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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CURATIVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2016

IN

REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 825 OF 2016

IN

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 136 OF 2016

Curative Petition (Criminal) under Article 142 of the Constitution of India arising out of the Order dated 01.12.2016 in Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court, filed against the final Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 136 of 2016 with A Prayer for setting aside Final Order. IN THE MATTER OF: OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ….RESPONDENT

I.A. NO. OF 2016 APPLICATION FOR AND ONBEHALF OF THE PETITIONER NO. 01 AND 02 FOR CANCELLATION OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANT

DATED 08.09.2011 PROCESS U/S 83 CR.PC. AND FOR QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.5591 OF 2013 U/S 498A PENDING BEFORE SDJM COURT

NO.16 CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI BIHAR

PAPER BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

PAGES FROM 01 TO 220

PETITIONER IN PERSON

OM PRAKASH

FILING INDEX



CURATIVE PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2016

IN

REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL NO.825 OF 2016

IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO. 136 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …………….RESPONDENT

S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees

1. Memo of Appearance 1

2. ID Proof duly signed 1

3. Certified Copy of Order of R.P.

(Crl.) 825 of 2016

1+5

4. Certified Copy of Order of W.P.

(Crl.) 136 of 2016 under

Challenge

1+5

5. Curative Petition (Crl.) along

with Affidavit

1+5

6. Certificate 1+5

7. Annexures P-1 to P-18 1+5

8. Application for cancellation of 1+5

N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.

dated 08.09.2011 and quashing

of criminal proceedings u/s

498A along with Affidavit

Filed on: 09.12.2016 Petitioner in Person

Diary. No. 41026 Om Prakash

RZF-893, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG

RAJ NAGAR PART-2, PALAM COLONY

NEW DELHI-110077MOB:9968337815

E-mail: [email protected]




IN

REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL NO. 825 OF 2016

IN


IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR …PETITIONER

VERSUS


MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To

The Registrar

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Sir,

Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person

in the above mentioned matter:

New Delhi

Dated this the day of 2016

Yours faithfully,

(OM PRAKASH )

Petitioner-in-Person

INDEX

S.N Particulars Page No.

1. Synopsis and list of dates A-K

2. Curative Petition (Criminal)

along with Affidavit in support.

3. Certificate

4. Annexure: P-1

True Copies of Police complaint

against installation of Public

Toilet without the permission of

petitioner no.02 by Mr. Bihari Lal

Bubna, an elected PRI leader to SP

Katihar by the petitioner dated

03.03.2016

5. Annexure: P-2

True Copies of photographs of

public toilets with posters having

‘text of public toilet for female’

pasted at the entry gate of the

House of the petitioner no.02 sent

by villagers through Watsup dated

05.03.2016 & 06.03.2016 to the

petitioner no.02

6. Annexure: P-3

True Copies of translated false

police enquiry report by S.P.

Katihar dated 07.05.2016 to the In

charge, Janta Darbar Cell, Police

Head Quarter Bihar, Patna

7. Annexure: P-4

A True Copy of online rejoinder

vide online complaint no.

999990303160113 against false

police enquiry report of S.P.


17.05.2016

8. Annexure: P-5

True Copies of the photographs of

the victims viz. above the knee

amputee, Headmaster, father, Late

Shri Deep Narayan Poddar (1939-

2007) and Oxygen dependent,

mother, Widow Asha Rani Devi,

petitioner no.02 herein in this

petition and wife of Late Shri

Deep Narayan Poddar (1946 to till

date) whose house is being turned

into public toilets w.e.f

28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016 by Mr.

Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected

Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI)

leader with the consent of S.P.

Katihar

9. Annexure: P-6

A True Copy of Letter-Petition

dated 19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India by the

Petitioner.

10. Annexure: P-7

A True Copy of RTI reply by Ld. CJM

cum PIO Begusarai dated 27.08.2016

to the petitioner

11. Annexure: P-8

A True Copy of application before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India

for mentioning of fresh matter

urgently dated 03.10.2016 along

with Affidavit by the petitioner

through R&I as well as through

Registry.

12. Annexure: P-9

A True Copy of filing index of

Urgent Mentioning application

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India’s Court through Mentioning

Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the

petitioner through Caveat clearance

Counter without receipt.

13. Annexure: P-10

A True Copy of order dated

07.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble

Court in Writ (Crl.) 136 of 2016.

14. Annexure: P-11



Chief Justice of India by the

petitioner no.02.

15. Annexure: P-12

A True Copy of application for

constitution bench along with

Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide

diary no. 77878 filed against Writ

Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016

16. Annexure: P-13

A True Copy of certified copy of

office report dated 20.10.2016 by

the Registrar, Section X in Writ

(Crl.) 136 of 2016.

17. Annexure: P-14

A True Copy of final Order under

Challenge dated 21.10.2016 passed

by this Hon’ble Court in Writ


18. Annexure: P-15

A True Copy of email letter of

prayer by the petitioner for

urgent hearing of Second Appeal

vide diary no. 183722 dated

03.11.2016 via Central Information

Commission (CIC) on the ground of

Life or Personal liberty dated

30.11.2016

19. Annexure: P-16

A True Copy of email reply by

DS(CR) CIC turning down the

petitioner’s prayer for urgent

registration of Second Appeal on

the ground of ‘life or personal

liberty’ dated 02.12.2016

20. Annexure: P-17

A True Copy of online complaint by

the petitioner against Patna High

Court to CIC under the dropdown

box of ‘life or personal liberty’

to make the provision of section

7(1) applicable

21. Annexure: P-18

A True Copy of Order under

Challenge dated 01.12.2016 passed

by this Hon’ble Court in Review


22. Application for cancellation of

N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s

83 Cr.Pc. and quashing of criminal

proceedings u/s 498A withAffidavit

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The present Curative petition criminal

