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.
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.
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
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
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.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
Review Petition Criminal in Writ petition Criminal No.136 of 2016 before Su...Om Prakash Poddar
1. The petitioner has filed this review petition challenging the Supreme Court's October 21, 2016 order in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dismissing the petition with liberty to approach the Patna High Court.
2. The petitioner argues this order will have far-reaching negative consequences for the public, violate principles of natural justice, and result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. The petitioner further argues the Supreme Court failed to consider that the Delhi High Court had already settled the matter on July 23, 2013, and the petitioner was seeking punitive action for misconduct of state authorities rather than dispute settlement.
The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, filed a criminal original petition to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No. 63 of 2020 by the Boothapandy Police Station. The FIR alleged that the petitioner organized a protest against amendments to the Citizenship Laws that caused public nuisance and hindered traffic. However, the court noted that the protest was peaceful with no untoward incidents. Since the investigation was almost complete, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner while emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest without arms.
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
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
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.
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
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
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.
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.
This document provides a summary of the key facts and allegations in the criminal case against 6 applicants seeking bail. The prosecution alleges the applicants were part of a large conspiracy by the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) to overthrow the government through armed revolution. It is alleged they used organizations like Kabir Kala Manch to incite violence and hatred through speeches and performances near Bhima-Koregaon on December 31, 2017, and were found to possess documents outlining the Maoist strategy. The applicants deny the allegations and say funds for the event came from contributions, not the Maoists. A charge sheet was filed against the applicants for terrorism offenses.
The petitioner, a journalist, hosted a debate discussing a law regarding religious sites. This led to 7 FIRs being filed against him in 4 states for allegedly insulting a revered Muslim saint. He claims the words were said inadvertently and apologized. He argues the FIRs violate his rights and are an abuse of law as no offense is made out under the sections charged. Alternatively, any offense would be minor under section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks quashing of the FIRs or transferring them to one state. The court must determine if the FIRs violate his rights or can stand.
1. The document summarizes a court order regarding an application for bail filed by Fr. Stan Swamy, who has been accused of various offenses including being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
2. It outlines the background of the case, including the police complaint filed in 2018 regarding the Elgar Parishad meeting and subsequent violence, and the expanding scope of the investigation.
3. The court order then summarizes the applicant's arguments for bail, including his age, health issues, lack of evidence against him, and delays in the investigation and filing of charges. It also summarizes the prosecution's arguments in opposition to bail, including evidence they claim links the applicant to Maoist organizations and
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
The document is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
The document is a court judgment summarizing the case against Natasha Narwal. Key details:
- Narwal is accused of instigating protests against the CAA/NRC that led to riots in Delhi in February 2020.
- She was part of activist groups including Pinjra Tod and attended meetings where more extreme protests like blocking roads were discussed.
- However, her defense argues she was merely protesting peacefully and not present during any riots or violence. She claims the police evidence is fabricated and she played no role in any conspiracy or riots.
- The court will determine if Narwal qualifies for bail based on the evidence and charges against her under the UAPA anti-terrorism law
Gauhati HC checks legality of ED summons to Assam newspapersabrangsabrang
This order summarizes and addresses a writ petition filed by Jayanta Baruah challenging two notices issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation summoning him to appear as a witness in an ongoing investigation. The court notes the petitioner's objections to the notices and details provided about restrictions on movement in Assam. While the notices were issued under a provision allowing for summons of witnesses, the court finds issues with the short notice periods provided, lack of information on what testimony is sought and from what documents, and timing of the notices in the context of petitioner's journalism work. The court orders the prayer regarding one notice to be disregarded as not pressed, and reserves orders on the other prayers.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The writ petition concerns a case of alleged child sexual abuse, forced hidden prostitution of minor girls, human trafficking, and illicit sex trade reported by the petitioner whistleblower to authorities. The petitioner reported the incident to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on 12th April 2021. On 13th April 2021, an official from NCPCR responded requesting more details from the petitioner within 3 days to take immediate action. However, the petitioner alleges he was unlawfully detained by Delhi Police for blowing the whistle on the case and filing reports to rescue and rehabilitate the minor victims. He now seeks intervention from the Supreme Court under Article 32.
The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, filed a criminal original petition to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No. 63 of 2020 by the Boothapandy Police Station. The FIR alleged that the petitioner organized a protest against amendments to the Citizenship Laws that caused public nuisance and hindered traffic. However, the court noted that the protest was peaceful with no untoward incidents. Since the investigation was almost complete, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner while emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest without arms.
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
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
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.
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
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
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.
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.
This document provides a summary of the key facts and allegations in the criminal case against 6 applicants seeking bail. The prosecution alleges the applicants were part of a large conspiracy by the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) to overthrow the government through armed revolution. It is alleged they used organizations like Kabir Kala Manch to incite violence and hatred through speeches and performances near Bhima-Koregaon on December 31, 2017, and were found to possess documents outlining the Maoist strategy. The applicants deny the allegations and say funds for the event came from contributions, not the Maoists. A charge sheet was filed against the applicants for terrorism offenses.
The petitioner, a journalist, hosted a debate discussing a law regarding religious sites. This led to 7 FIRs being filed against him in 4 states for allegedly insulting a revered Muslim saint. He claims the words were said inadvertently and apologized. He argues the FIRs violate his rights and are an abuse of law as no offense is made out under the sections charged. Alternatively, any offense would be minor under section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks quashing of the FIRs or transferring them to one state. The court must determine if the FIRs violate his rights or can stand.
1. The document summarizes a court order regarding an application for bail filed by Fr. Stan Swamy, who has been accused of various offenses including being part of a criminal conspiracy to wage war against India.
2. It outlines the background of the case, including the police complaint filed in 2018 regarding the Elgar Parishad meeting and subsequent violence, and the expanding scope of the investigation.
3. The court order then summarizes the applicant's arguments for bail, including his age, health issues, lack of evidence against him, and delays in the investigation and filing of charges. It also summarizes the prosecution's arguments in opposition to bail, including evidence they claim links the applicant to Maoist organizations and
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
The document is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
The document is a court judgment summarizing the case against Natasha Narwal. Key details:
- Narwal is accused of instigating protests against the CAA/NRC that led to riots in Delhi in February 2020.
- She was part of activist groups including Pinjra Tod and attended meetings where more extreme protests like blocking roads were discussed.
