darbar Cell, Police
Head Quarter Bihar, Patna denying the
very fact of the incident.
17.05.2016 Online rejoinder vide online complaint
no. 99999-0303160113 against false

police enquiry report of S.P. Katihar
is being submitted by the petitioner
on 17.05.2016.
19.08.2016 Letter-Petition against Ld. CJM Court
Begusarai affecting the administration
of Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary
no. 35529 has been rejected by this
Hon’ble Court as it did not cover
under the guideline of PIL; although
the matter in the larger public
interest.
27.08.2016 Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public
Information Officer District Court
Begusarai Bihar has furnished false
and frivolous RTI reply dated
27.08.2016 received on 01.09.2016.
30.08.2016 That aggrieved by the false RTI reply
dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld.
CJM Begusarai, petitioner filed Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 on
30.08.2016 before this Hon’ble Court
for quashing of frivolous criminal
proceedings 498A pending before Ld.
CJM division Begusarai since
07.02.2011 without the knowledge of

petitioner and after the settlement of
matter by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi.
03.10.2016 Application before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for mentioning of
fresh matter urgent listing earlier
than the scheduled date and urgent
relief is sought against Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 has been
submitted through R&I department of
this Hon’ble Court after huge hue and
cry as initially R&I refused to take
this Dak and subsequently filed
through filing counter of Party in
Person as well on the same date.
06.10.2016 That the petitioner applied for
urgent mentioning of the matter
India through Mentioning officer of
this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016
without routing through the
registry through Caveat clearance
counter. However, mentioning officer
of this Hon’ble Court has
intentionally listed my urgent

mentioning application before Court
No.06 instead of Hon’ble the chief
Justice of India’s Court in the
evening of 06.10.2016 despite of my
strong protest in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016.
07.10.2016 petitioner submitted before the
Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the
mentioning officer has cheated the
petitioner and intentionally listed
the matter for mentioning before this
court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.
08.10.2016 Aggrieved by the intentional act of
mentioning officer the petitioner
no.02 has submitted Letter-Petition
dated 08.10.2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India through email
against rampant atrocities on Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two
states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi
since 12 years to Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India.

13.10.2016 petitioner no.02 has again submitted
Letter-Petition dated 13.10.2016
India through speed post and by hand
against rampant atrocities on Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two
states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi
since 12 years.
17.10.2016 Petitioner being called on 17.10.2016
by the mentioning officer for fresh
application for urgent mentioning in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016; however petitioner being
harassed whole day from PRO to
mentioning officer and directly
refused by the mentioning officer as
his role is over now.
18.10.2016 Upon direct refusal by mentioning
officer to allow the petitioner to
mention the matter before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India as per the
provisions laid down in the handbook
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and

the schedule listing of the matter
fixed by the registry on 21.10.2016;
the petitioner left with no option and
filed an application for listing this
matter before the constitution bench
of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878
dated 18.10.2016 in Writ Petition
20.10.2016 Office-report against Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been
supplied by Registrar, Section X nor
been uploaded at the website of
Hon’ble Apex Court. Petitioner has
applied for the certified copy of the
same on 28.10.2016 with an application
registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide
diary no. PC-732 and received on
08.11.2016.
21.10.2016 Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 is
being dismissed with liberty to
approach High Court. During the course
of hearing on 21.10.2016, petitioner
being directed by the Hon’ble bench to
engage Advocate although the

petitioner has clarified in writing
the strong reason for not engaging any
Advocate or legal Aid in the petition
as well as during the interaction
interview with the Registrar.
Petitioner has not being heard
properly by the Hon’ble bench and
order has been passed with an error
apparent on the face of the record
against the petitioner violating the
principles of Natural Justice which
has resulted in gross miscarriage of
justice.
09.11.2016 Aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016,
Petitioner preferred to file review
Petition criminal 825 of 2016 on
09.11.2016.
30.11.2016 As per the direction by this Hon’ble
Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016, Petitioner tried to approach
Patna High Court through Second Appeal
vide diary no. 183722 dated 03.11.2016
via Central Information Commission
(CIC) on the ground of Life or

Personal liberty with a prayer for
urgent registration on 30.11.2016 but
failed to approach Patna High Court.
02.12.2016 DS, Central Registry, CIC has turned
the request of Petitioner down on the
ground of “no ground of life or
personal liberty at any stage i.e. RTI
application, 1st
Appeal or even in 2nd
Appeal has been made out or claimed by
the petitioner”. However, the content
of the second appeal is self-
explanatory at page no.02 and para no.
6, which reads as “another N.B.W dated
08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has
been issued by the same CJM division
against applicant and his Senior
Citizen ailing mother in another
frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of
2013 u/s 498A after the closure of
case no. 9P of 2010 and kept it secret
since then without the knowledge of
applicant to usurp his property in
Bihar”. Moreover, the second appeal
does not have any defined format where
applicant can mention the exact word
of life or personal liberty to make

the provision of section 7(1)
applicable as per the RTI Act 2005.
Nevertheless, Online CIC complaint
format contains this dropdown box of
‘life or personal liberty’ to make the
provision of section 7(1) applicable.
Petitioner has also filed complaint
against Patna High Court to CIC under
the dropdown box of ‘life or personal
liberty’ to make the provision of
section 7(1) applicable.
01.12.2016 Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 is
also being dismissed upholding its
final order by this Hon’ble Court on
01.12.2016.
09.12.206 Hence this Curative Petition Criminal.

IN
REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL NO.825 OF 2016
IN
BETWEEN
1. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01
S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2,
Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077
2. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02
W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS
Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,
Shukkar Haat Sonaili,
In front of Durga Mandir
P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar
Bihar-855114

VERSUES
1. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.01
Through Chief Secretary,
Old Secretariat, Patna-800015
2. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.02
High Court,
Through
Hon’ble Registrar General,
Patna High Court
Patna-800028
3. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.03
Through Ld. CJM
Begusarai, Bihar
Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division
at Begusarai, Bihar
4. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.04
Cum-Legal Remembrancer
Law Department, Government of Bihar
Main Secretariat Patna-800015
CURATIVE PETITION CRIMINAL UNDER
ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
01.12.2016 IN REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL
825 OF 2016.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India. The Humble review
petition Criminal of the Petitioner
abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. FACTS OF THE CASSE
The facts leading to the filing of the
present curative petition are as under:-
i. The present Curative petition
criminal under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India is being filed by the Curative
petitioner for setting aside the order dated
2016 of this Hon’ble Court on the ground of
abuse of process of court and gross miscarriage
of justice; whereby Writ Petition Criminal 136
of 2016 preferred by the petitioner was

dismissed with liberty and directed the
petitioner to approach Patna High Court and
subsequently the Review Petition Criminal 825
of 2016 filed by the petitioner was also
dismissed by this Hon’ble Court by an order
dated 01.12.2016 upholding its final order
dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136
of 2016; which would have far reaching
consequences against the interest of public
at large and against the right of Senior
Citizen Woman in particular and would shake
the public confidence by reason of the
association or closeness of judge with the
subject matter of dispute; establish wrong
precedent of procedural Judicial system,
encourage malfunctioning of the State
Apparatus; weaken the basic fabric of the
institutions; ignore constitutional
priority; which has caused gross injustice,
violated the principle of natural justice,
ignored the principle of ex debito
justitiae and resulted in gross miscarriage
of justice.
a. The petitioner requests this
Hon’ble court to reconsider its final
impugned judgment (herein after) and order

dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 and order dated 01.12.2016 in
Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016
whereby both the Writ Petition Criminal and
review petition criminal filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed and a
connected set of SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C)
no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 and Writ
Civil 90 of 2016 filed before this Hon’ble
Court has also been dismissed.
b. The petitioner no 02 Widow Asha Rani
Devi who is mother of petitioner no.01 was
allowed by this Hon’ble Court to be impleaded
as party through Criminal Misc. Petition No.
16605 of 2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016.
WHY THIS CURATIVE PETITION?
1. It is submitted that the present
Curative petition is urged for the following
reasons:
a. It is humbly submitted that the
matter is full of bloodshed since 12
years. Above the knee amputee father
of the petitioner no.01 and husband

of petitioner no. 02 who was passing
urine and stool through catheter has
been encircled to death untimely in
2007 by the nexus of bad elements of
Mafia and state apparatus. The oxygen
dependent mother, petitioner no.02,
who is dependent on petitioner no.01
only and residing on rented
accommodation in Delhi, has been
encircled in the same manner and has
been put on risk of rampant misuse of
498A by the abuse of court process,
likely to be subjected to death. The
flame of the funeral of the petitioner’s
father has not extinguished till date
and still flaming in the mind of the
petitioner no.01 and it will be added by
the flame of the funeral of the
petitioner’s mother now. The house of
the petitioner no.02 has been turned
into Public toilets with Posters by the
elected PRI leader with the consent of
SP Katihar w.e.f 28.02.2016 to
05.03.2016 without the permission of the
petitioner no.02 violating the Article
21 of the Constitution of India. In view
of the final order by this Hon’ble