under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India is being filed by the Curative

petitioner for setting aside the order dated

21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016 of this Hon’ble Court on the ground of

abuse of process of court and gross

miscarriage of justice; whereby Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 preferred by

the petitioner was dismissed with liberty

and directed the petitioner to approach

Patna High Court and subsequently the

Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 filed

by the petitioner was also dismissed by this

Hon’ble Court by an order dated 01.12.2016

upholding its final order dated 21.10.2016

in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; which

would have far reaching consequences

against the interest of public at large

and against the right of Senior Citizen

Woman in particular and would shake the

public confidence by reason of the

association or closeness of judge with

the subject matter of dispute; establish

wrong precedent of procedural Judicial

system, encourage malfunctioning of the

State Apparatus; weaken the basic fabric

of the institutions; ignore

constitutional priority; which has caused

gross injustice, violated the principle

of natural justice, ignored the principle

of ex debito justitiae and resulted in

gross miscarriage of justice.

23.07.2013 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced

Judgment in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 in

favor of petitioner on the ground of

certified copy of Begusarai Court in

case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic

violence Act and after three SLP(C)

no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013,

SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 before this

Hon’ble Court.

28.02.2016 House of the petitioner no.02 has been

turned into public Toilet with the

posters having text ‘public toilets

for female’ pasted at the entry gate

of the house w.e.f 28.02.2016 to

05.03.2016 by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an

elected PRI leader with the consent of

S.P. of Katihar without the permission

of the petitioner no.02 which has been

placed on record with Writ (C) 90 of

2016 before this Hon’ble Court through

interlocutory application.

03.03.2016 Police complaint against installation

of Public Toilet without the

permission of petitioner no.02 by Mr.

Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI

leader to SP Katihar by the petitioner

dated 03.03.2016

05.03.2016 The photographs of public toilet with

posters having ‘text of public toilet

for female’ pasted at the entry gate

of the House of the petitioner no.02

has been sent by the villagers through

Watsup dated 05.03.2016 & 06.03.2016

to the petitioner no.02.

07.05.2016 False police enquiry report submitted

by S.P. Katihar dated 7.05.2016 to the

Incharge, Janta Darbar Cell, Police

Head Quarter Bihar, Patna denying the

very fact of the incident.

17.05.2016 Online rejoinder vide online complaint

no. 999990303160113 against false

police enquiry report of S.P. Katihar

is being submitted by the petitioner

on 17.05.2016.

19.08.2016 Letter-Petition against Ld. CJM Court

Begusarai affecting the administration

of Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary

no. 35529 has been rejected by this

Hon’ble Court as it did not cover

under the guideline of PIL; although

the matter in the larger public

interest.

27.08.2016 Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public

Information Officer District Court

Begusarai Bihar has furnished false

and frivolous RTI reply dated

27.08.2016 received on 01.09.2016.

30.08.2016 That aggrieved by the false RTI reply

dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld.

CJM Begusarai, petitioner filed Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 on

30.08.2016 before this Hon’ble Court

for quashing of frivolous criminal

proceedings 498A pending before Ld.

CJM division Begusarai since

07.02.2011 without the knowledge of

petitioner and after the settlement of

matter by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi.

03.10.2016 Application before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India for mentioning of

fresh matter urgent listing earlier

than the scheduled date and urgent

relief is sought against Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 has been

submitted through R&I department of

this Hon’ble Court after huge hue and

cry as initially R&I refused to take

this Dak and subsequently filed

through filing counter of Party in

Person as well on the same date.

06.10.2016 That the petitioner applied for

urgent mentioning of the matter


India through Mentioning officer of

this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016

without routing through the

registry through Caveat clearance

counter. However, mentioning officer

of this Hon’ble Court has

intentionally listed my urgent

mentioning application before Court

No.06 instead of Hon’ble the chief

Justice of India’s Court in the

evening of 06.10.2016 despite of my

strong protest in Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016.

07.10.2016 petitioner submitted before the

Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the

mentioning officer has cheated the

petitioner and intentionally listed

the matter for mentioning before this

court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.

08.10.2016 Aggrieved by the intentional act of

mentioning officer the petitioner

no.02 has submitted Letter-Petition

dated 08.10.2016 before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India through email

against rampant atrocities on Senior

Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two

states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi

since 12 years to Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India.

13.10.2016 petitioner no.02 has again submitted

Letter-Petition dated 13.10.2016


India through speed post and by hand

against rampant atrocities on Senior

Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two

states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi

since 12 years.

17.10.2016 Petitioner being called on 17.10.2016

by the mentioning officer for fresh

application for urgent mentioning in

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016; however petitioner being

harassed whole day from PRO to

mentioning officer and directly

refused by the mentioning officer as

his role is over now.

18.10.2016 Upon direct refusal by mentioning

officer to allow the petitioner to

mention the matter before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India as per the

provisions laid down in the handbook

of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and

the schedule listing of the matter

fixed by the registry on 21.10.2016;

the petitioner left with no option and

filed an application for listing this

matter before the constitution bench

of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878

dated 18.10.2016 in Writ Petition


20.10.2016 Office-report against Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been

supplied by Registrar, Section X nor

been uploaded at the website of

Hon’ble Apex Court. Petitioner has

applied for the certified copy of the

same on 28.10.2016 with an application

registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide

diary no. PC-732 and received on

08.11.2016.

21.10.2016 Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 is

being dismissed with liberty to

approach High Court. During the course

of hearing on 21.10.2016, petitioner

being directed by the Hon’ble bench to

engage Advocate although the

petitioner has clarified in writing

the strong reason for not engaging any

Advocate or legal Aid in the petition

as well as during the interaction

interview with the Registrar.