- However, her defense argues she was merely protesting peacefully and not present during any riots or violence. She claims the police evidence is fabricated and she played no role in any conspiracy or riots.
- The court will determine if Narwal qualifies for bail based on the evidence and charges against her under the UAPA anti-terrorism law
Gauhati HC checks legality of ED summons to Assam newspapersabrangsabrang
This order summarizes and addresses a writ petition filed by Jayanta Baruah challenging two notices issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation summoning him to appear as a witness in an ongoing investigation. The court notes the petitioner's objections to the notices and details provided about restrictions on movement in Assam. While the notices were issued under a provision allowing for summons of witnesses, the court finds issues with the short notice periods provided, lack of information on what testimony is sought and from what documents, and timing of the notices in the context of petitioner's journalism work. The court orders the prayer regarding one notice to be disregarded as not pressed, and reserves orders on the other prayers.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition seeking habeas corpus for the release of Sidhique Kappan, a journalist detained in Uttar Pradesh while traveling to report on the Hathras rape case. While the State of Uttar Pradesh argued that Kappan was lawfully arrested, the court noted his deteriorating health condition and directed that he be transferred to a hospital in Delhi to receive adequate medical care, after which he would return to jail in Mathura. The court disposed of the petition but clarified it had not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The writ petition concerns a case of alleged child sexual abuse, forced hidden prostitution of minor girls, human trafficking, and illicit sex trade reported by the petitioner whistleblower to authorities. The petitioner reported the incident to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on 12th April 2021. On 13th April 2021, an official from NCPCR responded requesting more details from the petitioner within 3 days to take immediate action. However, the petitioner alleges he was unlawfully detained by Delhi Police for blowing the whistle on the case and filing reports to rescue and rehabilitate the minor victims. He now seeks intervention from the Supreme Court under Article 32.
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.
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.
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
I.A. No. 90171 of 2023 in Review Petition Criminal 107 of 2023 dated 01.05.20...OmPrakashPoddar1
Application in Review Petition Criminal 107/2023 before Supreme Court of India, advocating for the obvious role of Public Prosecutors, District Prosecution Officers and Niyaymitras in rescuing the State Prostitution Victims.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Review Petition Criminal Diary No. 7153 of 2023.pdfOmPrakashPoddar1
Review Petition Criminal Diary No. 7153 of 2023 in Writ Petition Criminal No. 42 of 2023 in Abduction & Sexual Harassment case before Supreme Court of India
1. Om Prakash, the petitioner, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging a lower court order from Begusarai, Bihar related to criminal case under Section 498A.
2. The petitioner claims the lower court order directly infringes on his fundamental rights and involves the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court in 2013.
3. The petitioner is seeking for his writ petition to be listed before the Constitution Bench of seven judges, as he believes the matter involves constitutional issues across two state jurisdictions.
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.
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.
IS IT NOT A WELL DESIGNED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY THE REGISTRAR SECTION X OF S...Om Prakash Poddar
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge two non-bailable warrants issued against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Begusarai, Bihar for the same cause of action that was already settled by the Delhi High Court. They seek quashing of criminal proceedings and cancellation of the warrants. The petitioners argue that the matter involves constitutional issues, harassment of a senior citizen woman, and interference of state apparatus and mafia. They request the matter be listed before a seven-judge bench.
This document is an application filed before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing of Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before a larger bench. The petitioners, Om Prakash and Asha Devi, challenge the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against them by a court in Bihar in a criminal case, alleging it violates their fundamental rights. They seek cancellation of the warrant and quashing of criminal proceedings, arguing the matter has already been settled by the Delhi High Court. The petitioners complain of harassment and assert the matter involves issues of senior citizens, prevention of corruption, and two states. They seek listing before a 7-judge constitution bench.
Office report dated 12-09-2020 in M.A.1446/2020 by Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
Once again SC Registry violated the Rule of Law and suppressed the record of Crl. M.P. NO. 52123/2020 (Application for written arguments) dated 05.06.2020 in office report dated 12-09-2020 in M.A.1446/2020. Evidence of judicial corruption being wiped out by SC registry.
The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Mohd. Danish in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, etc. during the February 2020 Delhi riots.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that the disclosure statement attributed to him was fabricated and inadmissible. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was actively involved in the riots based on witness statements and call detail records placing him at the scene. The court examined the medical evidence showing the injuries on the deceased police officer but noted that it was unclear who delivered the fatal blow.
Argument in Writ Petition (Criminal) 42 of 2023 before SC .pdfOmPrakashPoddar1
1. The document lists dates and events related to a case involving kidnapping, gang rape, human trafficking, and sexual abuse of the petitioner's family members by sex racketeers in Bihar and Delhi since 2005.
2. It describes the petitioner's wife being kidnapped in 2005, the death of his father in 2007 and mother in 2017, and several attacks on the petitioner and his family by the accused.
3. It also lists the petitioner's numerous complaints to police and courts, and the dismissal of his writ petitions by the Supreme Court regarding the case.
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.
Similar to M.A. D.No.42652 of 2019 in W.P. (Crl) 136 of 2016 before Supreme Court of India dated 27.11.2019 (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.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
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।
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
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>.
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
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.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
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.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
M.A. D.No.42652 of 2019 in W.P. (Crl) 136 of 2016 before Supreme Court of India dated 27.11.2019
1. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
M.A. D.NO.42652 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. 136 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT(S)
I.A. NO. OF 2019
APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.02
LATE SMT. ASHA RANI DEVI
2. INDEX
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Memo of Appearance ‘A’
2. M.A.D.NO.42652 of 2019 1-40
Application for Direction
along with Affidavit
3. Annexure: P-1 41-52
True Copy of certified copies
of divorce Judgment dated
23.07.2013 by High Court of Delhi
4.Annexure: P-2 53-54
True copy of certified copies of
office report dated 20.10.2016 in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.136 of
2016 by Supreme Court of India
5. Annexure: P-3 55
True copy of certified copy of
order dated 21.10.2016 in Writ
Petition (Criminal) No.136 of 2016
by Supreme Court of India
6. Annexure: P-4 56-60
True copies of RTI reply dated
20.09.2017 by District and Session
Judge, Begusarai
7. Annexure: P-5 61
3. True copy of Police report dated
11.11.2017 against the suspicious
death of Petitioner No.02 Srmt.
