Complied the mandatory provision of Order VIII Rule 5 & 6(i) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and filed letter addressed to Chief Justice of India through filing counter.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal to register Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017
This public interest litigation challenges the failure of the CBI and CVC to take action in response to complaints filed regarding alleged abuse of office and criminal misconduct by Justice CK Prasad. The petition alleges that Justice Prasad misused his position as a Supreme Court judge to improperly favor a private party, Mistry Constructions, in a land dispute case, conferring significant financial benefit. The petitioner, an advocate and activist, had filed detailed complaints with various authorities but no investigation or charges have been filed. The petition seeks a directive for the authorities to comply with their duty to investigate under law, and also seeks Justice Prasad's removal as head of the Press Council of India due to the conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
This document is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lodgment order issued by the Registrar regarding a previous petition.
The petitioner argues that the Registrar wrongly lodged the previous petition under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, claiming it raised no new issues. However, the petitioner asserts new circumstances have arisen, including the suspicious death of petitioner no. 02.
The petitioner further claims the Registrar failed to consider violations of Supreme Court rules and human rights in the case. The appeal seeks to challenge the Registrar's order and agitate the matter citing the new circumstances and grounds.
Gauri lankesh case final slp regarding accused number 6 (1)ZahidManiyar
The document appears to be a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a high court order related to the investigation and prosecution of a murder case. Specifically, it challenges an order that quashed the sanction order and supplementary charge sheet filed against an accused, Mohan Nayak, under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act for his alleged involvement in the 2017 murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh. The petitioner argues the high court failed to properly examine the relevant provisions and facts of the case in quashing the sanction order and invokes the court's jurisdiction to do justice in this high-profile murder case.
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016Om Prakash Poddar
True Copy of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 filed before Supreme Court of India dated 30th August 2016 against the State of Bihar for Quashing of criminal complaint case(P) 5591 of 2013 pending at SDJM Court no.16, Begusarai CJM division Bihar.
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal vide D.NO. 122864 dated 06.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal of Registration of Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
Reply against the third forcible notice of hearing for 17.07.2017 before su...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a reply filed in the Supreme Court of India against a third forcible notice of hearing issued on July 17, 2017 regarding a curative petition. It provides background on the case and argues that the petitioner was forced to file the curative petition regarding a "life and liberty" matter to enforce their constitutional rights. It alleges defects in the processing of the case and provides supporting documentation of communications and orders issued in the case as annexures. The petitioner requests that the forcible notice of hearing be cancelled or addressed by the Chief Justice of India.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal to register Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017
This public interest litigation challenges the failure of the CBI and CVC to take action in response to complaints filed regarding alleged abuse of office and criminal misconduct by Justice CK Prasad. The petition alleges that Justice Prasad misused his position as a Supreme Court judge to improperly favor a private party, Mistry Constructions, in a land dispute case, conferring significant financial benefit. The petitioner, an advocate and activist, had filed detailed complaints with various authorities but no investigation or charges have been filed. The petition seeks a directive for the authorities to comply with their duty to investigate under law, and also seeks Justice Prasad's removal as head of the Press Council of India due to the conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
This document is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lodgment order issued by the Registrar regarding a previous petition.
The petitioner argues that the Registrar wrongly lodged the previous petition under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, claiming it raised no new issues. However, the petitioner asserts new circumstances have arisen, including the suspicious death of petitioner no. 02.
The petitioner further claims the Registrar failed to consider violations of Supreme Court rules and human rights in the case. The appeal seeks to challenge the Registrar's order and agitate the matter citing the new circumstances and grounds.
Gauri lankesh case final slp regarding accused number 6 (1)ZahidManiyar
The document appears to be a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging a high court order related to the investigation and prosecution of a murder case. Specifically, it challenges an order that quashed the sanction order and supplementary charge sheet filed against an accused, Mohan Nayak, under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act for his alleged involvement in the 2017 murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh. The petitioner argues the high court failed to properly examine the relevant provisions and facts of the case in quashing the sanction order and invokes the court's jurisdiction to do justice in this high-profile murder case.
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016Om Prakash Poddar
True Copy of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 filed before Supreme Court of India dated 30th August 2016 against the State of Bihar for Quashing of criminal complaint case(P) 5591 of 2013 pending at SDJM Court no.16, Begusarai CJM division Bihar.
Second Appeal dated 06 04 2017 against SC before CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
Second Appeal vide D.NO. 122864 dated 06.04.2017 before CIC New Delhi against Registrar Supreme Court of India for refusal of Registration of Writ (Criminal) D.NO.2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS"
Reply against the third forcible notice of hearing for 17.07.2017 before su...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a reply filed in the Supreme Court of India against a third forcible notice of hearing issued on July 17, 2017 regarding a curative petition. It provides background on the case and argues that the petitioner was forced to file the curative petition regarding a "life and liberty" matter to enforce their constitutional rights. It alleges defects in the processing of the case and provides supporting documentation of communications and orders issued in the case as annexures. The petitioner requests that the forcible notice of hearing be cancelled or addressed by the Chief Justice of India.