Petitioner has not being heard

properly by the Hon’ble bench and

order has been passed with an error

apparent on the face of the record

against the petitioner violating the

principles of Natural Justice which

has resulted in gross miscarriage of

justice.

09.11.2016 Aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016,

Petitioner preferred to file review

Petition criminal 825 of 2016 on

09.11.2016.

30.11.2016 As per the direction by this Hon’ble

Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016, Petitioner tried to approach

Patna High Court through Second Appeal

vide diary no. 183722 dated 03.11.2016

via Central Information Commission

(CIC) on the ground of Life or

Personal liberty with a prayer for

urgent registration on 30.11.2016 but

failed to approach Patna High Court.

02.12.2016 DS, Central Registry, CIC has turned

the request of Petitioner down on the

ground of “no ground of life or

personal liberty at any stage i.e. RTI

application, 1st Appeal or even in 2

nd

Appeal has been made out or claimed by

the petitioner”. However, the content

of the second appeal is self-

explanatory at page no.02 and para no.

6, which reads as “another N.B.W dated

08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has

been issued by the same CJM division

against applicant and his Senior

Citizen ailing mother in another

frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of

2013 u/s 498A after the closure of

case no. 9P of 2010 and kept it secret

since then without the knowledge of

applicant to usurp his property in

Bihar”. Moreover, the second appeal

does not have any defined format where

applicant can mention the exact word

of life or personal liberty to make

the provision of section 7(1)

applicable as per the RTI Act 2005.

Nevertheless, Online CIC complaint

format contains this dropdown box of

‘life or personal liberty’ to make the

provision of section 7(1) applicable.

Petitioner has also filed complaint

against Patna High Court to CIC under

the dropdown box of ‘life or personal

liberty’ to make the provision of

section 7(1) applicable.

01.12.2016 Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 is

also being dismissed upholding its

final order by this Hon’ble Court on

01.12.2016.

09.12.206 Hence this Curative Petition Criminal.




IN


IN


BETWEEN

1. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01

S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2,

Palam Colony

New Delhi-110077

2. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02

W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar

R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS

Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,

Shukkar Haat Sonaili,

In front of Durga Mandir

P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar

Bihar-855114

VERSUES

1. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.01

Through Chief Secretary,

Old Secretariat, Patna-800015

2. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.02

High Court,

Through

Hon’ble Registrar General,

Patna High Court

Patna-800028

3. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.03

Through Ld. CJM

Begusarai, Bihar

Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division

at Begusarai, Bihar

4. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.04

Cum-Legal Remembrancer

Law Department, Government of Bihar

Main Secretariat Patna-800015

CURATIVE PETITION CRIMINAL UNDER

ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

01.12.2016 IN REVIEW PETITION CRIMINAL

825 OF 2016.

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His

Lordship's Companion Justices of the

Supreme Court of India. The Humble review

petition Criminal of the Petitioner

abovenamed.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. FACTS OF THE CASSE

The facts leading to the filing of the

present curative petition are as under:-

i. The present Curative petition

criminal under Article 142 of the Constitution

of India is being filed by the Curative

petitioner for setting aside the order dated


2016 of this Hon’ble Court on the ground of

abuse of process of court and gross miscarriage

of justice; whereby Writ Petition Criminal 136

of 2016 preferred by the petitioner was

dismissed with liberty and directed the

petitioner to approach Patna High Court and

subsequently the Review Petition Criminal 825

of 2016 filed by the petitioner was also

dismissed by this Hon’ble Court by an order

dated 01.12.2016 upholding its final order

dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136

of 2016; which would have far reaching

consequences against the interest of public

at large and against the right of Senior

Citizen Woman in particular and would shake

the public confidence by reason of the

association or closeness of judge with the

subject matter of dispute; establish wrong

precedent of procedural Judicial system,

encourage malfunctioning of the State

Apparatus; weaken the basic fabric of the

institutions; ignore constitutional

priority; which has caused gross injustice,

violated the principle of natural justice,

ignored the principle of ex debito

justitiae and resulted in gross miscarriage

of justice.

a. The petitioner requests this

Hon’ble court to reconsider its final

impugned judgment (herein after) and order

dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal

136 of 2016 and order dated 01.12.2016 in

Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016

whereby both the Writ Petition Criminal and

review petition criminal filed by the

petitioner has been dismissed and a

connected set of SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C)

no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 and Writ

Civil 90 of 2016 filed before this Hon’ble

Court has also been dismissed.

b. The petitioner no 02 Widow Asha Rani

Devi who is mother of petitioner no.01 was

allowed by this Hon’ble Court to be impleaded

as party through Criminal Misc. Petition No.

16605 of 2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016.

WHY THIS CURATIVE PETITION?

1. It is submitted that the present

Curative petition is urged for the following

reasons:

a. It is humbly submitted that the

matter is full of bloodshed since 12

years. Above the knee amputee father

of the petitioner no.01 and husband

of petitioner no. 02 who was passing

urine and stool through catheter has

been encircled to death untimely in

2007 by the nexus of bad elements of

Mafia and state apparatus. The oxygen

dependent mother, petitioner no.02,

who is dependent on petitioner no.01

only and residing on rented

accommodation in Delhi, has been

encircled in the same manner and has

been put on risk of rampant misuse of

498A by the abuse of court process,

likely to be subjected to death. The

flame of the funeral of the petitioner’s

father has not extinguished till date

and still flaming in the mind of the

petitioner no.01 and it will be added by

the flame of the funeral of the

petitioner’s mother now. The house of

the petitioner no.02 has been turned

into Public toilets with Posters by the

elected PRI leader with the consent of

SP Katihar w.e.f 28.02.2016 to

05.03.2016 without the permission of the

petitioner no.02 violating the Article

21 of the Constitution of India. In view

of the final order by this Hon’ble

Court, it seems, the matter will

remain in bloodshed after the passage

of 12 years and will end in

bloodshed. Eventually, the natural

question arises herein in the mind of

every common citizen and the

petitioner in particular, as to why

then, people should resort to courts

and not to arms? Nevertheless, the

principle of Natural Justice mandates

that every order of a court should be

speaking order and there is an

obligation on all courts to give

reasons for their conclusion.