Asha Rani Devi
8. Annexure: P-6 62
True copy of police statement dated
11.11.2017 by her son petitioner
no.01 against the suspicious death
of Petitioner No.02 Srmt. Asha Rani
Devi
9. Annexure: P-7 63-66
True copies of postmortem report of
petitioner no.02 dated 11.11.2017
against the suspicious death of
Petitioner No.02 Srmt. Asha Rani
Devi
10. Annexure: P-8 67
True copy of death certificate of
petitioner no.02 dated 11.11.2017
against the suspicious death of
Petitioner No.02 Srmt. Asha Rani
Devi
11. Annexure: P-9 68-69
True copies of case status at Patna
High Court website in Cr.WJC
4. No.1238 of 2019(Token
no.45078/2019) filed on 19.06.2019
12. Annexure: P-10 70-72
True copy of defects dated
04.07.2019 by Patna High Court in
Cr.WJC No.1238 of 2019 (Token
No.45078/2019)
13. Annexure: P-11 73-81
True copy of defects removal letter
dated 09.07.2019 by petitioner in
Cr.WJC No.1238 of 2019 (Token
No.45078/2019)
14. Annexure: P-12 82
True copy of RTI JUSTC/R/2019/51675
dated 18.07.2019 against Patna High
court by the petitioner
15. Annexure: P-13 83-95
True copy of receiving copies of
police complaint/F.IR against
organized mob lynching of
petitioner by SP Katihar dated 09-
08-2019
16. Annexure: P-14 96
True copy of certified copy of
Order dated 28.08.2019 by Patna
5. High Court in Cr.WJC No.1238 of
2019(Token No.45078/2019)
17. Annexure: P-15 97
True copy of police inquiry report
dated 20.09.2019 against the mob
lynching and illegal detention of
petitioner by SP Katihar
18. Annexure: P-16 98-107
True copies of written arguments
along with Affidavit dated
16.10.2019 by petitioner in Cr.WJC
No.1238 of 2019(Token
no.45078/2019)
19. Annexure: P-17 108-110
True copy of RTI JUSTC/R/2019/52644
dated 18.10.2019 against Patna High
court by the petitioner
20. Annexure: P-18 111-113
True copies of police complaint
against PRI member Sarpanch Kantiya
Panchayat dated 15.11.2019 for
genealogy fraud by the petitioner
6. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
M.A. D.NO.42652 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITON CRIMINAL NO. 136 OF 2016
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 32
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE
SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF SMT. ASHA
RANI DEVI PETITIONER NO.02;
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India of
the Supreme Court of India. The
Humble petition of the Petitioner
abovenamed.
7. MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.That the High Court of Delhi has delivered
divorce Judgment on 23.07.2013 in MAT.APPL.
7/2012 in favor of the petitioners after three
SLPs before Supreme Court of India.
True Copy of certified copies of divorce
Judgment dated 23.07.2013 by High Court of
Delhi is annexed herein as Annexure P-1 (Page
from 41 to 52).
2.That the petitioners have approached the
Supreme Court of India in the same matter on
21.10.2016 to impeach the proceedings in
Criminal Case Complaint (P)No. 5591 of 2013
under section 498(A) IPC secretly pending at
SDJM, Court no.16, CJM Division Begusarai. The
said complaint was sought to be quashed by the
petitioners by way of filing Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 136 of 2016 whereby and where
petitioners have been given liberty to approach
High Court. The matter has been dismissed in
motion hearing with incomplete
matters/IAs/Order/Crl.MPs before Supreme Court
of India. As per the office report dated
20.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal) 136 of 2016, “it
8. is further submitted that the petitioner-in-
person has on 18.01.2016 filed an application
for listing the instant writ petition before
Constitution bench of seven judges. A copy of
the application is being circulated herewith as
unregistered.”
True copy of certified copies of office report
dated 20.10.2016 in Writ Petition (Criminal)
No.136 of 2016 is annexed herein as Annexure P-
2 (page no 53 to 54)
True copy of certified copy of order dated
21.10.2016 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.136
of 2016 is annexed herein as Annexure P-3 (page
no 55 to 55)
3.That Mr. Gangotri Ram Tripathi, District and
Session Judge, Begusarai has replied back
through RTI dated 20.09.2017 against the case
no. 9P/2010 and case no. 5591/2013 wherein he
has shown his inability to answer from the date
07.02.2011 of institution of case 5591/2013.
Ld. District and Session Judge, Begusarai has
committed an offence of perjury through his RTI
reply that the date of institution of Criminal
case Complaint (P) 5591/2013 is 07.03.2011
while E-Courts services portal (https://ecourts.gov.in/)
9. discloses the date of institution of complaint
case is 07.02.2011.
True Copies of RTI reply dated 20.09.2017 by
District and Session Judge, Begusarai is
annexed herein as Annexure P-4 (Page from 56 to
60).
4.That the petitioner no.02 in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 136 of 2016, Widow Srmt. Asha
Rani Devi has succumbed to suspicious death on
11.11.2017 at New Delhi during the course of
fighting against the State of Bihar and others
yet N.B.W u/s 83 Cr.Pc. exists against her.
True copy of Police report dated 11.11.2017 is
annexed herein as Annexure P-5 (page no 61 to
61)
True copy of police statement dated 11.11.2017
by her son petitioner no.01 is annexed herein
as Annexure P-6 (page no 62 to 62)
True copies of postmortem report of petitioner
no.02 dated 11.11.2017 is annexed herein as
Annexure P-7 (page no 63 to 66)
10. True copy of death certificate of petitioner
no.02 dated 11.11.2017 is annexed herein as
Annexure P-8 (page no 67 to 67)
5.That the petitioner No.01 has approached Patna
High Court under Article 226 through Criminal
Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1238 of 2019 (Token
No.45078/2019) on 19.06.2019 in compliance with
the order dated 21.10.2016 in W.P.(Criminal)
136/2016 of Supreme Court of India.
True copies of case status at Patna High Court
website in Cr.WJC No.1238 of 2019(Token
no.45078/2019) filed on 19.06.2019 is annexed
herein as Annexure P-9 (page no 68 to 69)
6.That the petition before Patna High Court
contains five interlocutory applications viz.