Court, it seems, the matter will
remain in bloodshed after the passage
of 12 years and will end in
bloodshed. Eventually, the natural
question arises herein in the mind of
every common citizen and the
petitioner in particular, as to why
then, people should resort to courts
and not to arms? Nevertheless, the
principle of Natural Justice mandates
that every order of a court should be
speaking order and there is an
obligation on all courts to give
reasons for their conclusion.
However, in this case final Order
dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 does not give
any reasons and justification on what
ground petitioner should approach
Patna High Court with liberty after
the settlement of the same matter by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on
23.07.2013 in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012
which has resulted in oppressive to
judicial conscience and has shocked
judicial conscience by its failure to
give reasons for its conclusion.

b. It is submitted that N.B.W dated
08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has
been issued and kept it secret and
disclosed it through RTI reply dated
27.08.2016 by the Ld. CJM cum PIO,
Civil Court, Begusarai, Bihar
against petitioner no.02, a Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated
rural, OBC woman, dependent upon
petitioner no.01; after the
settlement of the same matter by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which has
been totally ignored by the bias
judgment of this Hon’ble Court and
has been put on risk of rampant abuse
of court process infringing the
principles of Natural Justice,
resulting in suspension of life or
personal liberty.
c. It is submitted that petitioner
no.01 and 02 cannot remain live or
sustain their life in any state of India
if the Hon’ble Apex Court does not
invoke its inherent power under Article
32 of the Constitution of India to

enforce fundamental rights of the
petitioner under Article 21 of
Constitution of India.
d. It is submitted that the bad
element of State Apparatus on the one
hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. and kept it secret since 2011 to
usurp the property of petitioner no.02
in Bihar and on the other hand kept the
petitioner no.01 and 02 under house
arrest in Delhi to kill them silently.
e. It is submitted that the
petitioner has not been heard properly
in the open court and the final order
suffers from ‘likelihood of bias’,
adversely affecting the life or personal
liberty of the petitioner which contains
material and apparent errors in passing
directions to the petitioner to approach
Patna High Court after the settlement of
the same matter by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in 2013.
f. It is humbly submitted that the
decision of this Hon’ble Court in Om

Prakash & Anr Vs State of Bihar & Ors in
Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016
dated 01.12.2016 has resulted in grave
injustice and violation of the
fundamental rights under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India for a common
citizen and a Senior Citizen Woman in
particular, it affects the public
confidence in this Court to protect and
defend the Constitutional Rights of
Citizen and perpetuates an irremediable
injustice. It is submitted that this is
an exceptional case which warrants the
exercise of inherent powers by this
Hon’ble Court, for curing a grave
miscarriage of justice. Millions of
people across the country who happened
to be victim of rampant atrocities of
malfunctioning of State Apparatus and
victim of rampant misuse of 498A; and
their families have been denied access
to Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and right to life with dignity or
personal liberty even after the
settlement of the matter by one High
Court.

g. That the impugned judgment has
completely violated the third
principles of Natural Justice by way
of not giving reasons for its
conclusions against the contentions
raised regarding violation of Article
21 of the Constitution by the bad
elements of State Apparatus those
have been given license to preserve,
protect and adhere the Rule of Law;
after the settlement of the same
matter by the Delhi High Court, way
back in 2013.
h. That it is respectfully submitted
that the impugned judgment of this
Hon’ble Court dated 21.10.2016 which
this Hon’ble Court declined to review
vide order dated 01.12.2016,
criminalizes a significant segment of
legal institutions and judicial
institutions in India by sanctioning
them as the natural guardian of the
Constitution and preservation of the
Rule of Law and spoiling the ground for
constitution bench and refusing to refer
the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016

of the petitioner to the constitution
bench which had raised substantial
question of Law as interpretation of
constitution involved in this petition
and to be decided by not less than five
judges as per the Part IV of ORDER XXXV
of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which was
framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution; implying closed door of
this Hon’ble court for the petitioner
no. 02 to mention the matter before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on
the six grounds viz. Senior Citizen
woman, harassment of OBC woman,
prevention of corruption, issuance of
N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. without the knowledge of
petitioner and after the settlement
of the same matter by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in
MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of
demolition of property, interlinkages
of matter with old matter of this
Hon’ble Court and short matter, as
per the rules laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court and

pushing the petitioner-in person at the
stage of curative petition, which
requires a tedious procedure to follow
as per the rules laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court to get
the Certificate by a Sr. Advocate to
file curative petition, this court
should now exercise its power, ex
debitojustitiae, to rectify this
grievous case of injustice and denial of
Fundamental Rights under Article 21.
i. It is submitted that the Order
dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court
violated the Part IV of ORDER XXXV of
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which was
framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution. Provision of the Part IV
of Order XXXV of Supreme Court Rules,
1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution shall be
in writing and shall be heard by a
Division Court of not less than five
Judges provided that a petition which
does not raise a substantial question of
Law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution may be heard and decided by

a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly. (2) All
interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution,
may be heard and decided by a Division
Court of less than five Judges, and,
during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly, notwithstanding that in
the petition a substantial question of
Law as to the interpretation of
Constitution is raised.”
j. It is submitted that the dismissal
of the matter pertaining to
interpretation of constitution by two
judge bench of this Hon’ble Court is
inherently flawed as it contradicts the
explicit opinion expressed for deciding
allegations of “bias” by a Constitution
bench in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR
1987 SC, 454). While settling out the
fundamental principles for adjudicating
cases involving allegations of “bias”. A
Constitution bench of this Hon’ble Court
in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR 1987

SC, 454) has categorically stated, “the
question is not whether the judge is
actually biased or in fact, decides
partially, but whether there is a real
likelihood of “bias”. Because the
Constitution bench of this Hon’ble Court
in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR 1987
SC, 454) has clearly stated that a
“likelihood of bias” is sufficient to
satisfy the legal principle to establish
a case of “bias” as the court has
observed, “The real question is not
whether he was biased. It is difficult
to prove the state of mind of a person.
Therefore, what we have to see is
whether there is reasonable ground for
believing that he was likely to have
been biased”. Because in Yadav vs State
of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC, 454), the
Constitution bench has categorically
stated that the issue of a “likelihood
of bias” may arise from personal reasons
such as “hostility” towards one party or
“friendship” with the other party.
Constitution Bench in Yadav vs State of
Haryana (AIR 1987 SC, 454) has observed,
“What is objectionable in such a case is

not that the decision is actually
tainted with bias but that the
circumstances are such as to create a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of
others that there is likelihood of bias
affecting the decision”. The
Constitution Bench has further
elaborated on this issue, “Justice is
not the function of the courts alone; it
is also the duty of all those who are
expected to decide fairly between
contending parties. The strict standard
applied to authorities exercising
judicial power are being increasingly
applied to administrative bodies, for it
is vital to the maintenance of the rule
of Law in a welfare state where the
jurisdiction of administrative bodies in
increasing at a rapid pace that the
instrumentalities of the State should
discharge their functions in fair and
just manner.”
k. It is submitted that the order
stood in breach of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, to say in other
words, this Right was not protected by

this Hon’ble Court. Article 32 confers a
guaranteed fundamental remedy but
Article 226 confers no such guaranteed
rights. This state of affairs makes
Article 32 a dominant and specific
provision whereas Article 136 or Article
226 are, in the context of the
enforcement of the fundamental rights,
clearly general and additional.
Petitioner no.01 and 02 cannot remain
live or sustain their life in any state
of India if the Hon’ble Apex Court does
not invoke its inherent power under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India
to enforce fundamental rights of the
petitioner under Article 21 of
Constitution of India.
l. It is submitted that as a point of
our Constitutional law that if there is
breach or non-protection by any organ of
the state, which includes Judiciary
also, remedy under Article 32 is to be
granted as a matter of course; and to
examine the petitioner’s contentions to
appreciate if the Case presented
deserves the grant of such a Remedy on
its merits.