However, in this case final Order

dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 does not give

any reasons and justification on what

ground petitioner should approach

Patna High Court with liberty after

the settlement of the same matter by

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on

23.07.2013 in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012

which has resulted in oppressive to

judicial conscience and has shocked

judicial conscience by its failure to

give reasons for its conclusion.

b. It is submitted that N.B.W dated


been issued and kept it secret and

disclosed it through RTI reply dated

27.08.2016 by the Ld. CJM cum PIO,

Civil Court, Begusarai, Bihar

against petitioner no.02, a Senior

Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated

rural, OBC woman, dependent upon

petitioner no.01; after the

settlement of the same matter by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which has

been totally ignored by the bias

judgment of this Hon’ble Court and

has been put on risk of rampant abuse

of court process infringing the

principles of Natural Justice,

resulting in suspension of life or

personal liberty.

c. It is submitted that petitioner

no.01 and 02 cannot remain live or

sustain their life in any state of India

if the Hon’ble Apex Court does not

invoke its inherent power under Article

32 of the Constitution of India to

enforce fundamental rights of the

petitioner under Article 21 of

Constitution of India.

d. It is submitted that the bad

element of State Apparatus on the one

hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83

Cr.Pc. and kept it secret since 2011 to

usurp the property of petitioner no.02

in Bihar and on the other hand kept the

petitioner no.01 and 02 under house

arrest in Delhi to kill them silently.

e. It is submitted that the

petitioner has not been heard properly

in the open court and the final order

suffers from ‘likelihood of bias’,

adversely affecting the life or personal

liberty of the petitioner which contains

material and apparent errors in passing

directions to the petitioner to approach

Patna High Court after the settlement of

the same matter by the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi in 2013.

f. It is humbly submitted that the

decision of this Hon’ble Court in Om

Prakash & Anr Vs State of Bihar & Ors in


dated 01.12.2016 has resulted in grave

injustice and violation of the

fundamental rights under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India for a common

citizen and a Senior Citizen Woman in

particular, it affects the public

confidence in this Court to protect and

defend the Constitutional Rights of

Citizen and perpetuates an irremediable

injustice. It is submitted that this is

an exceptional case which warrants the

exercise of inherent powers by this

Hon’ble Court, for curing a grave

miscarriage of justice. Millions of

people across the country who happened

to be victim of rampant atrocities of

malfunctioning of State Apparatus and

victim of rampant misuse of 498A; and

their families have been denied access

to Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and right to life with dignity or

personal liberty even after the

settlement of the matter by one High

Court.

g. That the impugned judgment has

completely violated the third

principles of Natural Justice by way

of not giving reasons for its

conclusions against the contentions

raised regarding violation of Article

21 of the Constitution by the bad

elements of State Apparatus those

have been given license to preserve,

protect and adhere the Rule of Law;

after the settlement of the same

matter by the Delhi High Court, way

back in 2013.

h. That it is respectfully submitted

that the impugned judgment of this

Hon’ble Court dated 21.10.2016 which

this Hon’ble Court declined to review

vide order dated 01.12.2016,

criminalizes a significant segment of

legal institutions and judicial

institutions in India by sanctioning

them as the natural guardian of the

Constitution and preservation of the

Rule of Law and spoiling the ground for

constitution bench and refusing to refer

the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016

of the petitioner to the constitution

bench which had raised substantial

question of Law as interpretation of

constitution involved in this petition

and to be decided by not less than five

judges as per the Part IV of ORDER XXXV

of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which was

framed in exercise of the powers

conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution; implying closed door of

this Hon’ble court for the petitioner

no. 02 to mention the matter before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on

the six grounds viz. Senior Citizen

woman, harassment of OBC woman,

prevention of corruption, issuance of

N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83

Cr.Pc. without the knowledge of

petitioner and after the settlement

of the same matter by the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in

MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of

demolition of property, interlinkages

of matter with old matter of this

Hon’ble Court and short matter, as

per the rules laid down in the

handbook of this Hon’ble Court and

pushing the petitioner-in person at the

stage of curative petition, which

requires a tedious procedure to follow

as per the rules laid down in the

handbook of this Hon’ble Court to get

the Certificate by a Sr. Advocate to

file curative petition, this court

should now exercise its power, ex

debitojustitiae, to rectify this

grievous case of injustice and denial of

Fundamental Rights under Article 21.

i. It is submitted that the Order

dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court

violated the Part IV of ORDER XXXV of

Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which was

framed in exercise of the powers

conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution. Provision of the Part IV

of Order XXXV of Supreme Court Rules,

1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution shall be

in writing and shall be heard by a

Division Court of not less than five

Judges provided that a petition which

does not raise a substantial question of

Law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution may be heard and decided by

a Division Court of less than five

Judges, and, during vacation, by the

vacation Judge sitting singly. (2) All

interlocutory and miscellaneous

applications connected with a petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution,

may be heard and decided by a Division

Court of less than five Judges, and,

during vacation, by the vacation Judge

sitting singly, notwithstanding that in

the petition a substantial question of

Law as to the interpretation of

Constitution is raised.”