This document describes legal proceedings related to the bail application and writ petitions filed on behalf of Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao, an 81-year old undertrial prisoner accused of terrorism offenses. Rao has filed for bail and writ petitions on medical grounds citing his advanced age and health conditions. The document outlines the legal history of Rao's case and arrest, provides details of his medical conditions and treatment in prison, and describes the various bail applications and writ petitions filed seeking his release from custody on humanitarian grounds.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution. It challenges the Registrar's refusal to register a previous writ petition on the grounds that no reasonable cause was shown. The petitioners argue that violations of court rules and procedures by the registry and a prior court order provide reasonable grounds. It raises several questions of law regarding what constitutes reasonable grounds for registration and whether the petitioner's fundamental right to access justice has been violated. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari to enforce their Article 21 rights.
Application for Written Arguments dated 05 06-2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Parties in this Criminal Matter are CORRUPT, CRIMINAL, CROOK JUDGES, ADVOCATES POLICE and BANK OFFICIALS in M.A NO. 583 of 2020 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 wherein rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been suspended through N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. causing jurisdictional error deliberately and secretly since 2011 by the State of Bihar and others and wherein Order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 of Supreme Court of India has stood in breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India as a result of that the petitioner no.02 has succumbed to suspicious death on 11.11.2017 and petitioner no.01 is likely to succumb to suspicious death soon because the nexus of state and mafia has organized mob lynching and illegal detention of petitioner and has been compelled to remain underground by these corrupt, criminal, crook and goon’s organs of the state.
Petition before Hon'ble President of India dated 27.07.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Petition before Hon'ble President of India AFTER the Writ Petition (Criminal)D 3913 of 2017 before Supreme Court of India against Registrar Supreme Court of India for shielding Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai of Bihar
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" filed on 18.01.2017 Vide Diary No. 2188 against Supreme Court of India for Evading Rule of Law; Violating set practice, procedure as laid down in the Handbook of this Hon'ble Court; protecting/shielding Bad Elements of State Apparatus and offending, harassing, victimizing the Petitioner-in Person and his Senior Citizen old age Oxygen dependent mother.
This happens to be last resort under legal remedy before the COURT OF LAW for us.
1. The appellant Gautam Navlakha appealed an order denying him statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The appellant had been arrested on October 28, 2018 and spent 34 days under house arrest until October 1, 2018 when the arrest was quashed by the Delhi High Court.
3. The appellant argued that the 34 days spent under house arrest should be counted as time in custody, which combined with subsequent periods of NIA and judicial custody would exceed the 90 day limit for filing a charge sheet under section 167(2) of the CrPC.
M.A.D.No.15192 dated 20.07.2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Last Posthumous Petition filed along with Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi against in-built corruption in Law Enforcement agencies which explains as to how Custodian of Law became the killer of Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi and remained unpunished till date.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
Petition before Prime Minister of India dated 23.08.2017Om Prakash Poddar
WITH A PRAYER TO IMPEACH THE CONCERNED JUDGES FOR ISSUING NON BAIL ABLE WARRANT (N. B. W) DATED 08TH SEPT 2011 UNDER SECTION 83 CR.PC. IN CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO 5591 OF 2013 AT SDJM COURT NO. 16 BEGUSARAI BIHAR AND KEEPING IT SECRET SINCE THEN EVEN AFTER THE ON RECORD INTIMATION TO THE CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI IN THE SAME MATTER CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO. 9P OF 2010 DATED 03RD MARCH 2011 AND AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SAME MATTER BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN MATT APPL 7 OF 2012 ON 23RD JULY 2013
WE ARE LIVING AS REFUGEE IN DELHI BECAUSE OF FORCED DISLOCATION BY THE STATE
THE PETITION WITHOUT SOFT COPY OF ANNEXURES AS HARD COPY OF SAME ANNEXURES FROM P 1 TO P 18 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA WITH THE PETITION Sl. No. P1/ B/ 0108170053 ON 27TH JULY 2017
Written Arguments along with Affidavit before Patna High CourtOm Prakash Poddar
AO NUMBER : 668271/2019 dated 16-10-2019 for Written Arguments along with Affidavit filed before Patna High Court because Judge refused to hear on 14-10-2019
Written Submission for Hearing Vide D.NO.181770 dated 08.12.2017 filed before...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The document is a written submission filed on behalf of appellants Om Prakash and the late Asha Rani Devi before the Chief Information Commissioner regarding appeal number F.NO.CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/113204.
2. It alleges that the death of appellant number 2 (Asha Rani Devi) on November 11, 2017 was caused by the acts of quasi-judicial officers of the Supreme Court of India who violated rules and procedures in writ criminal case number 136 of 2016.
3. It seeks an order from the Chief Information Commissioner to provide the information sought in the second appeal dated February 27, 2017 and information as to why Asha Rani Devi was allegedly
This document is a submission of written arguments to the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the petitioner's arguments that various government authorities have conspired over 12 years to violate his fundamental rights and harass him through frivolous legal cases and actions like trying to cut off his gas supply. The petitioner argues that 13 respondents, including government officials and his alleged wife, should be issued notices and the harassment stopped to protect his right to life. He provides details of past legal proceedings and harassment to support his case.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
The petition challenges certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended, on the grounds that they violate fundamental rights under the Constitution. Specifically, the petition challenges the 2019 amendment which arbitrarily classifies "terrorists" without basis in law. It also challenges the near-impossibility of obtaining bail under Section 43D(5) as inserted in 2008, which denies bail if a prima facie case is established. The petition argues these provisions allow arbitrary exercise of power, prevent individuals from challenging bad faith prosecutions, and violate rights to life and liberty. The petition seeks to strike down or read down these provisions.