m. It is submitted that the
petitioner who approached this Hon’ble
Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for enforcement of
his guaranteed Fundamental Right being
subjected to gross violation of Human
Rights; and gross violation of
provisions, procedure and practice of
this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the
Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble
Court.
n. It is submitted that the Order
dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court
implies a closed door of this Hon’ble
Court for the petitioner and depicts
that the same stands in violation of
natural justice adversely and seriously
affecting the rights of the petitioner
or the same depicts manifest injustice
rendering the order a mockery of justice
which causes insurmountable difficulty
and immense public injury.
o. It is submitted that the present
curative petition is being filed to
avoid grave miscarriage of justice to

millions of Senior Citizen Women in-
Laws who have been victimized and
aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2016
of this Hon’ble Court and have been put
on risk of rampant atrocities by the
malfunctioning of State Apparatus after
the closure of the matter by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, upon rampant misuse
of 498A across India.
p. It is submitted that the final
order has totally overlooked the abuse
of court process by the Women Protection
Officers across India which has derailed
the basic objective of feminist movement
in India from women empowerment to women
criminalization.
q. It is submitted that the final
order has totally overlooked the
contentions of the petitioner that the
abuse of court process has been
rampantly used as a weapon by the bad
elements of State Apparatus across India
for their own vested interest in
weakening the institution of marriage
and encouraging the morale of those who
are indulged in the commercialization of

marriage for the lust of property and
financial gains.
r. It is submitted that the impugned
order suffers from error apparent on the
face of record.
s. It is submitted that the impugned
order disregard past precedent and the
nature of the role of this Hon’ble Court
in safeguarding and upholding
Constitutional Principles and
Fundamental Rights.
t. It is submitted that the impugned
order does not give reasons for its
conclusions on several important
Question of laws laid down in this
petition.
u. It is submitted that the impugned
judgments of this Hon’ble court go
against the established precedent of
this Hon’ble Court which has inevitably
expanded the meaning of the Fundamental
Rights.
v. It is submitted that in Rupa Ashok

Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra, (2002)4 SCC 388,
this Hon’ble Court has held “that this
Court, to prevent abuse of its process
and to cure a gross miscarriage of
justice, may reconsider its judgments in
exercise of its inherent power”. (Para
49). Para “42… we are of the view that
though judges of the highest court do
their best, subject of course to the
limitation of human fallibility, yet
situations may arise, in the interest of
rare cases which would require
reconsideration of final judgment to set
right miscarriage of justice complained
of. In such cases it would not only be
proper but obligatory both legally and
morally to rectify the error. After
giving our anxious consideration to the
question, we are persuaded to hold that
the duty to do so justice in theses
rarest of rare cases shall have to
prevail over the policy of certainty of
judgment as though it is essentially in
the public interest that a final
judgment of the final court in the
country should not be open to challenge,
yet there may be circumstances, as

mentioned above, wherein declining to
reconsider the judgment would be
oppressive to judicial conscience and
cause perpetuation of irremediable
injustice”. Para “50……the court in Rupa
Ashok Hurra had stated that it was not
possible to enumerate all the grounds on
which a curative petition may be
entertained. Para “51…….A curative
petition only be filed under the
following grounds: 1. Where there is
violation of principles of Natural
Justice in that the aggrieved party
filing a curative petition was not a
party to the lis but the judgment
adversely affected his interest or if he
was a party to the lis, he was not
served with notice of the proceedings
and the matter proceeded as if he had
notice. 2. Where in the proceedings a
learned judge failed to disclose his
connection with the subject matter or
the parties, giving scope for an
apprehension of bias and the judgment
adversely affects the petitioner”. Para
“52….the ‘curative petitioner’ must aver
specifically that the grounds mentioned

in the curative petition had been taken
in the review petition and that such
review had been dismissed by
circulation. A curative petition has to
include a certificate by a Senior
Advocate indicating that the same
grounds in the curative petitions had
also been taken in the review petition”.
It is submitted that instances given in
para 51 of the judgment are not
exhaustive, which is evident from the
observations of the court in para 50
itself. It is submitted that in any
event, the present case is one in which
fundamental rights of a number of Senior
Citizens are involved and the impugned
judgments have large societal
ramifications. As such, the present case
is a fit case in which this Hon’ble
Court ought to exercise its curative
powers, to remedy a gross miscarriage of
justice.
ABUSE OF PROCESS & GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
DUE TO FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ERROS
IN CONCLUDING AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO
APPROACH PATNA HIGH COURT WITH LIBERTY

It is submitted that the impugned judgment
fails to take into account the following errors
apparent on the face of record and fails to
apply Judicial Review:
ii. That the Constitution of India
assigned a pivotal role on to the Supreme Court
providing therein the supremacy of law with the
rationale being justice is above all. The
exercise of inherent power of this Court also
stands recognized by Order XLVII Rule 6 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which reads as
below:
“Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to
limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers
of the Court to make such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court."
iii. That Hon’ble bench has passed the final order
dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016
and denied to review by order dated 01.12.2016
in Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 without
taking into account the face of records that
the matter has already been settled by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in

MAT.APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 in favor of petitioner
on the ground of certified copy of Begusarai
Court in case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act and after three SLP(C) no.
9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.
19073/2013 before this Hon’ble Court.
iv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that the petitioner
has not approached this Hon’ble Court for
dispute settlement but for strong punitive
action against the bad elements of the State
Apparatus in two states who are indulged in
affecting the administration of Justice; which
has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.
Petitioner has elicited data at the cost of his
whole life and placed on record before this
Hon’ble Apex Court for necessary stern legal
action.
v. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
has filed interlocutory application for
Constitution bench on 18.10.2016 vide diary no.
77878 against the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016. Petitioner did raise ‘substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was not
required to decide any ‘interlocutory and
miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with the
petition’. The petitioner’s written submissions
also contain these averments in Writ Petition
criminal 136 of 2016 page 18, (para g, h) page
19 (para i) and page 26(para I, J and K).
vi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
has placed on record the bad elements of Legal
Aid Institutions in India and urged to take
punitive action against them to strengthen the
institutions.
vii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that the matter is
full of bloodshed which has been caused by the
bad element of state apparatus those have been
given license to preserve, protect and adhere
the Rule of law. The petitioner’s written
submissions contain these averments in page
27(para L); subsequent clarification by
Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at page 53 (Ans. of
defects of para 08, Ground L); page 27(para N);
subsequent clarification by Registrar dated
07.09.2016 at page 54 (Ans. of defects of para

08, Ground N) in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016.
viii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that handicapped
father of the petitioner was encircled to death
by the nexus of Mafia and state Apparatus in
2007 untimely. The flame of the funeral of the
petitioner’s father has not extinguished till
date and still flaming in the mind of the
petitioner. Voluminous evidences have been
adduced in all the three SLPs filed before this
court in 2012 and 2013.
ix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that petitioner has
approached this Hon’ble Court to plead to take
strong punitive action against them who want to
establish the hegemony of bad element of state
apparatus and want to govern the mind and body
of the vulnerable common mass.
x. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that the criminal
proceeding has taken place in the state of
Bihar because of dismissal of all SLP(C) no.
9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013 of the petitioner by this Hon’ble
Court which has encouraged the morale of bad
elements of State Apparatus in Bihar as well as
in Delhi. 498A is the outcome of this
encouragement.
xi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that Petitioner is a
victim of malfunctioning of two State Apparatus
viz. Delhi as well as Bihar.
xii. That the order dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble
Court has totally ignored the jurisdiction
“ground K” taken at page no. 26 in the petition
and the clarification sought by the Registrar
dated 07.09.2016 at page no. 50 to 57 in the
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.
xiii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that the cause of
action is the same and the jurisdictions of two
states are involved in it. The first cause of
action arose in the south west district of
Delhi and has been settled by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 on the ground of
certified copy of Ld. District Court, Begusarai
Bihar, in MAT. APPL. No. 7 of 2012. Trial for

the same cause of action cannot be conducted in
the two states by two Hon’ble High Courts at
different point of time after the settlement by
one Hon’ble High Court.
xiv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
case u/s 498A is not maintainable in the state
of Bihar and is maintainable in the South West
District of Delhi and F.I.R is to be lodged at
Palam Village Police Station, south west
district at New Delhi wherein the client of
Respondent No.04 has last resided till
15.04.2005. However, in this matter the client
of Respondent No.04 has filed a criminal case
complaint u/s 498A in the state of Bihar after
a gap of 6 years on 07.02.2011 without an F.I.R
and without police diary and without the
intimation to the petitioner no.01 and 02 as on
date and after the closure of frivolous Case
No.9P of 2010 u/s domestic violence Act which
was instituted on 30.03.2010 before the same
Ld. CJM division Begusarai.
xv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
case complaint (P) no. 397C of 2011 new CIS