I.A. for cancellation of N.B.W dated 08.09.2011
u/s 83 Cr.Pc. and quashing of 498A, I.A. for
exemption from filing certified copies of
Annexures/Orders, Crl. M.P. 16605 of 2016 for
special power of Attorney to petitioner no.01
on behalf of petitioner no.02, I.A. for seeking
permission to appear in person and I.A. 01 of
2019 for urgent hearing against violation of
Chapter IIIA and Chapter II of Patna High Court
Rules by the registry and organized mob
11. lynching and illegal detention of petitioner by
the nexus of state and mafia.
7.That the party position before the Patna High
Court are:-
BETWEEN
1. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01
S/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
AND RENTED
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2,
Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077
2. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02
(SINCE DECEASED)
W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS
Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,
Shukkar Haat Sonaili,
12. In front of Durga Mandir
P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar
Bihar-855114
VERSUS
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
5. DGP Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.05
Police Headquarters,
Old Secretariat,
Patna, Bihar-800015
6. SP Begusarai ….RESPONDENT No.06
Kachahri Road, District
13. Begusarai, Bihar-851101
7. SP Katihar ….RESPONDENT No.07
District- Katihar, Bihar-854105
8. Sub-Divisional ….RESPONDENT No.08
Police Officer, HQ
District-Katihar, Bihar- 854105
9. Sub-Divisional ….RESPONDENT No.09
Police Officer, Barsoi,
District Katihar, Bihar- 855102
10. SHO Kadwa ….RESPONDENT No.10
Kadwa Police Station,
District-Katihar, Bihar-855114
11. Chief General Manager ….RESPONDENT NO.11
State Bank of India
Local Head Office (LHO)
State Bank Building,
West Gandhi Maidan
Patna, Bihar-800001
12. Branch Manager ….RESPONDENT NO.12
State Bank of India
Branch Code: 03127
ADB Sonaili Bazar
Sonaili, Katihar, Bihar-855114
8.That the prayer before the Patna High Court
are:-
14. (i) To issue a writ of Certiorari or
prohibition or other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondent No.02 and 03 for
enforcement of Article 21 of the constitution and
cancellation of N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process
u/s 83 Cr.Pc. against Shri Om Prakash Poddar and
Widow Srmt. Asha Rani Devi (since deceased) and
quashing of the pending non-maintainable criminal
proceedings in Criminal Case Complaint (P)
No.5591 of 2013 u/s 498A to ensure life or
personal liberty and freedom of movement across
the Indian Territory by the petitioner no.01.
(ii) To issue a writ of Certiorari or other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
respondent No.02 to issue an order of dismissal
and imprisonment against the concerned
Magistrate and Women Protection officer for an
offence of perjury and illegal confinement of
the petitioner no.01 and 02 which has resulted
in suspicious death of petitioner no.02 under
illegal confinement on 11.11.2017.
(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
respondent No. 01 for enforcement of the
15. Fundamental Rights under Article 21 to initiate
appropriate action and pass necessary directions
to prevent such incidence of misuse of Government
Machinery and consistent planting of criminal
conspiracy against the vulnerable petitioner
no.01 and 02 which has resulted in suspicious
death of petitioner no.02 on 11.11.2017 and
petitioner no.01 happens to be the only left
survivor in his family now, after an untimely
demise of his father in the similar fashion in
2007.
(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
respondent No.01 and 04 to issue a dismissal
order against Women Protection Officer, Ms Veena
Kumari and to cancel the registration no.
836/1991 of her husband Advocate Gopal kumar
registered under Bihar State Bar Council for an
offence of perjury, filing false, frivolous case
against the petitioners with ulterior motive,
criminal intention and to issue an order against
them to pay the amount of Rs. 1 Crore (Rupees One
Crore) to the petitioner no.01 as a compensation
for causing irreparable damage, loss, illegal
confinement and suspicious death of the
petitioner no.02 under N.B.W.
16. (v) To issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
respondent No.05 to initiate appropriate action
under Indian Penal Code against the respondents
Nos. 7, 9 and 10, concerned police authorities
SP Katihar, DSP Barsoi and SHO Kadwa, who have
defended the act of turning the house of
petitioners into public toilet (by Mr. Bihari Lal
Bubna, a Panchayati Raj Institution leader with
the active help of the police authorities namely
respondents Nos. 7, 9 and 10) by way of not
removing public toilet till 06.03.2016 even after
fax complaint dated 03.03.2016 to SP Katihar and
furnishing false inquiry report to the Police HQ,
Patna, Bihar and infringing the Article 21 of the
petitioner No.02 which has resulted in suspicious
death of petitioner no.02 on 11.11.2017 and
further posing imminent danger to the life and
liberty of the petitioner no.01.
(vi) To issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
respondent No.05 to initiate appropriate action
under Indian Penal Code against the Respondent
no. 08, Rtd. DSP, HQ Katihar, Mr. Jugalal Kishore
Sinha for intimidating, frightening, abusing his
vested police power, creating an atmosphere of
fear, spreading out hatred against the petitioner
17. no.02, protecting the culprit, and not recording
the statement of petitioner no.02 on 1st
August,
2011 which has resulted in suspicious death of
petitioner no.02.
(vii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
respondent No.05 to initiate appropriate action
under Indian Penal Code against respondent no.06,
SP Begusarai for not executing N.B.W dated
25.08.2010 (which is evident from the order sheet
of Begusarai court in case no. 9P/2010 and
subsequent Police inquiry report dated 31.05.2019
by SP Katihar) and for creating an atmosphere of
fear, spreading out hatred among the society
against the petitioners which has infringed the
Article 21 of the petitioner and resulted in
suspicious death of petitioner no.02.
(viii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction directing
respondent No.01 and 11 to initiate appropriate
action under Indian Penal Code against the
concerned bank authorities namely respondent
no.12 who have been thoroughly misused to harass,
intimidate and attack the family pension account
of petitioner no.02, infringed her Article 21 and
resulted in suspicious death of petitioner no.02.
18. (ix) To pass such other orders and further
orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case.
9.That the registry of Patna High Court has
pointed out unconstitutional defects on
04.07.2019 in Cr.WJC No.1238 of 2019 (Token
No.45078/2019).
(i) First unconstitutional defect has been
pointed out by the registry to add Article
227 of Constitution of India as provision
of law.
(ii)Second unconstitutional defect has been
pointed out by the registry to delete the
original jurisdiction word from the
petition.
(iii)Third unconstitutional defect has been
pointed out by the registry to delete the
name of petitioner no.02 from the petition.
(iv)Fourth unconstitutional defect has been
pointed out by the registry to file
Substitution petition on behalf of
petitioner no.02 regarding legal heir with
notice served to concerned.