The document is an application filed in the Supreme Court of India appealing a lodgment order dated 16.02.2017 issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court refusing to register a writ petition. The application argues that the Registrar misapplied the law and abused their powers by refusing registration, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights. It requests that the Supreme Court allow correction of the application and pass any other order deemed just in the interests of justice.
Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Notification of defects letter D.NO. 840/2017/X dated 22.03.2017 is being emailed by the Registrar Section X on 27.03.2017 to the petitioner. Petitioner Cured the notified defects and Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion vide D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017 with six paper books for two applications separately.
This document describes legal proceedings related to the bail application and writ petitions filed on behalf of Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao, an 81-year old undertrial prisoner accused of terrorism offenses. Rao has filed for bail and writ petitions on medical grounds citing his advanced age and health conditions. The document outlines the legal history of Rao's case and arrest, provides details of his medical conditions and treatment in prison, and describes the various bail applications and writ petitions filed seeking his release from custody on humanitarian grounds.
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
Writ Petition Criminal NO.......of 2017 vide D.NO.3913 against Registrar Supr...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution. It challenges the Registrar's refusal to register a previous writ petition on the grounds that no reasonable cause was shown. The petitioners argue that violations of court rules and procedures by the registry and a prior court order provide reasonable grounds. It raises several questions of law regarding what constitutes reasonable grounds for registration and whether the petitioner's fundamental right to access justice has been violated. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari to enforce their Article 21 rights.
Application for Written Arguments dated 05 06-2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Parties in this Criminal Matter are CORRUPT, CRIMINAL, CROOK JUDGES, ADVOCATES POLICE and BANK OFFICIALS in M.A NO. 583 of 2020 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 wherein rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been suspended through N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. causing jurisdictional error deliberately and secretly since 2011 by the State of Bihar and others and wherein Order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016 of Supreme Court of India has stood in breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India as a result of that the petitioner no.02 has succumbed to suspicious death on 11.11.2017 and petitioner no.01 is likely to succumb to suspicious death soon because the nexus of state and mafia has organized mob lynching and illegal detention of petitioner and has been compelled to remain underground by these corrupt, criminal, crook and goon’s organs of the state.
Petition before Hon'ble President of India dated 27.07.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Petition before Hon'ble President of India AFTER the Writ Petition (Criminal)D 3913 of 2017 before Supreme Court of India against Registrar Supreme Court of India for shielding Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai of Bihar
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 entitled "OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" filed on 18.01.2017 Vide Diary No. 2188 against Supreme Court of India for Evading Rule of Law; Violating set practice, procedure as laid down in the Handbook of this Hon'ble Court; protecting/shielding Bad Elements of State Apparatus and offending, harassing, victimizing the Petitioner-in Person and his Senior Citizen old age Oxygen dependent mother.
This happens to be last resort under legal remedy before the COURT OF LAW for us.
1. The appellant Gautam Navlakha appealed an order denying him statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The appellant had been arrested on October 28, 2018 and spent 34 days under house arrest until October 1, 2018 when the arrest was quashed by the Delhi High Court.
3. The appellant argued that the 34 days spent under house arrest should be counted as time in custody, which combined with subsequent periods of NIA and judicial custody would exceed the 90 day limit for filing a charge sheet under section 167(2) of the CrPC.
M.A.D.No.15192 dated 20.07.2020 before Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Last Posthumous Petition filed along with Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi against in-built corruption in Law Enforcement agencies which explains as to how Custodian of Law became the killer of Petitioner no.02 Srmt. Asha Rani Devi and remained unpunished till date.
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal before Supreme Court of India vide D...Om Prakash Poddar
Application for Urgent Hearing of Appeal by way of motion against the Lodgment Order dated 16.02.2017 in W.P.(Crl.)D.No.3913 of 2017 issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 along with Affidavit and Annexures P-1 to P-5 filed before Supreme Court of India vide D.NO. 45930 dated 05.06.2017
Petition before Prime Minister of India dated 23.08.2017Om Prakash Poddar
WITH A PRAYER TO IMPEACH THE CONCERNED JUDGES FOR ISSUING NON BAIL ABLE WARRANT (N. B. W) DATED 08TH SEPT 2011 UNDER SECTION 83 CR.PC. IN CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO 5591 OF 2013 AT SDJM COURT NO. 16 BEGUSARAI BIHAR AND KEEPING IT SECRET SINCE THEN EVEN AFTER THE ON RECORD INTIMATION TO THE CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI IN THE SAME MATTER CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO. 9P OF 2010 DATED 03RD MARCH 2011 AND AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SAME MATTER BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN MATT APPL 7 OF 2012 ON 23RD JULY 2013
WE ARE LIVING AS REFUGEE IN DELHI BECAUSE OF FORCED DISLOCATION BY THE STATE
THE PETITION WITHOUT SOFT COPY OF ANNEXURES AS HARD COPY OF SAME ANNEXURES FROM P 1 TO P 18 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA WITH THE PETITION Sl. No. P1/ B/ 0108170053 ON 27TH JULY 2017
Written Arguments along with Affidavit before Patna High CourtOm Prakash Poddar
AO NUMBER : 668271/2019 dated 16-10-2019 for Written Arguments along with Affidavit filed before Patna High Court because Judge refused to hear on 14-10-2019
Written Submission for Hearing Vide D.NO.181770 dated 08.12.2017 filed before...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The document is a written submission filed on behalf of appellants Om Prakash and the late Asha Rani Devi before the Chief Information Commissioner regarding appeal number F.NO.CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/113204.