generated No. 5591 of 2013 has been filed on
07.02.2011 and the client of Respondent no.04
has appeared before Ld. Trial Court at New
Delhi on 09.02.2011 in case no. HMA-700 of
2010 and supplied the copy of case no. 9P of
2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence with N.B.W
issued dated 25.08.2010 and did not supply the
copy of criminal case complaint (P) no. 397C of
2011 new CIS generated No. 5591 of 2013 u/s
498A to the Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi with
criminal intention and managed to get issued
N.B.W dated 08.09.2011, Process u/s 83 Cr.P.C.
(this information disclosed through RTI reply
by Ld. CJM cum PIO dated 27.08.2016) and
continued to take dates up till now without the
Notice/Summon to the petitioner with criminal
intention.
xvi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
has already filed an application for
cancellation of N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 and
replication of complaint no.9P of 2010 u/s 43
(12) of protection of women from domestic
violence Act, 2005 for setting aside order u/s
18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 through his Ld. Advocate
Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Reg. No.6255 of 1995 on

03.03.2011. It is evident from the record of
all the three SLPs filed before this Hon’ble
Court. However, this record has been erased by
the Ld. CJM division Begusarai which has been
admitted by Ld. CJM through RTI reply dated
27.08.2016.
xvii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that India is an
independent Country and not left with any
Princely State which will be governed by its
own State’s Law. Indian states are quasi-
federal and the matter falls within the
complete jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India who is competent to look into the
matter of two states jurisdiction. Hence, Writ
Petition is maintainable in view of prayers (i)
and (ii) for quashing the frivolous criminal
proceedings pending before the Ld. CJM division
Begusarai.
xviii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account the face of record that fraud, corrupt,
criminal and crook respondent can institute
frivolous criminal litigations under the
judicature of all High Courts in India for the
same cause of action and for the same relief

and keep it secret on the file of the court
record against the petitioner no.01 & 02 to
affect the administration of Justice. Hence,
petitioner will be directed to approach all
High Courts with liberty by this Hon’ble Apex
Court.
xix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account on the face of record that respondent
has made a court as a personal property;
records have been manipulated, distorted and
erased from the court records of district court
Begusarai which has been admitted by Ld. CJM
Begusarai through RTI reply dated 27.08.2016.
xx. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into
account on the face of record that Ld. CJM has
admitted through his RTI reply dated 27.08.2016
that complaint case no. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of
domestic violence Act is not pending before the
Ld. CJM division Begusarai. How 498A can be
instituted after the closure of domestic
violence under the same Ld. CJM division?
xxi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to
take into account on the face of record of RTI
reply by Ld. CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016
which has enabled the Hon’ble Court to take

stern punitive action against the
malfunctioning of State Apparatus down the line
to act as a deterrence to strengthen the legal
& Judicial institutions in India.
xxii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to
take into account on the face of record of
voluminous evidence adduced in all the three
SLPs and Writ filed before this Hon’ble Court
that the petitioner no. 01 & 02 cannot sustain
their life either in Delhi or in Bihar without
the Hon’ble Apex Court’s intervention and
strong punitive action against the bad elements
of the State Apparatus which has caused
irreparable damage and loss to the petitioner
no.01 & 02 over the period of 12 years.
xxiii. That the matter involves an incompatible
mixture of Hon’ble Judges & Advocates on the
one hand and a vulnerable common man petitioner
in person on the other hand. This incompatible
mixture cannot board in the same compartment
and travel along with. Hon’ble Judges and
Advocates are almighty, learned person and
equivalent to GOD on this earth while a common
man is a creeping helpless and vulnerable
animal. Hence, the fight between two are

incompatible mixture. However, the Constitution
of India is above, all the individuals and all
responsible individuals are duty bound to
preserve the sanctity and dignity of our holy
Constitution at the cost of their lives.
xxiv. That the petitioner has been dragged into the
court and has been brutally assailed every
moment by these bad elements of State Apparatus
since 2010 to till date. Hon’ble Judges and
Advocates have not left a single opportunity to
harass, mentally and physically torture the
petitioner from Ld. Trial Court to this Hon’ble
Court and made him a lively dead body. During
the course of time between 2010 to till date,
petitioner has been stopped several times to
put forward the facts before the Court; many
times petitioner has been awarded Judgment at
the entry gate of the court before reaching to
the court room by the bad elements of state
apparatus. Rampant atrocities by the bad
elements of State Apparatus have made the
petitioner ill and are undergoing treatment
with AIIMS. Health of the petitioner has been
severely affected due to the brutality
inflicted upon him by the Indian Courts since
2010 to till date. Records have been placed on

record with all the three SLPs and Writ
petition filed before this Hon’ble Court. It is
also placed on record with the clarification
sought by the Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at
page no. 50 to 57 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016.
xxv. That the case has reached up to this stage
after 12 years through RTI against Ld.
Principal Judge Deepa Sharma of Trial Court at
New Delhi for stopping the whole court
proceedings on 30.05.2011 and generating the
wrong order sheet alleging the petitioner for
requesting for adjournment of the court
proceedings while the date was fixed for WS
filing by the respondent and subsequent RTI
reply dated 30.08.2011; RTI against Hon'ble
Justice Ms Veena Birbal of Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi for adjourning the court proceeding
while the Legal Aid Advocate Jai Bansal was
absent without the intimation to the petitioner
and the petitioner in person was present and
subsequent RTI reply dated 27.08.2012; CIC
decision order dated 25.09.2014 under the title
Om Prakash Poddar Vs Department of Legal
Affairs against Delhi State Legal Services
Authority for not taking any action against
Legal Aid Advocates; Department of Justice

Government of India letter to NALSA dated
13.04.2015; NALSA letter to Supreme Court Legal
Service Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA
letter to Delhi High Court Legal Service
Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA letter to
Delhi State Legal Service Authority dated
13.05.2015 and RTI against Ld. Shri Chandra
Mohan Jha, CJM, Civil Court Begusarai Bihar of
Ld. CJM Divivsion District Court Begusarai
Bihar and subsequent RTI reply dated
27.08.2016.
xxvi. That no civilized & reasonable person would
tolerate and appreciate this kind of brutality
inflicted by the bad element of State Apparatus
ignoring the Rule of Law.
APPREHENSION OF BIAS AND IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE PETITIONER
fails to take into account the following
factual contentions of the petitioner and fails
to give reasons on its conclusion which has
adversely affected the life or personal liberty
of the petitioner no. 01 and 02:

xxvii. That the State Apparatus of two
States are involved in criminal conspiracy
against petitioner no.01 and 02 to kill the
petitioner no.01 and 02 to usurp their property
in Bihar and the controller of the State
Apparatus, a central Government employee and a
Rtd. Justice of this Hon’ble Court reside at
New Delhi and all directions go from Delhi to
Bihar. All events have taken place in Bihar &
Delhi against the petitioner during 2004 to
2016 at the behest of direction from Delhi.
Hence, approaching to Hon’ble Patna High Court
is meaningless and inefficacious. Records have
been placed with all the three SLPs and two
Writs before this Hon’ble Court. Registry has
notified defects against the original draft of
the petitioner in the Writ (Civil) 90 of 2016
because the name of Rtd Justice of this Hon’ble
Court was mentioned. Hence, petitioner
redrafted it. However, it is evident from the
Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India. Another Letter-Petition
dated 13.10.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice
of India is annexed herein with this petition.