19. True copy of defects dated 04.07.2019 by Patna
High Court in Cr.WJC No.1238 of 2019 (Token
No.45078/2019) is annexed herein as Annexure P-
10 (page no 70 to 72)
10. That petitioner has removed all defects on
09.07.2019 in Cr.WJC No.1238 of 2019 (Token
No.45078/2019).
(i)Whereas, Articles 226 and 227 are the
parts of the constitution which define the
powers of the High Court. Article
227 determines that every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and
tribunals throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction
(except a court formed under a law related to
armed forces). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander
Rai, relied on several constitutions Judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex court, one of which
was Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt.
Radhikabai and Anr, which laid down scope,
power and differences between Article 226 and
Article 227. The first and foremost difference
between the two articles is that Proceedings
under Article 226 are in exercise of
the original jurisdiction of the High Court
20. while proceedings under Article 227 of the
Constitution are not original but
only supervisory. Article 227 substantially
reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the
Government of India Act, 1915, excepting that
the power of superintendence has been extended
by this Article to tribunals as well. Though
the power is akin to that of an ordinary court
of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is
intended to be used sparingly and only in
appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping
the subordinate courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors. In this case, there is
a deliberate and intentional error of
jurisdiction caused by inferior court with
criminal intention and ulterior motive. Matter
has come up for quashing of fake criminal
proceedings which has thoroughly misused the
police and bank authorities in the guise of
issuance of two Non Bail able Warrants against
the petitioners by the CJM division Begusarai
since 2010-11 to create an atmosphere of fear
and to spread out hatred among the society
against the petitioners to make the petitioners
life miserable to live in any civilized
society; after the settlement of the same
matter by High court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in
21. MAT.APPL. 7/2012. Moreover, proceedings of
inferior court has already been impeached under
Article 32 of constitution of India before
Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition
(Criminal) 136 of 2016 which has been dismissed
in motion hearing with incomplete
matters/IAs/Order/Crl.MPs. In a writ of
certiorari, the record of the proceedings
having been certified and sent up by the
inferior court or tribunal to the High Court,
the High Court if inclined to exercise its
jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the
proceedings and then do no more (Art 226). In
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction (Art 227)
the High Court may not only quash or set aside
the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but
it may also make such directions as the facts
and circumstances of the case may warrant, may
be by way of guiding the inferior court or
tribunal as to the manner in which it would now
proceed further or afresh as commended to or
guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases
the High Court, while exercising supervisory
jurisdiction, may substitute the impugned
decision with a decision of its own, as the
inferior court or tribunal should have made.
Hence, provision of Law u/a 227 cannot be added
in this case.
22. (ii)Article 226 are in exercise of the original
jurisdiction of the High Court therefore
“Original” word cannot be deleted from the
petition.
(iii) The Petitioner no.02 had approached
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for quashing of
the same criminal proceedings and enforcement
of her fundamental rights through Writ Petition
(Criminal) 136 of 2016 and the party position
of petitioner no.02 is the same before Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court
of Patna. N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 u/s 83 Cr.Pc.
still exists against petitioner no.02 on
inferior court record therefore petitioner
no.01 has approached to Patna High Court for
cancellation of N.B.W against petitioner no.02.
Since this petition is arising out of order
dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition (Criminal)
136 of 2016 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and the party position of petitioner no.02 is
same before Supreme Court of India therefore
Name of petitioner no.02 cannot be deleted.
(iv) This is not a property dispute therefore
Substitution petition on behalf of petitioner
no.02 regarding legal heir cannot be filed.
23. This is a case of quashing of fake criminal
proceedings u/s 498(A). Since petitioner no.02
has succumbed to suspicious death during the
course of fighting against the State of Bihar
and Others therefore Petitioner no.01 has
approached to Patna High Court for cancellation
of N.B.W and quashing of fake criminal
proceedings u/s 498(A) which still exists
against the innocent petitioner no.02 after her
brutal death.
True copy of defects removal letter dated
09.07.2019 by petitioner in Cr.WJC No.1238 of
2019 (Token No.45078/2019) is annexed herein as
Annexure P-11 (page no 73 to 81)
11. That after the lapse of nine days
registry of Hon’ble Patna High Court
neither notified further defects nor
registered the case nor listed it before
Lawazima nor listed it before Hon’ble
Judges “For Orders” but kept the case
status of Cr. WJC No.1238/2019 as
defective.
12. That aggrieved by this act of registry,
petitioner has filed RTI JUSTC/R/2019/51675
dated 18.07.2019 against violation of Chapter
24. IIIA of Patna High Court Rules, 1916 by the
Registry of Patna High Court.
True copy of RTI JUSTC/R/2019/51675 dated
18.07.2019 against Patna High court by the
petitioner is annexed herein as Annexure P-12
(Page from 82 to 82)
13. That PIO, Patna High Court did not
reply back the RTI JUSTC/R/2019/51675 dated
18.07.2019. Instead of replying back the RTI
request dated 18.07.2019; State and Mafia nexus
has organized mob lynching, criminal trespass
and illegal detention of petitioner on
30.07.2019.
True copy of receiving copies of police
complaint/F.IR against organized mob lynching
of petitioner by SP Katihar dated 09-08-2019
is annexed herein as Annexure P-13 (Page from
85 to 95)
14. That the petitioner is facing sheer
violation of Chapter IIIA regarding “filing
procedure” and Chapter II regarding
“Constitution of benches and power of benches
and of the Registrar” of Patna High Court
Rules, 1916 by the registry of Patna High Court
25. on the one side and organized mob lynching &
illegal detention of petitioner by the nexus of
state and mafia on the other side.
15. That the petitioner has moved I.A no. 1 of
2019 in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1238
of 2019(Token no. 45078/2019) before Patna High
Court on 27.08.2019 for urgent hearing against
the violation of Chapter IIIA and Chapter II of
Patna High Court Rules, 1916 by the registry of
Patna High Court and organized mob lynching &
illegal detention of petitioner by the nexus of
state and mafia; thereafter no F.I.R by Bihar
police till date.
16. That after filing I.A no. 1 of 2019 on
27.08.2019 the case was listed before Lawazima
and bench on the same date 28.08.2019 for
Orders (on office notes).