2. It alleges that the death of appellant number 2 (Asha Rani Devi) on November 11, 2017 was caused by the acts of quasi-judicial officers of the Supreme Court of India who violated rules and procedures in writ criminal case number 136 of 2016.
3. It seeks an order from the Chief Information Commissioner to provide the information sought in the second appeal dated February 27, 2017 and information as to why Asha Rani Devi was allegedly
This document is a submission of written arguments to the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the petitioner's arguments that various government authorities have conspired over 12 years to violate his fundamental rights and harass him through frivolous legal cases and actions like trying to cut off his gas supply. The petitioner argues that 13 respondents, including government officials and his alleged wife, should be issued notices and the harassment stopped to protect his right to life. He provides details of past legal proceedings and harassment to support his case.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
The petition challenges certain provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended, on the grounds that they violate fundamental rights under the Constitution. Specifically, the petition challenges the 2019 amendment which arbitrarily classifies "terrorists" without basis in law. It also challenges the near-impossibility of obtaining bail under Section 43D(5) as inserted in 2008, which denies bail if a prima facie case is established. The petition argues these provisions allow arbitrary exercise of power, prevent individuals from challenging bad faith prosecutions, and violate rights to life and liberty. The petition seeks to strike down or read down these provisions.
The document is an application filed in the Supreme Court of India appealing a lodgment order dated 16.02.2017 issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court refusing to register a writ petition. The application argues that the Registrar misapplied the law and abused their powers by refusing registration, thereby violating the petitioner's fundamental rights. It requests that the Supreme Court allow correction of the application and pass any other order deemed just in the interests of justice.
Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Notification of defects letter D.NO. 840/2017/X dated 22.03.2017 is being emailed by the Registrar Section X on 27.03.2017 to the petitioner. Petitioner Cured the notified defects and Refiled Criminal Appeal by way of Motion vide D.NO. 26314 dated 28.03.2017 with six paper books for two applications separately.
The document summarizes four writ petitions filed in the High Court of Karnataka regarding charges of rape against a husband.
1. The petitions challenge the constitutionality of sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which place the burden of proof on the accused, as violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian constitution.
2. One petition was filed by the accused husband seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him for offenses including rape of his wife under section 376 of the IPC.
3. The lawyers for the accused argued that the presumptions under the POCSO Act are unconstitutional and that the original FIR did not mention offenses under section 376 of the IPC.
4
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...Om Prakash Poddar
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of India for REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION OF WRIT CRIMINAL AGAINST UNION OF INDIA D.NO.2188 OF 2017
Aggrieved by the reply of Adl. Registrar & CPIO, Supreme Court of India dated 04.03.2017, appellant preferred First Appeal against CPIO of Supreme Court of India dated 07.03.2017 before Ld. Registrar (Admin) & First Appellate Authority (FAA) Supreme Court of India at New Delhi.
This document is a letter from the Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court of India addressed to Om Prakash regarding a miscellaneous application filed in a writ petition. The letter informs Om Prakash that the miscellaneous application he filed on June 18, 2018 was placed before the Learned Registrar on August 23, 2018, who ordered that it be lodged under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. A copy of the Learned Registrar's order is enclosed with the letter.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE DATE OF HEARING ON 16.01.2018 AGAINST SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FOR REFUSAL TO REGISTER WRIT CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST UNION OF INDIA.
Petition for abuse of police power in W.P. CRL. 137 of 2021 before Supreme C...OmPrakashPoddar1
Hello everyone,
Tomorrow, 02.05.2022, I am going to appear before Supreme Court of India in the hearing of W.P. (CRL) 137/201 against pushing my whole families, siblings and their minor children into the International market of illicit sex trade/hidden prostitution by the nexus of state, mafia and international sex racketeers since 18 years.
If am being killed/murdered, No issue.
I appeal from all Social Workers to pursue this case in the larger public interest.
Find enclosed the soft copy of complete petition and impleadments/intervention applications in W.P. (Crl.) 137/2021 at my linked In profile.
Thanks & all the best for healthy India
Register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
Letter dated 5.11.2022 to BO Sec X SC in Anti Prostitution Matter .pdfOm Prakash Poddar
Listing of direction matter W.P. Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 before Chamber Judge urgently to recover his never seen 17 year old minor daughter from the clutches of Sex Abusers State
This document is a written submission filed on behalf of the appellant Om Prakash Poddar regarding an appeal before the Central Information Commission in New Delhi. The submission argues that the failure to provide information in a previous Right to Information request led to the planned murder of appellant's wife Asha Rani Devi. It requests the Information Commissioner to order the respondent department to provide the information sought in the second appeal and to take punitive action against the Central Public Information Officer for delays. The matter is linked to other appeals previously filed regarding the murder. The appellant fears that further delays in this case could lead to his own murder.
Withdrawn because the petitioners have not approached Supreme Court to impugn the High Court Judgment or aggrieved by the High Court Judgment. Petitioners have approached Supreme Court with “Life and liberty” matter for enforcement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of Indi...Om Prakash Poddar
First appeal under RTI Act 2005 against Registrar (J-I) Supreme Court of India for REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION OF WRIT CRIMINAL AGAINST UNION OF INDIA D.NO.2188 OF 2017
Aggrieved by the reply of Adl. Registrar & CPIO, Supreme Court of India dated 04.03.2017, appellant preferred First Appeal against CPIO of Supreme Court of India dated 07.03.2017 before Ld. Registrar (Admin) & First Appellate Authority (FAA) Supreme Court of India at New Delhi.