xxviii. That Mr. Praveen Kumar from Indian Defense
Account Service presently as C&MD on deputation
basis with Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi has
encircled us in Bihar as well as in Delhi and
kept us captive in house arrest virtually. It
has been placed on record in Writ (Civil) 90 of
2016 before this Hon’ble Court.
xxix. That the bad element of State Apparatus on the
one hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.
and kept it secret since 2011 to usurp the
property of petitioner no.02 in Bihar and on
the other hand Mr. Praveen Kumar has kept
petitioner no. 01 and 02 under the house arrest
in Delhi to kill them silently.
xxx. How State Apparatus and Mafia are involved in
criminal conspiracy against a vulnerable common
man and senior citizen oxygen dependent
voiceless widow OBC woman in two states viz.
Delhi & Bihar since 2004 has been apprised
before this Hon’ble Court from time to time
through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.
9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013, Writ (C) 90

of 2016 and Writ Petition (Criminal) 136 of
2016?
xxxi. Since 2004 to 2009, criminal conspiracy through
local leaders and Mafia and since 2010 to till
date, through Indian Courts.
xxxii. Everything has finished. 12 years long criminal
conspiracy has taken away the life of my above
the knee amputee father untimely in 2007 and we
(herein petitioner no.01 and 02) have been kept
captive and house arrest virtually.
xxxiii. That the criminal trespass has been committed
by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader
with the consent of S.P. of Katihar. House of
the petitioner no.02 has been turned into
public Toilet with the posters w.e.f 28.02.2016
to 05.03.2016 without the permission of the
petitioner no.02 which has been placed on
record with Writ (C) 90 of 2016 before this
Hon’ble Court through interlocutory
application. False police enquiry report dated
07.05.2016 has been uploaded online by the S.P.
Katihar to the Police Head Quarter, Bihar
through Chief Minister Secretariat denying the

very fact of the incident. However, the
villagers have sent us the phototgraphs of
public toilet through Watsup which has been
declined by the police enquiry report.
True Copies of Police complaint
against installation of Public
Toilet without the permission of
petitioner no.02 by Mr. Bihari
Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader
to SP Katihar by the petitioner
dated 03.03.2016 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure
P-1 (Page from to )
True Copies of photographs of
public toilet with posters having
‘text of public toilet for
female’ pasted at the entry gate
of the House of the petitioner
no.02 sent by villagers through
Watsup dated 05.03.2016 &
06.03.2016 to the petitioner
no.02 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-2 (Page from
to )
True Copies of translated false

police enquiry report by S.P.
Katihar dated 07.05.2016 to the
Incharge, Janta Darbar Cell,
Police Head Quarter Bihar, Patna
is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-3 (Page from to )
A True Copy of online rejoinder
vide online complaint no.
99999-0303160113 against false
police enquiry report of S.P.
17.05.2016 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-4 (Page
from to )
True Copies of the photographs of
the victims viz. above the knee
amputee, Headmaster, father Late
Shri Deep Narayan Poddar (1939-
2007) and Oxygen dependent, mother
Widow Asha Rani Devi, petitioner
no.02 herein in this petition and
wife of Late Shri Deep Narayan
Poddar (1946 to till date) whose
house is being turned into public
toilets w.e.f 28.02.2016 to

05.03.2016 by Mr. Bihari Lal
Bubna, an elected Panchayati Raj
Institution (PRI) leader with the
consent of S.P. Katihar is
annexed herewith and marked as
xxxiv. That Peculiar fact of this matter is that the
Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a role
of respondents throughout the case from Trial
Court to High Court either in Delhi or in
Bihar. Actual party has not even filed a single
piece of paper before the Ld. Trial court at
New Delhi. However, actual party has appeared
once on 09.02.2011 and has filed Vakalatnama
before Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi.
xxxv. Had the Hon’ble Judges not played a role of
Respondent the matter would have been disposed
of on 30.05.2011 itself? It is evident from the
records of Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and SCR of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. Bad elements of State
Apparatus have turned the settled matter into
complex matter intentionally for their own
vested interest and have contracted the matter

till date to finish the vulnerable petitioner
by way of trapping him into the courts without
harming themselves. Matter is ex parte and
Hon’ble Judges have played a role of
respondent.
xxxvi. That a Letter-Petition against Ld.
CJM Begusarai affecting the administration of
Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary no. 35529
has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court as it
did not cover under the guideline of PIL;
although the matter in the larger public
interest. The bugs would have been stopped and
killed; had this Hon’ble court would have taken
an appropriate action against the Letter-
Petition dated 19.08.2016.
A True Copy of Letter-Petition dated
19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India is annexed herewith
from to )
VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE
PETITIONER

factual contentions of the petitioner and
violates the principle of Natural Justice
against the petitioner:
xxxvii. That Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public
Information Officer District Court Begusarai
Bihar has furnished false and frivolous RTI
reply on 27.08.2016.
A True Copy of false RTI reply by Ld.
CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 to the
petitioner is annexed herewith and
to )
xxxviii. That the RTI reply of Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate Cum Public Information Officer
District Court Begusarai Bihar under QUESTION
NO.07 in Case No. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act, "the application for cancellation
of NBW was never pressed before court, so no
order was passed upon it and neither the
petitioner nor his advocate had appeared before
the court" has been falsified by the record of
certified copy of Order dated 4.4.2011 issued
by the same Begusarai Court and the same has

been placed on record at Ld. Trail Court at New
Delhi in Case No. HMA-700 of 2010 and on the
ground of which Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
pronounced the Judgement in Case No. MAT. APPL.
7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 in favor of the
petitioner.
xxxix. That aggrieved by the false RTI
reply dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld. CJM
Begusarai, petitioner has filed Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 on 30.08.2016 before this
Hon’ble Court for quashing of frivolous
criminal proceedings.
xl. Application dated 03.10.2016 in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for
mentioning of fresh matter for urgent listing
earlier than the scheduled date and urgent
relief is sought against Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 has been sent through R&I
department of this Hon’ble Court after a huge
hue and cry as initially R&I refused to take
this Dak and subsequently being filed through
filing counter of Party in Person as well on
the same date.
A True Copy of application before the

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for
mentioning of fresh matter urgently
dated 03.10.2016 by the petitioner is
xli. That the petitioner applied for
urgent mentioning of the matter in Writ
Criminal 136 of 2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India through Mentioning
officer of this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016
without routing through the registry
through caveat clearance counter on the
following grounds viz. Senior Citizen
woman, harassment of OBC woman, prevention
of corruption, issuance of N.B.W dated
08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. without
the knowledge of petitioner and after the
settlement of the same matter by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013
in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of
demolition of property, interlinkages of
matter with old matter of this Hon’ble
Court and short matter, as has been laid
down in the handbook of this Hon’ble Court.
A True Copy of filing index of
Urgent Mentioning application

India’s Court through Mentioning
Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the
petitioner through Caveat clearance
Counter without receipt is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-9
(Page from to )
xlii. That the Mentioning officer of
this Hon’ble Court has intentionally listed
my urgent mentioning application in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before Court
No.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief Justice
of India’s Court in the evening of
06.10.2016 despite of my strong protest to
directly allow me for mentioning before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India as per
the provisions laid down in the handbook of
this Hon’ble Court.
xliii. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by
the intentional act of Mentioning officer for
listing the matter before the Court No.06 as
the same Hon’ble bench of this Court No.06 has
dismissed the Writ (C) 90 of 2016, although the
petitioner had apprised the Hon’ble Court

through interlocutory applications that 498A
has been instituted in the state of Bihar even
after the settlement of the same matter by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
xliv. That the petitioner submitted before
the Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the
mentioning officer has cheated the petitioner
and intentionally listed the matter for
mentioning before this court. Petitioner has
humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court No.06
to grant him liberty to mention the matter
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s
Court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016 has been
passed by the Hon’ble Court No. 06 in Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016.
A True Copy of order dated
07.10.2016 in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 passed by this
Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith
from to )
xlv. That aggrieved by the intentional act
of Mentioning officer, the petitioner no.02 has
submitted Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 and

13.10.2016 before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India through email; speed post; and by hand
respectively against rampant atrocities on
Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two states viz.
Bihar as well as in Delhi since 12 years.
Chief Justice of India is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-
11 (Page from to )
xlvi. After an Order dated 07.10.2016 in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 passed by
this Hon’ble Court and upon the request made by
the petitioner, petitioner being called on
17.10.2016 by the mentioning officer for fresh
application for urgent mentioning before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, however
petitioner being harassed whole day from PRO to
mentioning officer and directly refused by the
mentioning officer as his role is over now.
xlvii. Upon direct refusal by mentioning
officer to allow the petitioner to mention the
matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India as per the provisions laid down in the
handbook of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
the schedule listing of the matter fixed by the
registry on 21.10.2016; the petitioner left
with no option and filed an application for
listing this matter before the constitution
bench of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878
of 2016.
A True Copy of application for
constitution bench along with
Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide
diary no. 77878 filed against Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016 is
xlviii. Office report dated 20.10.2016 against Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been
supplied nor been uploaded at the website of
this Hon’ble Court by the Registrar, Section X.
Petitioner has applied for the certified copy
of the same on 28.10.2016 with an application
registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide diary no.
PC-732 and received the certified copy of
Office-Report on 08.11.2016. Office-Report

dated 20.10.2016 does not contain the
application dated 03.10.2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India for mentioning of fresh
matter urgent listing earlier than the
scheduled date and urgent relief is sought
against Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016. The
record has not been placed on record and has
been intentionally erased from the office
report. Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 further
wrongly records the date of filing of
application for listing the writ petition
before a constitution bench on 18th
January
2016 while the petitioner has filed the same on
18th
October 2016. Moreover, it is circulated
‘unregistered’. Criminal Misc petition no. has
not been allotted against application dated
18.10.2016 intentionally by the Registrar.
A True Copy of certified copy of
office report dated 20.10.2016
by the Registrar, Section X in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-13 (Page
from to )
xlix. That this Hon’ble Court has
dismissed the Writ petition Criminal 136 of