17. That Hon’ble Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh,
Single Judge, Court No.15 of Patna High Court
has refused to pass an order against I.A no. 1
of 2019 in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case
No.1238 of 2019 on 28.08.2019. Further, Hon’ble
Justice has remarked during the course of
hearing that petitioner is not an Advocate
26. therefore he cannot be given power of Attorney
to plead on behalf of petitioner no.2 by
Supreme Court of India. He has continued to
remark that petitioner no.02 cannot be allowed
to make petitioner before Patna High Court
because she is not alive irrespective of the
fact that she was petitioner no.02 before
Supreme Court of India.
18. That further Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ashwani
Kumar Singh has ordered the registry to examine
and list with proper notings as the petitioner
has submitted that he has removed all the
defects on 09.07.2019. Further, Hon’ble court
has not fixed up the next date of hearing in
the order dated 28.08.2019.
True copy of certified copy of Order dated
28.08.2019 by Patna High Court in Cr.WJC
No.1238 of 2019 is annexed herein as Annexure
P-14 (page no 96 to 96)
19. That Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi of Patna High Court has
denied to hear urgent mentioning of petitioner
against the organized mob lynching & illegal
detention of petitioner by the nexus of state
and mafia on 29.08.2019 vide visitor pass
27. ID.34798 before Court No.01. As per the
direction of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Patna
High Court, the petitioner cannot mention this
matter before division bench of Hon’ble Chief
Justice Court No.01.
20. That the petitioner has sent an
application for constitution bench along with
Affidavit to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
through registered post vide registered post
no. RF165942425IN dated 18.09.2019 which has
been received by the registry of Supreme Court
of India on 21.09.2019.
21. That the SP Katihar has submitted police
inquiry report dated 20.09.2019 against the Mob
Lynching and illegal detention of petitioner to
the Prime Minister Office through CPGRAMS
refusing to register F.I.R. In his police
report, corrupt and mentally ill SP Katihar has
blamed/accused the petitioner as mentally ill
person without any documentary evidence
(without medical certificate by the
psychiatrist)to protect his corrupt SHO Kadwa
who had illegally detained the petitioner and
forced him to sign on white plain paper at the
police station Kadwa at midnight on 30.07.2019.
28. Now, the police are indulged in mentally
torturing the petitioner with the help of his
neighbor Mr. Bechan Poddar S/O Late Sahdev
Poddar by way of opening a door inside his
house premises to dump garbage, wastage, to
penetrate into his privacy, to encroach his
lands, to damage his property so that he could
not live peacefully here and may force to leave
this place to migrate other places. Similar
activities have taken place with my mother
earlier in 2011, herein Petitioner No.02. As a
result of that my mother could not fulfill her
last desire to visit her own house sonaili,
katihar, Bihar in 2016 and 2017.
True copy of police inquiry report dated
20.09.2019 against the mob lynching and illegal
detention of petitioner is annexed herein as
Annexure P-15 (page no 97 to 97)
22. That the matter Cr.WJC No. 1238 of
2019(Token no.45078/2019) was again listed
before Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh
on 14.10.2019 “For Orders on (Office Notes)”.
23. That Hon’ble Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh has
refused to hear the petitioner on 14.10.2019 due
29. to non-availability of office notes with the
petitioner while in practice office notes are not
supplied by the registry to the
petitioner/Advocate, hence no order passed and
matter being carried forward “For Orders on
(Office Notes)” till date.
24. That aggrieved by the act of Hon’ble bench
of Patna High Court the petitioner has filed
written arguments along with Affidavit on
16.10.2019 against the unconstitutional defects
pointed out by the registry of Patna High
Court.
True copies of written arguments along with
Affidavit dated 16.10.2019 by petitioner in
Cr.WJC No.1238 of 2019(Token no.45078/2019) is
annexed herein as Annexure P-16 (page no 98 to
107)
25. That aggrieved by the act of Hon’ble bench
of Patna High Court the petitioner has also
filed RTI JUSTC/R/2019/52644 dated 18.10.2019
against refusal to supply certified copies of
office notes, orders and petitions by the
Registry of Patna High Court.
True copy of RTI JUSTC/R/2019/52644 dated
30. 18.10.2019 against Patna High court by the
petitioner is annexed herein as Annexure P-17
(Page from 108 to 110)
26. That the state is indulged in offending
the property of petitioner no.02 by issuing
fake genealogy of petitioner no.02 through
Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI) member Mr.
Kundan Banjara, Sarpanch, Kantiya Panchayat
vide letter no.0305 dated 14.11.2019 with
ulterior motive to make fake registry and fake
mutation of lands. Sarpanch Kantiya Panchayat
along with three local men came at the
residence of petitioner and forced him to sign
the fake genealogy as applicant. Petitioner
protested and filed online police complaint
against the PRI member Sarpanch, Kantiya
Panchayat with Bihar Police HQ Patna.
True copies of police complaint against PRI
member Sarpanch Kantiya Panchayat dated
15.11.2019 for genealogy fraud by the
petitioner is annexed herein as Annexure P-18
(page no 111 to 113)
2. QUESTION(S) OF LAW
That the main questions of Law to be decided in
this application are:-
31. a) Whether or not this is a case of writ
of certiorari against the inferior court of
Bihar within the knowledge of Patna High Court
therefore original jurisdiction under Article
32 to be exercised by Supreme Court of India
or original jurisdiction under Article 226 to
be exercised by Patna High Court?
b) Whether or not there is a deliberate and
intentional error of jurisdiction caused by
inferior court of Bihar with criminal
intention and ulterior motive which requires
the exercise of Article 32 by Supreme Court of
India or Article 226 by Patna High Court for
correcting mere errors.
c)Whether or not only constitution bench of
Supreme Court of India has jurisdiction to
decide on the defects pointed out by the
registry of Patna High Court as the matter
is same and it involves the jurisdiction
of two states wherein High Court of Delhi
has settled this matter way back in 2013.
d) Whether or not defects pointed out by
the registry of Patna High Court merely
making it a property dispute which is
unconstitutional?