Curative petition criminal before supreme court of india filed on 09.12.2016 ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is a filing index for a curative petition being filed in the Supreme Court of India by Om Prakash against an order of the court dated October 21, 2016 in a previous writ petition. The curative petition seeks to set aside the previous order on grounds of abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. The filing index lists the documents being submitted in support of the curative petition, including affidavits, court orders being challenged, photographs, petitions submitted to the Chief Justice of India, and an application seeking cancellation of process and quashing of criminal proceedings.
Complaint Document of Widow Asha Rani Devi to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of In...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is a complaint filed with the Chief Justice of India alleging planned judicial murder by the Supreme Court of India. It summarizes a long-running legal dispute involving two states and multiple cases related to property and domestic issues. It alleges bias and impropriety and requests intervention into reversing judicial orders and allowing a pending petition to be heard regarding cancellation of legal notices and relief from ongoing criminal cases.
Review petition criminal in writ petition criminal no.136 of 2016 before su...Om Prakash Poddar
That the Order dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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.”
That the Writ Petition which has been dismissed by the Order, against which Review 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.
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 case and make it liable to be dismissal 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.
20191129 gauhati hc order in 29 gorkha ft cases wpc 8490 18sabrangsabrang
1) The document is 52 pages long and appears to be court documents from the Gauhati High Court pertaining to several writ petitions challenging aspects of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam.
2) It includes details of 14 different writ petitions, listing the petitioners and respondents in each case.
3) The petitioners seem to be Assamese residents who did not make it to the final NRC list, challenging their exclusion, while the respondents include the Government of India, Government of Assam, election authorities and NRC authorities.
20211103 gauhati hc order in rehab for assam evicted familiessabrangsabrang
The Gauhati High Court is hearing two PIL cases (PIL No. 65/2021 and PIL (Suo Moto) No. 6/2021) related to eviction and rehabilitation of alleged encroachers in Sipajhar, Assam. The Advocate General of Assam has been granted one week's time to file a detailed counter affidavit in the cases. The petitioner has been given three weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder. No coercive measures are currently being taken against the remaining alleged encroachers as efforts are being made to convince them to move voluntarily. The cases have been listed for further hearing on December 14, 2021.
Similar to Letter to CJI & Sec X filed vide D.NO. 78087 dated 23.05.2018 before SC (20)
Reply to Election Commission Delhi in NGS5322435639 dated 25.11.2022.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
ERO Ms. Sunita Raj mobile no. 9650058340 59-Vishwas Nagar Constituency Sahadra district at East Delhi has admitted this fact that she has sent her man for making a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant on 24.11.2022 at Shelter Home DUSIB Code No.214 near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi. Hence, your BLO will disclose the name and address of person for whom he wanted to make fake Voter ID with ulterior motives.
112 call has been made against your fraud BLO dated 24.11.2022 with unique reference no. 6161038, PCR Petrol Vehicle ROMO9A mobile no. 7428002509 at 19.32.34pm. Anand Vihar policeman mobile number is 8595888677. Police had taken him to the police station. Hence police has recorded his name and address and motives behind it.
Inquiry officer Balveer Singh mobile no. 9654963400 of Patpatganj Industrial Area Police Station near Anand Vihar ISBT Delhi will provide you the name and address of person who had come to make a fake voters under the legal guardianship of Complainant.
Your fraud BLO did not disclose his identity before complainant.
Complaint dated 27.11.2022 to Commissioner of Polic Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
TAKE the cognizance of obvious links between Ms. Sunita Raj, BLO Anand Vihar and Mr. Manish Raj with this International Sex Racket and direct to concern SHO to register an F.I.R against the accused under relevant sections of IPC.
112 call dated 24.11.2022 at 19.32.34pm with unique reference no. 6161038 and subsequent Complaint dated 25.11.2022 to the Commissioner of Police Delhi dated 25.11.2022 discloses links with Mr. Manish Raj son of Chief Minister of Jharkhand in this International Sex Racket
Suppression of crucial records in Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in W.P. (Criminal) Diary No. 18546/2022 listed for hearing on 28.11.2022 before Chamber Judge HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, Court No.15 CL.NO.1748 may lead to dismissal of petition.
Registry has only recorded the records to defend its heinous work in the Office Report dated 26.11.2022 hiding all the factual crucial records filed by the petitioner even after his reminder though e-filed letter dated 22.11.2022 addressed to Branch Officer and Assistant Registrar Section X
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
Registry has recorded records in his favor only and has ignored the crucial records of petitioner deliberately to dismiss the petition by default.
Office Report dated 26.11.2022 for the hearing of Writ Petition Criminal Diary No. 18646/2022 on 28.11.2022 has been made hiding the crucial records filed by the petitioner.
Office Report dated 28.11.2022 in International Sex Racket matter Writ Petit...Om Prakash Poddar
The document is an office report from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by Om Prakash against the Union of India and others. The court had previously given the petitioner four weeks to cure any defects in the petition, but the petitioner has failed to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ petition within that timeframe. As there are still defects, the registrar has not yet interacted with the petitioner-in-person, so the matter is listed before the court for further directions.
Complaint dated 26.11.22 against Election Officer Katihar Bihar.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
a fake voter identity card has been created by BLO Part-220, Ward No.03, 64-Kadwa Constituency Katihar Bihar vide EPIC No. TYGO395244 against the Complainant. Complainant has figured out malpractices of BLO and submitted requisite form before BLO Gopal Malik mobile no. 9507949474 dated 17.12.2021 for deletion of his name from the voter list to suppress the practice of multiple voter identity cards across the Country.