2016 with liberty on 21.10.2016 and directed
the petitioner to approach Patna High Court.
A True Copy of final Order dated
Court in Writ Petition (Criminal)
136 of 2016 is annexed herewith
from to )
l. As per the direction by this
Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016, Petitioner tried to approach Patna High
Court through Second Appeal vide diary no.
183722 dated 03.11.2016 via Central Information
Commission (CIC) on the ground of ‘Life or
Personal liberty’ with a prayer for urgent
hearing on 30.11.2016 but failed to approach
Patna High Court.
A True Copy of email letter of
prayer by the petitioner for
urgent hearing of Second Appeal
vide diary no. 183722 dated
03.11.2016 via Central Information
Commission (CIC) on the ground of

‘Life or Personal liberty’ dated
30.11.2016 is annexed herewith and
to )
li. DS, Central Registry, CIC has
turned the request of Petitioner down on the
ground of “no ground of ‘life or personal
liberty’ at any stage i.e. RTI application, 1st
Appeal or even in 2nd
Appeal has been made out
or claimed by the petitioner”. Although, the
content of the second appeal is self-
explanatory at page no.02 and para no. 6, which
reads as “another N.B.W dated 08.09.2011
process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been issued by the
same CJM division against applicant and his
Senior Citizen ailing mother in another
frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of 2013 u/s
498A after the closure of case no. 9P of 2010
and kept it secret since then without the
knowledge of applicant to usurp his property in
Bihar”. Moreover, CIC has invoked section 7(1)
of RTI Act 2005 in N.N. Kalia Vs University of
Delhi case and recorded its observation “the
life and liberty provision can be applied only
in cases where there is an imminent danger to
the life and liberty of a person and the non-

supply of the information may either lead to
death or grievous injury to the concerned
person. Liberty of a person is threatened if
she or he is going to be incarcerated or has
already been incarcerated and the disclosure of
the information may change that situation. If
the disclosure of the information would obviate
the danger then it may be considered under the
provision of section 7(1). The imminent danger
has to be demonstrably proven”. In this case
imminent danger has been demonstrably proven
through photographs of the above the knee
amputee father of the petitioner who has been
encircled to death untimely by the nexus of bad
elements of State Apparatus and Mafia in 2007
and through the photographs of oxygen dependent
71 year old mother, as petitioner no.02 in this
petition, who is residing on rented
accommodation at New Delhi and dependent upon
unemployed petitioner no.01 only and her life
has been threatened by the issuance of
frivolous N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. after the settlement of the same matter
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and is going
to be incarcerated which may either lead to her
death or grievous injury to the petitioner
no.02 and the petitioner no.01. Hence, this was

a fit case to invoke section 7(1) of RTI Act
2005 by CIC. Ironically, the second appeal does
not have any defined format where applicant can
mention the exact word of ‘life or personal
liberty’ to make the provision of section 7(1)
applicable as per the RTI Act 2005.
Nevertheless, Online CIC complaint format
contains this dropdown box of ‘life or personal
liberty’ to make the provision of section 7(1)
applicable. Petitioner has also filed
complaint against Patna High Court to CIC under
the dropdown box of ‘life or personal liberty’
to make the provision of section 7(1)
applicable.
A True Copy of email reply by
DS(CR) CIC turning down the
petitioner’s prayer for urgent
registration of Second Appeal on
the ground of ‘life or personal
liberty’ dated 02.12.2016 is
A True Copy of online complaint by
the petitioner against Patna High
Court to CIC under the dropdown

box of ‘life or personal liberty’
to make the provision of section
7(1) applicable is annexed
17 (Page from to )
lii. That this Hon’ble Court has also
dismissed the Review Petition Criminal 825 of
2016 on 01.12.2016, upholding its final order
of 2016.
A True Copy of Order dated
Court in Review Petition
(Criminal) 825 of 2016 is annexed
18 (Page from to )
liii. That petitioner no.01 and 02
cannot remain live or sustain their life in any
state of India if the Hon’ble Apex Court does
not invoke its inherent power under Article 32
of the Constitution of India to enforce
guaranteed fundamental rights of the petitioner
under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
2. ABUSE OF PROCESS AND GROSS

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: IMPUGNED JUDGMENT FAILED
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE
OF RECORD; FACTUAL ERRORS
to give reasons on its conclusions:
a. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of
this Hon’ble Court violates the Part IV of
ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which
was framed in exercise of the powers conferred
by Article 145 of the Constitution. Provision
of the Part IV of Order XXXV of Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution shall be in
writing and shall be heard by a Division Court
of not less than five Judges provided that a
petition which does not raise a substantial
question of Law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution may be heard and decided by a
Division Court of less than five Judges, and,
during vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting
singly. (2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard

and decided by a Division Court of less than
five Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly, notwithstanding
that in the petition a substantial question of
Law as to the interpretation of Constitution is
raised.”
b. That the Writ and review Petition
which have been dismissed by the Order, against
which Curative Petition is hereby moved, did
raise ‘substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution and this
Hon’ble Court was not required to decide any
‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’
‘connected with the petition’. The humble
Petitioner had submitted this in his Writ
Petition, pleadings/arguments and through
written submission followed by interlocutory
application for constitution bench on
18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878 in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.
c. That During the course of hearing
on 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016, the petitioner not being heard properly
rather directed to engage Advocate although the

Petitioner has clarified the strong reason for
not engaging any Advocate against this matter
in writing in the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016 as well as with the Registrar during the
interaction interview dated 03.10.2016 that
“Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a
role of Respondent throughout the case from
Trial Court to High Court”.
d. For that there is sufficient
reason to cure the Order of this Hon’ble Court
as it contains material and apparent errors in
passing directions to the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court.
e. For that the Order of this Hon’ble
Court incorrectly directs the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court, which has resulted
in gross miscarriage of justice.
3. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT FAILS TO
CONSIDER CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER MADE WITH
RESPECT TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION; RIGHT
OF DIGNITY, LIBERTY AND AUTONOMY
It is submitted that the impugned judgment fails
to take into account the following factual

contentions of the petitioner and order stood in
breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India:
a) For that Article 21 of the
Constitution protects an individual’s right
to autonomy, liberty, basing this submission
on the jurisprudence of this Hon’ble Court.
The petitioner’s written submissions contain
these averments in pages 15 to 17(para xxvii
to xxix); page 27, (para L, M, N); Page 31,
(para W, X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34
(para BB) and Pages 50 to 57 where
clarification has been sought by the
registrar dated 07.09.2016 in Writ Petition
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: ON
THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDER OF DISMISSAL ARTICLE
145 (1).
to give reasons on its conclusions:

That the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 was framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of
the Constitution. Part IV, ORDER XXXV of the said
Rules runs as under:
“1.(1) Every petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution shall be in writing and shall be heard
by a Division Court of not less than five Judges
provided that a petition which does not raise a
substantial question of Law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution may be heard and
decided by a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly.
(2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard and
decided by a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly, notwithstanding that in the
petition a substantial question of Law as to the
interpretation of Constitution is raised.”
The effect of the aforesaid Order is:

(a) That Writ petition involves
questions pertaining to the interpretation
of the Constitution, the Writ Petition must
be heard by a bench of not less than five
Judges;
(b) That if Writ Petition ‘does not
raise a substantial question of Law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution’ it
‘may be heard and decided by a Division
Bench of the Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly’;
(c) That all ‘interlocutory and
miscellaneous applications’ connected with
a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution, may be heard and decided by a
Division Court of less than five
Judges,……’; and
(d) That all that can be decided in
matters mentioned at interlocutory and
miscellaneous application’, leaving the
actual Writ Petition intact before the