32. e) Whether or not holding the petition for
orders on office notes by Patna High Court
not affecting the administration of
justice delivered by High Court of Delhi
in 2013?
f) Whether or not defects pointed out by
the registry not making it merely a
property dispute which reinforces the
cause of suspicious death of petitioner
no.02 for property only?
g) Whether or not violation of Chapter IIIA
of Patna High Court Rules, 1916 by the
registry of Hon’ble Patna High Court is void?
h) Whether or not NO reply of RTI request
dated 18.07.2019 and 18.10.2019 by PIO,
Hon’ble Patna High Court is void?
i) Whether or not NO F.I.R against Criminal
Trespass, Organized mob lynching & illegal
detention of petitioner by the nexus of State
and Mafia is void?
j) Whether or not no F.I.R against
Genealogy fraud by PRI member Sarpanch
Kantiya Panchayat is void?
33. 3. GROUNDS FOR URGENCY
That being aggrieved by the unconstitutional
defects pointed out by the registry of Patna High
Court and subsequent violation of Chapter IIIA of
Patna High Court Rules, 1916 by the registry of
Patna High Court and subsequent attack by the
nexus of State and Mafia and subsequent refusal to
hear by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Patna High
Court, the petitioner is moving this application
for constitution bench before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court of Hon’ble Supreme court
of India on the following amongst other grounds: -
A. BECAUSE this is a case of writ of certiorari
against the inferior court of Bihar within the
knowledge of Patna High Court therefore original
jurisdiction under Article 32 or under Article
226 to be exercised either by Supreme Court of
India or by Patna High Court respectively.
B.BECAUSE there is a deliberate and intentional
error of jurisdiction caused by the inferior
court of Bihar with criminal intention and
ulterior motive which requires the exercise of
Article 32 or Article 226 either by Supreme
Court of India or by Patna High Court for
correcting mere errors.
34. C.BECAUSE the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case
of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, relied on
several constitutions Judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex court, one of which was Umaji Keshao
Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt. Radhikabai and
Anr, which laid down scope, power and
differences between Article 226 and Article 227.
In a writ of certiorari, the record of the
proceedings having been certified and sent up by
the inferior court or tribunal to the High
Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise
its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the
proceedings and then do no more (Art 226).
D.BECAUSE only constitution bench of Supreme
Court of India has jurisdiction to decide on
the defects pointed out by the registry of
Patna High Court as the matter is same and
it involves the jurisdiction of two states
wherein High Court of Delhi has settled this
matter way back in 2013.
E.BECAUSE the defects pointed out by the
registry of Patna High Court merely making
it a property dispute whereas Patna High
Court has no jurisdiction to create property
dispute after the settlement of the same
matter by High Court of Delhi with NO COST.
35. F.BECAUSE the defects pointed out by the
registry of Patna High Court reinforces the
cause of suspicious death of petitioner
no.02 for property only.
G.BECAUSE holding the Cr.WJC No.1238 of
2019(Token no.45078/2019) by Patna High
Court affecting the administration of
justice delivered by High Court of Delhi and
creating a possibility of another suspicious
death of petitioner no.01 for property only
who happens to be only survivor in his
family now.
H. BECAUSE Criminal stamping filing section of
Hon’ble Patna High Court did not allow the
petitioner-in-person to file the petition on
17.06.2019 and 18.06.2019 which is evident
from the Affidavit attested by Oath of
Commissioner on 17.06.2019
I. BECAUSE the Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case
No.1238 of 2019(Token no.45078/2019) has
been allowed to file on 19.06.2019 and
defects have been notified on 04.07.2019.
J. BECAUSE the defects have been notified by
36. Mr. P.K. Verma, A.S.O of registry, Patna
High Court, after 17 days from the date of
filing of the case While as per the Patna
High Court Rules, 1916, any defect or
deficiency is pointed out, the matter shall
be so reported as early as possible, but in
not more than 3 working days in the form as
prescribed from time to time. In case the
Stamp Reporter is unable to complete the
Stamp Reporting within specified 03 days for
want of relevant record/for any other
reason, he shall complete Stamp Reporting
within 15 days from the date of filing.
K.BECAUSE Stamp reporter Mr. Dheeraj Kumar has
reported the matter for Single Bench (SJ)
while petitioner has opted for Division
Bench or Special Bench in Presentation form
for Criminal Matter which is evident from
the stamp reporting check slip dated
22.06.2019 and filing proforma at page no.01
in the petition. Moreover, as per the Patna
High Court Rules, Supreme Court matter is
listed before Hon’ble Chief Justice of High
Court.
L. BECAUSE the matter has neither been
registered nor been listed nor been put up
37. “For order” either before Lawazima or before
Hon’ble Judges by the Registry till
27.08.2019 even after removal of defects on
09.07.2019 by the petitioner while as per
the Patna High Court Rules, in case the
petitioner in person raises dispute where
the Registrar General is not in a position
to adjudicate, the Registrar General will
place the matter before the Bench under the
heading “For orders”.
M. BECAUSE Registry is violating the Rule of
Law and Human Rights of the petitioner again
in 2019 which may lead to another suspicious
death of Shri Om Prakash herein petitioner
no.01 which has resulted in suspicious death
of Widow Srmt. Asha Rani Devi, petitioner
no.02 in 2017.
N.BECAUSE both the Criminal Writ Cases before
Supreme Court and Patna High Court have been
filed for Quashing of 498(A) and thorough misuse
of police by the judges against the petitioner
from 2011 to 2019, which has resulted in
suspicious death of petitioner no.02, Late Widow
Srmt. Asha Rani Devi, mother of petitioner
no.01, Shri Om Prakash. In both the Criminal
Writ Cases, Registrar General of Patna High
38. Court, Judges of Begusarai court, police
personnel of Begusarai and Katihar districts and
Bank Officials of Sonaili are parties.
O. BECAUSE the petitioner has filed RTI vide
registration no. JUSTC/R/2019/51675 dated
18.07.2019 before CPIO, Department of Justice,
Government of India against violation of Chapter
IIIA of Patna High Court Rules, 1916 by the
Registry of Patna High Court.
P. BECAUSE PIO Hon’ble Patna High Court has not
replied back the RTI request dated 18.07.2019
and 18.10.2019
Q.BECAUSE instead of replying back the RTI
request dated 18.07.2019; State and Mafia nexus
has organized mob lynching, criminal trespass
and illegal detention of petitioner on
30.07.2019 by the nexus of Katihar Police and
mafia, yet no F.I.R has been registered so far.
Police picked up the petitioner from his house,
detained at Police Station, Kadwa and dropped
back the petitioner at his Sonaili residence at
midnight of 30th
July 2019 without any written
record. Police did not even record the statement
of petitioner rather forced the petitioner to
sign the white plain paper with thumb
39. impression. A detail complaint has been filed on
09-08-2019 by the petitioner physically
appearing before the office of SP Katihar and
obtained receipt of it with the help of Bihar
Police helpline, police HQ, Patna vide complaint
token no. 201908090007 dated 09.08.2019 against
SP Katihar.