j. It is submitted that the dismissal

of the matter pertaining to

interpretation of constitution by two

judge bench of this Hon’ble Court is

inherently flawed as it contradicts the

explicit opinion expressed for deciding

allegations of “bias” by a Constitution

bench in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR

1987 SC, 454). While settling out the

fundamental principles for adjudicating

cases involving allegations of “bias”. A

Constitution bench of this Hon’ble Court

in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR 1987

SC, 454) has categorically stated, “the

question is not whether the judge is

actually biased or in fact, decides

partially, but whether there is a real

likelihood of “bias”. Because the

Constitution bench of this Hon’ble Court

in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR 1987

SC, 454) has clearly stated that a

“likelihood of bias” is sufficient to

satisfy the legal principle to establish

a case of “bias” as the court has

observed, “The real question is not

whether he was biased. It is difficult

to prove the state of mind of a person.

Therefore, what we have to see is

whether there is reasonable ground for

believing that he was likely to have

been biased”. Because in Yadav vs State

of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC, 454), the

Constitution bench has categorically

stated that the issue of a “likelihood

of bias” may arise from personal reasons

such as “hostility” towards one party or

“friendship” with the other party.

Constitution Bench in Yadav vs State of

Haryana (AIR 1987 SC, 454) has observed,

“What is objectionable in such a case is

not that the decision is actually

tainted with bias but that the

circumstances are such as to create a

reasonable apprehension in the mind of

others that there is likelihood of bias

affecting the decision”. The

Constitution Bench has further

elaborated on this issue, “Justice is

not the function of the courts alone; it

is also the duty of all those who are

expected to decide fairly between

contending parties. The strict standard

applied to authorities exercising

judicial power are being increasingly

applied to administrative bodies, for it

is vital to the maintenance of the rule

of Law in a welfare state where the

jurisdiction of administrative bodies in

increasing at a rapid pace that the

instrumentalities of the State should

discharge their functions in fair and

just manner.”

k. It is submitted that the order

stood in breach of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, to say in other

words, this Right was not protected by

this Hon’ble Court. Article 32 confers a

guaranteed fundamental remedy but

Article 226 confers no such guaranteed

rights. This state of affairs makes

Article 32 a dominant and specific

provision whereas Article 136 or Article

226 are, in the context of the

enforcement of the fundamental rights,

clearly general and additional.

Petitioner no.01 and 02 cannot remain

live or sustain their life in any state

of India if the Hon’ble Apex Court does

not invoke its inherent power under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India

to enforce fundamental rights of the

petitioner under Article 21 of

Constitution of India.

l. It is submitted that as a point of

our Constitutional law that if there is

breach or non-protection by any organ of

the state, which includes Judiciary

also, remedy under Article 32 is to be

granted as a matter of course; and to

examine the petitioner’s contentions to

appreciate if the Case presented

deserves the grant of such a Remedy on

its merits.

m. It is submitted that the

petitioner who approached this Hon’ble

Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India for enforcement of

his guaranteed Fundamental Right being

subjected to gross violation of Human

Rights; and gross violation of

provisions, procedure and practice of

this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the

handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the

Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble

Court.

n. It is submitted that the Order

dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court

implies a closed door of this Hon’ble

Court for the petitioner and depicts

that the same stands in violation of

natural justice adversely and seriously

affecting the rights of the petitioner

or the same depicts manifest injustice

rendering the order a mockery of justice

which causes insurmountable difficulty

and immense public injury.

o. It is submitted that the present

curative petition is being filed to

avoid grave miscarriage of justice to

millions of Senior Citizen Women in-

Laws who have been victimized and

aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2016

of this Hon’ble Court and have been put

on risk of rampant atrocities by the

malfunctioning of State Apparatus after

the closure of the matter by the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi, upon rampant misuse

of 498A across India.

p. It is submitted that the final

order has totally overlooked the abuse

of court process by the Women Protection

Officers across India which has derailed

the basic objective of feminist movement

in India from women empowerment to women

criminalization.

q. It is submitted that the final

order has totally overlooked the

contentions of the petitioner that the

abuse of court process has been

rampantly used as a weapon by the bad

elements of State Apparatus across India

for their own vested interest in

weakening the institution of marriage

and encouraging the morale of those who

are indulged in the commercialization of

marriage for the lust of property and

financial gains.

r. It is submitted that the impugned

order suffers from error apparent on the

face of record.

s. It is submitted that the impugned

order disregard past precedent and the

nature of the role of this Hon’ble Court

in safeguarding and upholding

Constitutional Principles and

Fundamental Rights.

t. It is submitted that the impugned

order does not give reasons for its

conclusions on several important

Question of laws laid down in this

petition.

u. It is submitted that the impugned

judgments of this Hon’ble court go

against the established precedent of

this Hon’ble Court which has inevitably

expanded the meaning of the Fundamental

Rights.