Complaint dated 25.11.22 against Election Officer Sahadra Delhi.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
Sex abuser Manish from Election Commission Delhi took my Aadhar Card by fraud to make Voter ID for my kidnapped minor daughter marking me as a legal guardian under Vishwas Nagar Constituency at Sahadra district of East Delhi.
Praying from you to direct the registry to supply the fixed date of hearing to the petitioner in person in writing in Non Bailable and Gang Rape matter W.P. Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 so that he can plan his travel for home
Letter dated 22.11.2022 to Branch Officer Section 10 at Supreme Court of Ind...Om Prakash Poddar
Take all 84 e-filed legal documents with effect from 07.06.2022 to 22.11.2022 along with physical filed legal document with effect from 14.06.2022 to till date on Record of office report for the date of hearing on 25.11.2022
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed deliberately by Supreme Court of India with ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 25.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
All additional filed Annexures, letters, miscellaneous documents, I.A. for written arguments have been suppressed by Supreme Court of India with an ulterior motive which are supportive of Gang Rape report filed from ground zero level either from Bihar or from Delhi.
Additional e-Filed Petition dated 07.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Sup...Om Prakash Poddar
This document contains information from the Supreme Court of India case management system. It lists details of a writ petition filed by Om Prakash such as the case type, number, year and presiding bench. It also includes a table with 10 uploaded PDF documents related to the petition, interlocutory applications and memos of appearance. General information about the court such as jurisdiction, officers, rules, and procedures is also presented.
E-Filed Petition dated 07.06.2022 on Anti-Prostitution before Supreme Court ...Om Prakash Poddar
This document contains details of a case filed with the Supreme Court of India, including the case type, number, year, petitioner and respondent details, and a list of uploaded documents related to the case. It provides contact information for the Supreme Court of India and links to other resources on their website.
Complaint dated 21.11.2022 against Bihar and Delhi police to NHRC.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
The National Human Rights Commission has received a complaint from Om Prakash regarding the kidnapping and abduction of his family members and minor daughters since 2011. The complaint details that neither the Delhi Police nor Bihar Police have registered an FIR regarding this incident. The complaint further states that the police complaint and post-mortem report of Om Prakash's deceased mother, who died in 2017, are still pending with the Palam Village Police Station in New Delhi. Om Prakash alleges that five individuals, including two advocates, can provide information to rescue his minor daughters and has requested that an FIR be registered against these five people.
E-filed status dated 15.11.22 before Supreme Court of India.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
E-filed Important legal documents like Interlocutory Applications for additional grounds and cancellation of Non Bailable Warrant has not been entered into Physical filing case record Writ Petition Criminal Diary No. 18546/2022 to present the wrong fact before the Chamber Judge on 25.11.2022
Complaint aginst Delhi Police to NHRC New Delhi dated 20.11.22.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
ABDUCTION/RAPE by Police
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Hence, register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
ABDUCTION/RAPE by Police case.
Surender Narayan Poddar, Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar, Advocate Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari Advocate Sunil Ojha is key person who will reveal all records of this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters. Hence, register F.I.R against these five people to interrogate in this matter.
Register an F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court at New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court at New Delhi.
Writ Petition Criminal Diary Number 18546 of 2022 Part-I .pdfOm Prakash Poddar
International Sex Racket and Anti-Prostitution Petition before Supreme Court of India.
These five are key people and will reveal all records in this sex racket to rescue my minor daughters.
Register F.I.R and interrogate Shri Surender Narayan Poddar Assitant Manager Marketing Division IOCL Barauni Refinery Begusarai Bihar, my advocate Shri Sunil Ojha in HMA-678/2010 case at Dwarka Court New Delhi, my wife Rina Kumari’s advocate Shri Gopal Prasad and his wife Veena Kumari in 9P/2010 case at Begusarai Court Bihar and Rajput advocate of Purnea Bihar in HMA-678/2010 case Goshwara No. 83)H at Dwarka Court New Delhi.
Cases filed since 2016 before National Human Rights Commission New Delhi but no relief till date.