R.BECAUSE the petitioners have been attacked by
the nexus of police and mafia persistently since
2011 to till date and no action has been taken
by SP Katihar. Previous police complaints
against the accused Police and mafia of Sonaili
have been filed dated 07.04.2011, 16.07.2011,
03.08.2011, 29.09.2011, 31.12.2011, 03.03.2016,
17.05.2016 and 26.09.2017 through email and by
registered posts to SHO Kadwa and SP Katihar.
Police has submitted police inquiry report dated
07.05.2016, 16.05.2018, 18.04.2018 and
31.05.2019. Main police accused are Mr. Yugal
Kishore Sinha, DSP, Katihar, HQ, Mr. Rajeev
Ranjan, Mr. Chandrika Prasad and Mr. Pankaj
Kumar DSP, Barsoi, and the main mafia accused
are Vishwanath Bubna, a Land mafia, Bihari Lal
Bubna, a Land mafia, Shyamaer Bubna, a Land
mafia and Banty Bubna, an oil mafia and petrol
pump owner at sonaili.
40. S.BECAUSE police has declared the petitioner
mentally ill by its police inquiry report dated
20.09.2019 and now the police are indulged in
mentally torturing the petitioner with the help
of his neighbor Mr. Bechan Poddar S/O Late
Sahdev Poddar by way of opening a door inside
his house premises to dump garbage, wastage, to
penetrate into his privacy, to encroach his
lands, to damage his property so that he could
not live peacefully here and may force to leave
this place to migrate other places. Similar
activities have taken place with my mother
earlier in 2011, herein Petitioner No.02. As a
result of that my mother could not fulfill her
last desire to visit her own house sonaili,
katihar, Bihar in 2016 and 2017.
T.BECAUSE the state is thoroughly indulged in
offending the property, livelihood and day to
day life of the petitioner by way of
disconnecting the electricity of his house
without prior NOTICE since 2012, organizing mob
lynching & illegal detention with the nexus of
mafia, issuing fake Genealogy by PRI member and
opening a door inside his house premises by the
neighbor to dump garbage, wastage to make the
petitioner’s life miserable to live peacefully
and to force him to migrate other places.
41. U.BECAUSE Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Patna High
Court has refused to hear urgent mentioning in
Cr.WJC No. 1238 of 2019 (Token No.45078/2019) on
29.08.2019. As per the direction of Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of Patna High Court, the
petitioner cannot mention this matter before
division bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice Court
No.01.
-:PRAYER:-
In the above premises, it is prayed that
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may be pleased:
(i) To direct the Registrar to register and list
the incomplete CRL.M.P. D.NO. 77878/2016 in
Writ Petition Criminal No. 136/2016 before the
constitution bench in Hon’ble the Chief Justice
Court of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for
deciding the constitutional validity of
unconstitutional defects pointed out by the
registry of Patna High Court in Cr.WJC No.1238
of 2019(Token No.45078/2019) wherein Patna High
Court has no jurisdiction to create a property
dispute or to dilute this matter after the
settlement of the matter by High Court of Delhi
on 23.07.2013 in MAT.APPL. 7/2012 with NO COST
and for quashing of 498A with N.B.W dated
42. 08.09.2011 u/s 83 Cr.Pc in Criminal Case
Complaint(P)5591/2013 at Begusarai court under
the judicature of Patna High Court.
(ii) To consider all the prayers from (i) to (ix)
prayed before the Patna High Court in Cr.WJC
No.1238 of 2019(Token No.45078/2019) mentioned
in para 08 of the present application/petition.
(iii) To direct the DGP Bihar to register F.I.R
against the police complaint dated 09-08-2019
for criminal trespass, mob lynching, illegal
detention of petitioner and forcing the
petitioner to sign on white plain paper by SHO
Kadwa on 30.07.2019 and against police
complaint dated 15-11-2019 for issuing a fake
Genealogy of petitioner no.02 by PRI member
Sarpanch Kantia Panchayat on 14.11.2019 vide
letter no.0305 with ulterior motive and forcing
the petitioner no.01 to sign the same.
(iv) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
DRAWN & FILED BY:
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
43. OM PRAKASH
S/O LATE SHRI DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR
S/O LATE SRMT. ASHA RANI DEVI
PERMANENT RESIDENT: ASHA DEEP NIWAS
SONALI, KATIHAR, BIHAR-855114
RENTED RESIDENT: RZF-893, NETAJI SUBUSH
MARG, RAJ NAGAR PART-2
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI-110077
MOB: 9968337815/9540389759
E-mail: om.poddar@gmail.com
NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 27.11.2019.
44. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
M.A. D.NO.42652 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITON CRIMINAL NO. 136 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …….RESPONDENT(S)
AFFIDAVIT
I, Om Prakash S/o Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar, age
about 46 years, R/o Asha Deep Niwas, Vill-Kantiya
Panchayat, Shukkar Haatt, P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar,
Bihar-855114 and Rented R/O RZF/893, Netaji Subash
Marg, Raj Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77,
on behalf of special power of Attorney Crl. M.P. 16605
of 2016 of Late Widow Srmt. Asha Rani Devi(since
deceased) W/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar, R/o Asha
Deep Niwas, Vill-Kantiya Panchayat, Shukkar Haatt, P.S.
Kadwa, Distt-Katihar, Bihar-855114 do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as under:-
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above matter and
well conversant with the facts of the case as such
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application
Under Section 151 C.P.C. for registration &
listing the Crl. M.P.D.No. 77878/2016 in Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016 before the
45. Constitution bench in Hon’ble Chief Justice Court
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which has been
drafted by me [para 01 to 03.], [Page 01 to 38]
and I, As. and having understood the contents
thereof I say that the facts state therein are
correct which are based on the official record.
3. That the annexures P-1 to P-18 [Page 41 to 113]
are true copy of its respective original.
4. That the accompanying application for registration
and listing the Crl. M.P.D. No. 77878/2016 in
W.P(Criminal) 136/2016 before the Constitution
bench contains total 113 pages.’
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the
facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my
knowledge and belief. No part of the same is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the 25th
day of November,
2019.
DEPONENT