v. It is submitted that in Rupa Ashok

Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra, (2002)4 SCC 388,

this Hon’ble Court has held “that this

Court, to prevent abuse of its process

and to cure a gross miscarriage of

justice, may reconsider its judgments in

exercise of its inherent power”. (Para

49). Para “42… we are of the view that

though judges of the highest court do

their best, subject of course to the

limitation of human fallibility, yet

situations may arise, in the interest of

rare cases which would require

reconsideration of final judgment to set

right miscarriage of justice complained

of. In such cases it would not only be

proper but obligatory both legally and

morally to rectify the error. After

giving our anxious consideration to the

question, we are persuaded to hold that

the duty to do so justice in theses

rarest of rare cases shall have to

prevail over the policy of certainty of

judgment as though it is essentially in

the public interest that a final

judgment of the final court in the

country should not be open to challenge,

yet there may be circumstances, as

mentioned above, wherein declining to

reconsider the judgment would be

oppressive to judicial conscience and

cause perpetuation of irremediable

injustice”. Para “50……the court in Rupa

Ashok Hurra had stated that it was not

possible to enumerate all the grounds on

which a curative petition may be

entertained. Para “51…….A curative

petition only be filed under the

following grounds: 1. Where there is

violation of principles of Natural

Justice in that the aggrieved party

filing a curative petition was not a

party to the lis but the judgment

adversely affected his interest or if he

was a party to the lis, he was not

served with notice of the proceedings

and the matter proceeded as if he had

notice. 2. Where in the proceedings a

learned judge failed to disclose his

connection with the subject matter or

the parties, giving scope for an

apprehension of bias and the judgment

adversely affects the petitioner”. Para

“52….the ‘curative petitioner’ must aver

specifically that the grounds mentioned

in the curative petition had been taken

in the review petition and that such

review had been dismissed by

circulation. A curative petition has to

include a certificate by a Senior

Advocate indicating that the same

grounds in the curative petitions had

also been taken in the review petition”.

It is submitted that instances given in

para 51 of the judgment are not

exhaustive, which is evident from the

observations of the court in para 50

itself. It is submitted that in any

event, the present case is one in which

fundamental rights of a number of Senior

Citizens are involved and the impugned

judgments have large societal

ramifications. As such, the present case

is a fit case in which this Hon’ble

Court ought to exercise its curative

powers, to remedy a gross miscarriage of

justice.

ABUSE OF PROCESS & GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

DUE TO FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ERROS

IN CONCLUDING AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO

APPROACH PATNA HIGH COURT WITH LIBERTY

It is submitted that the impugned judgment

fails to take into account the following errors

apparent on the face of record and fails to

apply Judicial Review:

ii. That the Constitution of India

assigned a pivotal role on to the Supreme Court

providing therein the supremacy of law with the

rationale being justice is above all. The

exercise of inherent power of this Court also

stands recognized by Order XLVII Rule 6 of the

Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which reads as

below:

“Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to

limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers

of the Court to make such orders as may be

necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent

abuse of the process of the Court."

iii. That Hon’ble bench has passed the final order

dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016

and denied to review by order dated 01.12.2016

in Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 without

taking into account the face of records that

the matter has already been settled by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in

MAT.APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 in favor of petitioner

on the ground of certified copy of Begusarai

Court in case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic

violence Act and after three SLP(C) no.

9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013 before this Hon’ble Court.

iv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the petitioner

has not approached this Hon’ble Court for

dispute settlement but for strong punitive

action against the bad elements of the State

Apparatus in two states who are indulged in

affecting the administration of Justice; which

has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.

Petitioner has elicited data at the cost of his

whole life and placed on record before this

Hon’ble Apex Court for necessary stern legal

action.

v. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


has filed interlocutory application for

Constitution bench on 18.10.2016 vide diary no.

77878 against the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016. Petitioner did raise ‘substantial

question of law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was not

required to decide any ‘interlocutory and

miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with the

petition’. The petitioner’s written submissions

also contain these averments in Writ Petition

criminal 136 of 2016 page 18, (para g, h) page

19 (para i) and page 26(para I, J and K).

vi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


has placed on record the bad elements of Legal

Aid Institutions in India and urged to take

punitive action against them to strengthen the

institutions.

vii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the matter is

full of bloodshed which has been caused by the

bad element of state apparatus those have been

given license to preserve, protect and adhere

the Rule of law. The petitioner’s written

submissions contain these averments in page

27(para L); subsequent clarification by

Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at page 53 (Ans. of

defects of para 08, Ground L); page 27(para N);

subsequent clarification by Registrar dated

07.09.2016 at page 54 (Ans. of defects of para

08, Ground N) in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016.

viii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that handicapped

father of the petitioner was encircled to death

by the nexus of Mafia and state Apparatus in

2007 untimely. The flame of the funeral of the

petitioner’s father has not extinguished till

date and still flaming in the mind of the

petitioner. Voluminous evidences have been

adduced in all the three SLPs filed before this

court in 2012 and 2013.

ix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that petitioner has

approached this Hon’ble Court to plead to take

strong punitive action against them who want to

establish the hegemony of bad element of state

apparatus and want to govern the mind and body

of the vulnerable common mass.

x. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the criminal

proceeding has taken place in the state of

Bihar because of dismissal of all SLP(C) no.

9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013 of the petitioner by this Hon’ble

Court which has encouraged the morale of bad

elements of State Apparatus in Bihar as well as

in Delhi. 498A is the outcome of this

encouragement.

xi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that Petitioner is a

victim of malfunctioning of two State Apparatus

viz. Delhi as well as Bihar.

xii. That the order dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble

Court has totally ignored the jurisdiction

“ground K” taken at page no. 26 in the petition

and the clarification sought by the Registrar

dated 07.09.2016 at page no. 50 to 57 in the

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.

xiii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that the cause of

action is the same and the jurisdictions of two

states are involved in it. The first cause of

action arose in the south west district of

Delhi and has been settled by the Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 on the ground of

certified copy of Ld. District Court, Begusarai

Bihar, in MAT. APPL. No. 7 of 2012. Trial for

the same cause of action cannot be conducted in

the two states by two Hon’ble High Courts at

different point of time after the settlement by

one Hon’ble High Court.