Instead of DE-escalation matter escalated and worsened.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Letter to CJI & Sec X filed vide D.NO. 78087 dated 23.05.2018 before SC
1. FILING INDEX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.136 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT(S)
S.N Particulars Copies
1. Letter dated 04.05.2018 from Section X of
Supreme Court of India to the petitioner
1
2. Letter dated 15.04.2018 to the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India by the petitioner
1
3. Letter dated 18.04.2018 to the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India by the petitioner
1
4. Letter dated 21.04.2018 to the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India by the petitioner
1
5. ANNEXURES P-1 to P-5 1
Petitioner in Person
Filed on: 23.05.2018 Om Prakash
Diary No: 78087 S/O LATE SHRI DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
S/O LATE ASHA RANI DEVI
ASHA DEEP NIWAS, SHUKKAR HATT,
DURGA MANDIR,SONAILI, KADWA,
KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114
MOB: 9968337815
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
2. INDEX
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Letter dated 04.05.2018 1-2
from Section X of Supreme Court
of India to the petitioner
2. Letter dated 15.04.2018 to the 3-4
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
by the petitioner
3. Letter dated 18.04.2018 to the 5-6
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
by the petitioner
4. Letter dated 21.04.2018 to the 7-8
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
by the petitioner
5. Annexure: P-1 9
A True Copy of death certificate
Of Smt. Asha Rani Devi and
petitioner No.02
6. Annexure: P-2 10-53
A True Copy of Complaint of
Medical negligence before DMC
(Delhi Medical Council) Vide
receipt no. 55479 dated
03.04.2018
7. Annexure: P-3 54-55
A True Copy of Order dated
16.01.2018 by Chief of CIC
3. 8. Annexure: P-4 56-57
A True Copy of order for NDOH
27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF
2013 at court no. 16, Begusarai
Bihar
9. Annexure: P-5 58-59
A True Copy of order for NDOH
30.05.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF
2013 at court no. 16, Begusarai
Bihar
4. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Letter from Section X SCI
Section X, Supreme Court of India <sec.x@sci.nic.in> Fri, May 4, 2018 at 2:07 PM
To: om.poddar@gmail.com
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
NEW DELHI
D.NO.4293/2016/X
03rd May, 2018
FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
TO:
MR. OM PRAKASH, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
S/O LATE SH. DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR,
ASHA DEEP NIWAS,
SHUKKAR HATT, DURGA MANDIR,
SONAILI, KADWA, KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 136 OF 2016
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
OM PRAKASH & ANR ..PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
5. Sir,
With reference to the email 15.04.2018, 18.04.2018 and
21.04.2018 sent by you in the above-mentioned matter
addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, I am
directed to inform you that no action can be taken on
it since the same has ben sent in contravention of the
mandatory provision of Order VIII Rule 5 & 6(i) of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Please note that no further correspondence in this
Registry by post will be entertained in future.
Yours faithfully,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
6. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Attn: The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (COMPLAINT AGAINST SDJM, MS.
MEENA KUMARI, COURT NO.16, BEGUSARAI COURT, BIHAR)
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:08 PM
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
1. THAT LETTER IS WITH REFERENCE TO W.P(Crl.)136
of 2016; M.A. 84 OF 2017; W.P (Crl.) NO............OF
2017 (D.NO.2188) & 17748/SCI/PIL(E)/2017 BEFORE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
2. THAT PETITIONER NO. 02 SMT. ASHA RANI DEVI HAS BEEN
SUCCUMBED TO PLANNED JUDICIAL MURDER ON 11.11.2017
(ENCLOSED DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SMT ASHA RANI DEVI)
3. THAT PETITIONER NO.01 SHRI OM PRAKASH HAS BEEN
FORCED TO BECOME UNDERGROUND AND DELAY IN REGISTRATION
OF W.P (Crl.) NO..... OF 2017 (D.NO.2188) ENTITLED "OM
PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" WILL CAUSE
ANOTHER PLANNED JUDICIAL MURDER OF PETITIONER NO. 01
SHRI OM PRAKASH. CHIEF OF CIC HAS REFUSED TO INTERVENE
INTO THE MATTER OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BY ITS ORDER
DATED 16.01.2018
4. THAT SHIELDED MAGISTRATE MS. MEENA KUMARI COURT
NO.16 BEGUSARAI COURT, UNDER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DARES TO EXTEND NEXT DATE OF HEARING ON 27.04.2018
AGAINST WHICH W.P. (CRIMINAL) 136 OF 2016; W. P.
(CRIMINAL) NO....OF 2017 (D.NO.2188); M.A.(CRIMINAL) 84
OF 2017 & D.NO.17748/SCI/PIL(E)/2017 HAVE BEEN FILED
BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(ENCLOSED)
--
With Best Regards,
Om Prakash
7. S/O LATE SHRI DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR & ASHA RANI DEVI
OLD ADDRESS RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2 PALAM COLONY
NEW DELHI-110077
&
S/O LATE DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
ASHA DEEP NIWAS
SHUKKAR HATT, DURGA MANDIR
SONAILI, KADWA, KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114
Enclosures:
1. Death Certificate of Smt. Asha Rani Devi and
Petitioner No.02
2. Complaint of Medical negligence before DMC vide
receipt no. 55479 dated 03.04.2018
3. Order dated 16.01.2018 by Chief of CIC
4. NDOH 27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF 2013
4 attachments
Death Certificate of Asha Rani Devi.pdf
258K
Complaint before Delhi Medical Council dated
03.04.2018.pdf
1843K
order dated 16.01.2018_2.pdf
52K
NDOH 27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF 2013.pdf
89K
8. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Attn: The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (COMPLAINT AGAINST SDJM, MS.
MEENA KUMARI, COURT NO.16, BEGUSARAI COURT, BIHAR)
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:26 AM
To: supremecourt <supremecourt@nic.in>
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
1. THAT LETTER IS WITH REFERENCE TO W.P(Crl.)136
of 2016; M.A. 84 OF 2017; W.P (Crl.) NO..... .......OF
2017 (D.NO.2188) & 17748/SCI/PIL(E)/2017 BEFORE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
2. THAT PETITIONER NO. 02 SMT. ASHA RANI DEVI HAS BEEN
SUCCUMBED TO PLANNED JUDICIAL MURDER ON 11.11.2017
(ENCLOSED DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SMT ASHA RANI DEVI)
3. THAT PETITIONER NO.01 SHRI OM PRAKASH HAS BEEN
FORCED TO BECOME UNDERGROUND AND DELAY IN REGISTRATION
OF W.P (Crl.) NO..... OF 2017 (D.NO.2188) ENTITLED "OM
PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" WILL CAUSE
ANOTHER PLANNED JUDICIAL MURDER OF PETITIONER NO. 01
SHRI OM PRAKASH. CHIEF OF CIC HAS REFUSED TO INTERVENE
INTO THE MATTER OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BY ITS ORDER
DATED 16.01.2018
4. THAT SHIELDED MAGISTRATE MS. MEENA KUMARI COURT
NO.16 BEGUSARAI COURT, UNDER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DARES TO EXTEND NEXT DATE OF HEARING ON 27.04.2018
AGAINST WHICH W.P. (CRIMINAL) 136 OF 2016; W. P.