Court to be disposed of as per the law and
the Constitution.
That the Writ and Review Petition which have been
dismissed by the Order, against which Curative
Petition is hereby moved, did raise ‘substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was not
required to decide any ‘interlocutory and
miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with the
petition’.
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION WERE INVOLVED BEING IGNORED BY
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
It is submitted that the impugned judgment fails
to take into account the following factual
contentions of the petitioner and fails to give
reasons on its conclusions:
I. Article 32 confers a guaranteed
fundamental remedy but Article 226 confers no
such guaranteed rights. This state of affairs
makes Article 32 a dominant and specific

provision whereas Article 136 or Article 226
are, in the context of the enforcement of the
fundamental rights, clearly general and
additional.
II. Dr. Ambedkar described Article 32
of the Constitution as “the very soul and the
very heart of the Constitution”. Article 136, a
discretionary remedy, cannot be elevated to
become the very soul of the Constitution.
III. In a given case where certain
Fundamental Rights are violated or non-
protected, a remedy under Article 32 must be
granted as a matter of course;
IV. Remedy under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is a matter of course
whenever on account of state action a
Fundamental Right granted as per provisions of
the Part III of the Constitution are breached,
or ignored.

V. That, as such, the Remedy under
Article 32 of the Constitution is ex propio
Vigore available to protect a citizen’s
Fundamental Right which he believes to have
been breached or non-protected by a judicial
order of the Superior Judiciary;
VI. That the order stood in breach of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to say
in other words, this Right was not protected by
VII. As a point of our Constitutional
law that if there is breach or non-protection
by any organ of the state, which includes
Judiciary also, remedy under Article 32 is to
be granted as a matter of course; and
VIII. To examine the petitioner’s
contentions to appreciate if the Case presented
deserves the grant of such a Remedy on its
merits.
6. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:
AS THESE QUETION(S) OF LAW BEING IGNORED TO APPLY

JUDICIAL REVIEW
question of law as laid down in the review
criminal and subsequently fails to apply
judicial review and give reasons on its
conclusions:
That the main questions of Law to be decided in
this petition are:-
a) Whether after the settlement of the matter
by one High Court; one has to approach
another High Court for the same cause of
action and for the same relief wherein the
respondent has already appeared into the
matter and contested the matter indirectly?
b)Whether the matter involves two states
jurisdictions for the same cause of action;
Hon’ble Apex Court must not invoke its
inherent power under Article 32 to enforce
and guarantee the fundamental rights of the
citizen under Article 21?

c)Whether the Writ petition involves questions
pertaining to the interpretation of the
Constitution; the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed by a bench of less than five
Judges?
d)Whether the petitioner approached to this
Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 against
rampant atrocities by the state apparatus in
two states and for enforcement of his
fundamental rights under Article 21 to be
subjected to violation of principle of
Natural Justice by this Hon’ble Court?
e)Whether dismissing the Writ petition with
liberty and directing the petitioner to
approach to Patna High Court by the two
Judges Bench of this Hon’ble Court; does not
violate the provisions of Supreme Court
Rules, 1966 which was framed in exercise of
the powers conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution under the Part IV of ORDER
XXXV? And whether Article 226 confers
guaranteed fundamental rights to the
petitioner for enforcement of Article 21?
7. GROUNDS TO SUBMIT THAT THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENTS ARE OPPRESSIVE TO THE
JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE
It is submitted that the impugned judgments
suffers from errors apparent on the face of
record. The impugned judgments disregard
past precedent and the nature of the role
of this Hon’ble Court in safeguarding and
upholding constitutional principles and
Fundamental Rights.
Though this Curative Petition, the
petitioner seeks reconsideration of the
judgment, inter alia, on the following
grounds which are independent and without
prejudice to each other.
That being aggrieved by order dated
01.12.2016, the petitioner is challenging
the same on the following amongst other
grounds: -
A. That the present petition is
clearly within the scope and ambit of
the curative powers of this Hon’ble
Court as spelled out in Rupa Ashok Hurra
Vs Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, where
this Hon’ble Court held that this Court,

to prevent abuse of its process and to
cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may
consider its judgment in exercise of its
inherent power” (Para 49). Para “42… we
are of the view that though judges of
the highest court do their best, subject
of course to the limitation of human
fallibility, yet situations may arise,
in the interest of rare cases which
would require reconsideration of final
judgment to set right miscarriage of
justice complained of. In such cases it
would not only be proper but obligatory
both legally and morally to rectify the
error. After giving our anxious
consideration to the question, we are
persuaded to hold that the duty to do so
justice in theses rarest of rare cases
shall have to prevail over the policy of
certainty of judgment as though it is
essentially in the public interest that
a final judgment of the final court in
the country should not be open to
challenge, yet there may be
circumstances, as mentioned above,
wherein declining to reconsider the
judgment would be oppressive to judicial

conscience and cause perpetuation of
irremediable injustice”. Para “50……the
court in Rupa Ashok Hurra had stated
that it was not possible to enumerate
all the grounds on which a curative
petition may be entertained. Para
“51…….A curative petition only be filed
under the following grounds: 1. Where
there is violation of principles of
Natural Justice in that the aggrieved
party filing a curative petition was not
a party to the lis but the judgment
adversely affected his interest or if he
was a party to the lis, he was not
served with notice of the proceedings
and the matter proceeded as if he had
notice. 2. Where in the proceedings a
learned judge failed to disclose his
connection with the subject matter or
the parties, giving scope for an
apprehension of bias and the judgment
adversely affects the petitioner”. Para
“52….the ‘curative petitioner’ must aver
specifically that the grounds mentioned
in the curative petition had been taken
in the review petition and that such
review had been dismissed by

circulation. A curative petition has to
include a certificate by a Senior
Advocate indicating that the same
grounds in the curative petitions had
also been taken in the review petition”.
It is further submitted that the
instances given in para 51 of the said
judgment are not exhaustive, which is
evident from the observation of the
court in para 50 itself wherein it was
observed that it was not possible to
exhaustively enumerate the instances
when a curative would lie. It is
submitted that the present case is a fit
case for exercise of curative powers by
B. In A.R. Antulay Vs R.S.Nayak
(1988)2 SCC 602, at para 48 this Court
has held:
We are of the opinion that this Court is
not powerless to correct its error which
has the effect of depriving a Citizen of
his Fundamental Rights and more so, the
right to life and liberty. It can do so
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
in any proceedings pending before it

without insisting on the formalities of
a review application. Powers of review
can be exercised in a petition filed
under Article 136 or Article 32 or under
any other provision of the Constitution
if the Court is satisfied that its
directions have resulted in the
deprivation of the Fundamental Rights of
a Citizen or any legal right of the
petitioner.
In Ramdeo Chauhan V. Banikanta Das
(2010) 14 SCC 209, at para 50, this
court held
50…..The assumption in the judgment
under review that there can be no
violation of a person’s human right by a
judgment of this court is possibly not
correct.
It is submitted that in light of the
continuous, irreparable harm to the
Fundamental Rights of millions of Senior
Citizen Women who are victim of the
rampant misuse of 498A and
malfunctioning of state apparatus, this
court ought to exercise its remedial
powers to ensure that the continuous

irremediable injustice is not
perpetrated.
C. It is humbly submitted that there
are serious and manifest errors on the
face of record which have led to grave
and irremediable injustice to Senior
Citizen Women, their families who are
victim of the rampant misuse of 498A and
malfunctioning of state apparatus which
would be oppressive to judicial
conscience and would affect public
confidence in the judiciary. Therefore,
the exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court would
be merited in the present case.
D. For that it would be equitable and
in the interest of justice that the
Order dated 21.10.2016 and 01.12.2016,
under curative in this petition, are
recalled and the case is decided on
merits otherwise grave prejudice shall
be caused to the curative petitioner
herein.
GROUNDS SHOWING IRREMEDIABLE INJUSTICE:

E. For that the order violates the
provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966
which was framed in exercise of the
powers conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution under ORDER XXXV.
F. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that Writ
petition involves questions pertaining to
the interpretation of the Constitution, the
Writ Petition is not liable to be dismissed
by a bench of less than five Judges?
G. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that it
has severely affected the administration of
Justice delivered by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi; way back in 2013 in favor of
petitioner.
H. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that there
is a sheer violation of Principle of
Natural Justice.
I. For that the order fails to take

into account voluminous evidence adduced
and substantive contentions urged by the
petitioner through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012,
SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.
19073/2013, Writ (C) 90 of 2016 and Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016 before this Hon’ble
Court.
J. That the final order of this
Hon’ble Court suffers from errors
apparent on the face of record,
resulting in grave miscarriage of
Justice.
K. Public Confidence in
administration of justice will be shaken
by reason of the association or
closeness of judge with the subject
matter of dispute; establish wrong
precedent of procedural Judicial
System, encourage malfunctioning of
the State Apparatus; weaken the
basic fabric of the institutions;
ignore constitutional priority; if
the order is permitted to stand
L. For that cure of this Order is
necessary as it ‘failed for the sake of

justice’.
M. For that cure of this Order is
necessary as it fails to protect the
interest of the neglected Senior Citizen
in the family.
N. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that if
Order is not being cured in constructive
manner than common man will be
discouraged and demotivated to save the
life of an old age person and aged
person will be neglected in the every
household. No one would try to save the
life of an aged person at the cost of
his or her life in the fast moving
material world.
O. For that cure of this Order is
necessary as it fails to preserve the
dignity of our holy Constitution as well
as the dignity of our Hon’ble Apex
Court.
P. For that cure of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will pass a wrong

message to the society that Hon’ble Apex
Court is in support of the
malfunctioning of State Apparatus and
against the protection of Fundamental
Rights of a common citizen.
Q. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that
there is a sheer violation of Human
Rights throughout the case from Ld.
Trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court.
R. For that cure of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will pass wrong
message to the petitioner that all
events have taken place against him
(since 2010 to till date, either in
Bihar or in Delhi) so far at the behest
of Hon’ble Apex Court.
S. For that cure of this Order is
necessary otherwise individual priority
will overshadow the Constitutional
priority?
T. For that cure of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will encourage

the morale of bad elements of state
Apparatus and weaken the basic fabric of
the institutions.
U. For that cure of this Order is
the morale of those who consider court
as their personal property.
V. That the matter is not an
individual as it is in the interest of
larger Public. Thus, power elite can
infringe the right to life or personal
liberty of a vulnerable common man or
woman and take them on hostage to make
them a bonded labour; can infringe the
right to live with dignity.
W. That the matter is a
constitutional as well. It is the
concern of all citizens. Thus, after
winning from one High Court one cannot
go to another High Court for the same
cause of action and for the same relief.

X. That the matter is also concern in
the interest of all Senior Citizen
Women.
Y. For that cure of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will weaken the
institution of marriage and encourage
the morale of those who are indulged in
the commercialization of marriage for
the lust of property and financial
gains.
Z. For that cure of this Order is
the rampant misuse of 498A in the
country.
AA. For that cure of this Order is
necessary otherwise it will not act as a
deterrent and make the women responsible
and accountable towards the Senior
Citizen disabled and ailing in-laws.
BB. For that cure of this Order is
necessary to give right direction to the
feminist movement in India.

CC. For that cure of this Order is
necessary to redefine the role of Women
Protection Officers in India down the
line.
DD. For that cure of this Order is
necessary to fix responsibility,
accountability and stern punitive action
against Women Protection Officer so that
the genuine victims get the benefit out
of it.
EE. For that cure of this Order is
necessary to stop the rampant misuse and
abuse of power by the Women Protection
Officers for their own vested interest
defeating the very purpose of the
institutional arrangements made under
the domestic violence Act 2005 for women
safety and empowerment those genuinely
victimized in the society.
FF. For that cure of this Order is
necessary to give guidelines to the
State Governments for appointment of the
qualitative & right candidates as Women
Protection Officers in the State.

GG. For that cure of this Order is
necessary to impart essential training
and build capacity of the Women
Protection Officers to develop a sense
of discrimination between genuine and
frivolous domestic violence to exercise
their power carefully and diligently to
ascertain the gravity of the affected
Women.
HH. For that cure of this Order is
necessary to break the hegemony of bad
elements of state Apparatus who want to
govern the mind and body of a common man
or woman.
II. For that the order fails to take
into account the face of records that
petitioner’s life is at stake and this
order will kill the petitioner no.01 and
02 slowly and silently.
8. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:
BECAUSE NEW AND IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AS GROUND BEING
IGNORED TO APPLY THE JUDICIAL REVIEW:

important evidence as ground which has been
laid down in the review petition criminal and
subsequently fails to apply judicial review on
its conclusions:
(i) For that this Order ought to be
cured as it fails to take into account new and
important evidence as ground.
(ii) That the petitioner has been
stopped and offended by the Registry,
Mentioning Officer and PRO by this Hon’ble
Court to mention the matter before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India on the ground of
provisions laid down in the handbook of this
Hon’ble Court. It is evident from an
application before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India for mentioning of fresh matter urgently
dated 3.10.2016 through R&I and Registry both
and subsequent suppression of the record by the
Registrar Section X as evident from certified
copy of Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 annexed herein as
annexure P-13; an application for urgent
mentioning of the matter before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India through Mentioning
officer of this Hon’ble Court dated
06.10.2016 without routing through the
registry as per the provisions laid down in
the handbook of this Hon’ble Court and
subsequent listing of matter before Court
no.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief Justice
of India’s Court on 07.10.2016 despite of
strong protest by the petitioner; order
dated 07.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016
that though the matter has been placed
before the court as mentioning item, the
petitioner submitted that he would like to
mention the matter before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India; Letter-Petition dated
08.10.2016 against mentioning officer of
this Hon’ble Court through R&I; Letter-
Petition dated 13.10.2016 against rampant
atrocities on Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent,
uneducated, OBC, voiceless, rural woman
through R&I; after an order dated 07.10.2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 and upon request by the
petitioner, petitioner being called on
17.10.2016 for fresh mentioning of the matter
urgently before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India by the mentioning officer and being
harassed whole day from PRO to mentioning
officer and directly being refused by the
mentioning officer at the end of the day that
his role is over now; consequently, an
application was moved for listing this matter
before the constitution bench of seven Judges
vide diary no. 77878 dated 18.10.2016 in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; office report
dated 20.10.2016 neither being uploaded at the
website in public domain nor being supplied to
the petitioner even after several reminders
orally and through email dated 27.10.2016 to
the Registrar, Section X; application for the
certified copy of the same was made on
28.10.2016 with an application registration no.
A1-32350/2016 vide diary no. PC-732 and
received the certified copy of same on
2016 is annexed herein as Annexure P-13; all
evidences have been placed on record with
this curative Petition Criminal and are
annexed herein as Annexures P-8 to P-9 and P-
11 to P-13.
(iii) That the petitioner who approached
this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India for enforcement of his
guaranteed Fundamental Right being subjected to
gross violation of Human Rights; and gross
violation of provisions, procedure and practice
of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the Quasi-
Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court.
(iv) That a well-designed criminal
conspiracy being commissioned and strategy
being adopted against the petitioner by the
Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court to
spoil the valid ground of the Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 and make it liable to be
dismissed with liberty by this Hon’ble Court
and to close the door of the Hon’ble Apex Court
under Article 32 for enforcement of guaranteed
fundamental right of the petitioner under
Article 21.
9. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DISREGARDED PAST PRECEDENT IN
SAFEGUARDING AND UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: QUANTUM OF
AFFECTED PERSON AS GROUND FOR UPHOLDING
CONSTITUTIONALITY BEING IGNORED

fails to take into account the following past
precedents as ground to safeguard the
fundamental rights of the petitioner and uphold
the constitutional principles, which has been
laid down in the review petition, and
subsequently fails to apply judicial review on
its conclusions:
a. For that this Hon’ble Court has
held in the case of RK Dalmia vs Justice SR
Tendolkar [AIR 1958 SC 538](noted by this
Hon’ble Court in the impugned judgment) that:
“….a law may be constitutional even though
it relates to a single individual if, on
account of some special circumstances or
reasons applicable to him and not
applicable to others, that single
individual may be treated as a class by
himself”
b. The aforementioned principle has
inter alia been followed by a bench of this
Hon’ble Court in Ashok Thakur vs Union of India
[2008)6 SCC 1], wherein the court held that
even when it notices that “…..even one

Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 vide diary no. 41026

Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 vide diary no. 41026

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 vide diary no. 41026

Similar to Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 vide diary no. 41026 (20)

More from Om Prakash Poddar

More from Om Prakash Poddar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 vide diary no. 41026