xiv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


case u/s 498A is not maintainable in the state

of Bihar and is maintainable in the South West

District of Delhi and F.I.R is to be lodged at

Palam Village Police Station, south west

district at New Delhi wherein the client of

Respondent No.04 has last resided till

15.04.2005. However, in this matter the client

of Respondent No.04 has filed a criminal case

complaint u/s 498A in the state of Bihar after

a gap of 6 years on 07.02.2011 without an F.I.R

and without police diary and without the

intimation to the petitioner no.01 and 02 as on

date and after the closure of frivolous Case

No.9P of 2010 u/s domestic violence Act which

was instituted on 30.03.2010 before the same

Ld. CJM division Begusarai.

xv. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


case complaint (P) no. 397C of 2011 new CIS

generated No. 5591 of 2013 has been filed on

07.02.2011 and the client of Respondent no.04

has appeared before Ld. Trial Court at New

Delhi on 09.02.2011 in case no. HMA-700 of

2010 and supplied the copy of case no. 9P of

2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence with N.B.W

issued dated 25.08.2010 and did not supply the

copy of criminal case complaint (P) no. 397C of

2011 new CIS generated No. 5591 of 2013 u/s

498A to the Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi with

criminal intention and managed to get issued

N.B.W dated 08.09.2011, Process u/s 83 Cr.P.C.

(this information disclosed through RTI reply

by Ld. CJM cum PIO dated 27.08.2016) and

continued to take dates up till now without the

Notice/Summon to the petitioner with criminal

intention.

xvi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into


has already filed an application for

cancellation of N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 and

replication of complaint no.9P of 2010 u/s 43

(12) of protection of women from domestic

violence Act, 2005 for setting aside order u/s

18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 through his Ld. Advocate

Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Reg. No.6255 of 1995 on

03.03.2011. It is evident from the record of

all the three SLPs filed before this Hon’ble

Court. However, this record has been erased by

the Ld. CJM division Begusarai which has been

admitted by Ld. CJM through RTI reply dated

27.08.2016.

xvii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that India is an

independent Country and not left with any

Princely State which will be governed by its

own State’s Law. Indian states are quasi-

federal and the matter falls within the

complete jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India who is competent to look into the

matter of two states jurisdiction. Hence, Writ

Petition is maintainable in view of prayers (i)

and (ii) for quashing the frivolous criminal

proceedings pending before the Ld. CJM division

Begusarai.

xviii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account the face of record that fraud, corrupt,

criminal and crook respondent can institute

frivolous criminal litigations under the

judicature of all High Courts in India for the

same cause of action and for the same relief

and keep it secret on the file of the court

record against the petitioner no.01 & 02 to

affect the administration of Justice. Hence,

petitioner will be directed to approach all

High Courts with liberty by this Hon’ble Apex

Court.

xix. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account on the face of record that respondent

has made a court as a personal property;

records have been manipulated, distorted and

erased from the court records of district court

Begusarai which has been admitted by Ld. CJM

Begusarai through RTI reply dated 27.08.2016.

xx. That Hon’ble Court has failed to take into

account on the face of record that Ld. CJM has

admitted through his RTI reply dated 27.08.2016

that complaint case no. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of

domestic violence Act is not pending before the

Ld. CJM division Begusarai. How 498A can be

instituted after the closure of domestic

violence under the same Ld. CJM division?

xxi. That Hon’ble Court has failed to

take into account on the face of record of RTI

reply by Ld. CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016

which has enabled the Hon’ble Court to take

stern punitive action against the

malfunctioning of State Apparatus down the line

to act as a deterrence to strengthen the legal

& Judicial institutions in India.

xxii. That Hon’ble Court has failed to

take into account on the face of record of

voluminous evidence adduced in all the three

SLPs and Writ filed before this Hon’ble Court

that the petitioner no. 01 & 02 cannot sustain

their life either in Delhi or in Bihar without

the Hon’ble Apex Court’s intervention and

strong punitive action against the bad elements

of the State Apparatus which has caused

irreparable damage and loss to the petitioner

no.01 & 02 over the period of 12 years.

xxiii. That the matter involves an incompatible

mixture of Hon’ble Judges & Advocates on the

one hand and a vulnerable common man petitioner

in person on the other hand. This incompatible

mixture cannot board in the same compartment

and travel along with. Hon’ble Judges and

Advocates are almighty, learned person and

equivalent to GOD on this earth while a common

man is a creeping helpless and vulnerable

animal. Hence, the fight between two are

incompatible mixture. However, the Constitution

of India is above, all the individuals and all

responsible individuals are duty bound to

preserve the sanctity and dignity of our holy

Constitution at the cost of their lives.

xxiv. That the petitioner has been dragged into the

court and has been brutally assailed every

moment by these bad elements of State Apparatus

since 2010 to till date. Hon’ble Judges and

Advocates have not left a single opportunity to

harass, mentally and physically torture the

petitioner from Ld. Trial Court to this Hon’ble

Court and made him a lively dead body. During

the course of time between 2010 to till date,

petitioner has been stopped several times to

put forward the facts before the Court; many

times petitioner has been awarded Judgment at

the entry gate of the court before reaching to

the court room by the bad elements of state

apparatus. Rampant atrocities by the bad

elements of State Apparatus have made the

petitioner ill and are undergoing treatment

with AIIMS. Health of the petitioner has been

severely affected due to the brutality

inflicted upon him by the Indian Courts since

2010 to till date. Records have been placed on

record with all the three SLPs and Writ

petition filed before this Hon’ble Court. It is

also placed on record with the clarification

sought by the Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at

page no. 50 to 57 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016.

xxv. That the case has reached up to this stage

after 12 years through RTI against Ld.