(CRIMINAL) NO....OF 2017 (D.NO.2188); M.A.(CRIMINAL) 84
OF 2017 & D.NO.17748/SCI/PIL(E)/2017 HAVE BEEN FILED
BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(ENCLOSED)
--
With Best Regards,
Om Prakash
9. S/O LATE SHRI DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR & ASHA RANI DEVI
OLD ADDRESS RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2 PALAM COLONY
NEW DELHI-110077
&
S/O LATE DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
ASHA DEEP NIWAS
SHUKKAR HATT, DURGA MANDIR
SONAILI, KADWA, KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114
Enclosures:
1. Death Certificate of Smt. Asha Rani Devi and
Petitioner No.02
2. Complaint of Medical negligence before DMC vide
receipt no. 55479 dated 03.04.2018
3. Order dated 16.01.2018 by Chief of CIC
4. NDOH 27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF 2013
4 attachments
Death Certificate of Asha Rani Devi.pdf
258K
Complaint before Delhi Medical Council dated
03.04.2018.pdf
1843K
order dated 16.01.2018_2.pdf
52K
NDOH 27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF 2013.pdf
89K
10. Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com>
Attn: The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (COMPLAINT AGAINST SDJM, MS.
MEENA KUMARI, COURT NO.16, BEGUSARAI COURT, BIHAR)
Om Prakash Poddar <om.poddar@gmail.com> Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:25 AM
To: supremecourt@nic.in
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
1. THAT LETTER IS WITH REFERENCE TO W.P(Crl.)136
of 2016; M.A. 84 OF 2017; W.P (Crl.) NO..... .......OF
2017 (D.NO.2188) & 17748/SCI/PIL(E)/2017 BEFORE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
2. THAT PETITIONER NO. 02 SMT. ASHA RANI DEVI HAS BEEN
SUCCUMBED TO PLANNED JUDICIAL MURDER ON 11.11.2017
(ENCLOSED DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SMT ASHA RANI DEVI)
3. THAT PETITIONER NO.01 SHRI OM PRAKASH HAS BEEN
FORCED TO BECOME UNDERGROUND AND DELAY IN REGISTRATION
OF W.P (Crl.) NO..... OF 2017 (D.NO.2188) ENTITLED "OM
PRAKASH & ANR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS" WILL CAUSE
ANOTHER PLANNED JUDICIAL MURDER OF PETITIONER NO. 01
SHRI OM PRAKASH. CHIEF OF CIC HAS REFUSED TO INTERVENE
INTO THE MATTER OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BY ITS ORDER
DATED 16.01.2018
4. THAT SHIELDED MAGISTRATE MS. MEENA KUMARI COURT
NO.16 BEGUSARAI COURT, UNDER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DARES TO EXTEND NEXT DATE OF HEARING ON 27.04.2018
AGAINST WHICH W.P. (CRIMINAL) 136 OF 2016; W. P.
(CRIMINAL) NO....OF 2017 (D.NO.2188); M.A.(CRIMINAL) 84
OF 2017 & D.NO.17748/SCI/PIL(E)/2017 HAVE BEEN FILED
BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(ENCLOSED)
--
With Best Regards,
Om Prakash
11. S/O LATE SHRI DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR & ASHA RANI DEVI
OLD ADDRESS RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG
RAJ NAGAR PART-2 PALAM COLONY
NEW DELHI-110077
&
S/O LATE DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
ASHA DEEP NIWAS
SHUKKAR HATT, DURGA MANDIR
SONAILI, KADWA, KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114
Enclosures:
1. Death Certificate of Smt. Asha Rani Devi and
Petitioner No.02
2. Complaint of Medical negligence before DMC vide
receipt no. 55479 dated 03.04.2018
3. Order dated 16.01.2018 by Chief of CIC
4. NDOH 27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF 2013
4 attachments
Death Certificate of Asha Rani Devi.pdf
258K
Complaint before Delhi Medical Council dated
03.04.2018.pdf
1843K
order dated 16.01.2018_2.pdf
52K
NDOH 27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF 2013.pdf
89K
12. ANEEXURES P-1 TO P-5
1.Annexure: P-1 9
A True Copy of death certificate
Of Smt. Asha Rani Devi and
petitioner No.02
2. Annexure: P-2 10-53
A True Copy of Complaint of
Medical negligence before DMC
(Delhi Medical Council) Vide
receipt no. 55479 dated
03.04.2018
3. Annexure: P-3 54-55
A True Copy of Order dated
16.01.2018 by Chief of CIC
4. Annexure: P-4 56-57
A True Copy of order for NDOH
27.04.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF
2013 at court no. 16, Begusarai
Bihar
5. Annexure: P-5 58-59
A True Copy of order for NDOH
30.05.2018 IN CASE NO.5591 OF
2013 at court no. 16, Begusarai
Bihar