Principal Judge Deepa Sharma of Trial Court at

New Delhi for stopping the whole court

proceedings on 30.05.2011 and generating the

wrong order sheet alleging the petitioner for

requesting for adjournment of the court

proceedings while the date was fixed for WS

filing by the respondent and subsequent RTI

reply dated 30.08.2011; RTI against Hon'ble

Justice Ms Veena Birbal of Hon'ble High Court

of Delhi for adjourning the court proceeding

while the Legal Aid Advocate Jai Bansal was

absent without the intimation to the petitioner

and the petitioner in person was present and

subsequent RTI reply dated 27.08.2012; CIC

decision order dated 25.09.2014 under the title

Om Prakash Poddar Vs Department of Legal

Affairs against Delhi State Legal Services

Authority for not taking any action against

Legal Aid Advocates; Department of Justice

Government of India letter to NALSA dated

13.04.2015; NALSA letter to Supreme Court Legal

Service Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA

letter to Delhi High Court Legal Service

Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA letter to

Delhi State Legal Service Authority dated

13.05.2015 and RTI against Ld. Shri Chandra

Mohan Jha, CJM, Civil Court Begusarai Bihar of

Ld. CJM Divivsion District Court Begusarai

Bihar and subsequent RTI reply dated

27.08.2016.

xxvi. That no civilized & reasonable person would

tolerate and appreciate this kind of brutality

inflicted by the bad element of State Apparatus

ignoring the Rule of Law.

APPREHENSION OF BIAS AND IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE PETITIONER


fails to take into account the following

factual contentions of the petitioner and fails

to give reasons on its conclusion which has

adversely affected the life or personal liberty

of the petitioner no. 01 and 02:

xxvii. That the State Apparatus of two

States are involved in criminal conspiracy

against petitioner no.01 and 02 to kill the

petitioner no.01 and 02 to usurp their property

in Bihar and the controller of the State

Apparatus, a central Government employee and a

Rtd. Justice of this Hon’ble Court reside at

New Delhi and all directions go from Delhi to

Bihar. All events have taken place in Bihar &

Delhi against the petitioner during 2004 to

2016 at the behest of direction from Delhi.

Hence, approaching to Hon’ble Patna High Court

is meaningless and inefficacious. Records have

been placed with all the three SLPs and two

Writs before this Hon’ble Court. Registry has

notified defects against the original draft of

the petitioner in the Writ (Civil) 90 of 2016

because the name of Rtd Justice of this Hon’ble

Court was mentioned. Hence, petitioner

redrafted it. However, it is evident from the

Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 to Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India. Another Letter-Petition

dated 13.10.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice

of India is annexed herein with this petition.

xxviii. That Mr. Praveen Kumar from Indian Defense

Account Service presently as C&MD on deputation

basis with Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,

Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi has

encircled us in Bihar as well as in Delhi and

kept us captive in house arrest virtually. It

has been placed on record in Writ (Civil) 90 of

2016 before this Hon’ble Court.

xxix. That the bad element of State Apparatus on the

one hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.

and kept it secret since 2011 to usurp the

property of petitioner no.02 in Bihar and on

the other hand Mr. Praveen Kumar has kept

petitioner no. 01 and 02 under the house arrest

in Delhi to kill them silently.

xxx. How State Apparatus and Mafia are involved in

criminal conspiracy against a vulnerable common

man and senior citizen oxygen dependent

voiceless widow OBC woman in two states viz.

Delhi & Bihar since 2004 has been apprised

before this Hon’ble Court from time to time

through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.

9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013, Writ (C) 90

of 2016 and Writ Petition (Criminal) 136 of

2016?

xxxi. Since 2004 to 2009, criminal conspiracy through

local leaders and Mafia and since 2010 to till

date, through Indian Courts.

xxxii. Everything has finished. 12 years long criminal

conspiracy has taken away the life of my above

the knee amputee father untimely in 2007 and we

(herein petitioner no.01 and 02) have been kept

captive and house arrest virtually.

xxxiii. That the criminal trespass has been committed

by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader

with the consent of S.P. of Katihar. House of

the petitioner no.02 has been turned into

public Toilet with the posters w.e.f 28.02.2016

to 05.03.2016 without the permission of the

petitioner no.02 which has been placed on

record with Writ (C) 90 of 2016 before this

Hon’ble Court through interlocutory

application. False police enquiry report dated

07.05.2016 has been uploaded online by the S.P.

Katihar to the Police Head Quarter, Bihar

through Chief Minister Secretariat denying the

very fact of the incident. However, the

villagers have sent us the phototgraphs of

public toilet through Watsup which has been

declined by the police enquiry report.

True Copies of Police complaint

against installation of Public

Toilet without the permission of

petitioner no.02 by Mr. Bihari

Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader

to SP Katihar by the petitioner

dated 03.03.2016 is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure

P-1 (Page from to )

True Copies of photographs of

public toilet with posters having

‘text of public toilet for

female’ pasted at the entry gate

of the House of the petitioner

no.02 sent by villagers through

Watsup dated 05.03.2016 &

06.03.2016 to the petitioner

no.02 is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-2 (Page from

to )

True Copies of translated false

police enquiry report by S.P.

Katihar dated 07.05.2016 to the

Incharge, Janta Darbar Cell,

Police Head Quarter Bihar, Patna

is annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure P-3 (Page from to )

A True Copy of online rejoinder

vide online complaint no.

999990303160113 against false

police enquiry report of S.P.


17.05.2016 is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure P-4 (Page

from to )

True Copies of the photographs of

the victims viz. above the knee

amputee, Headmaster, father Late

Shri Deep Narayan Poddar (1939-

2007) and Oxygen dependent, mother

Widow Asha Rani Devi, petitioner

no.02 herein in this petition and

wife of Late Shri Deep Narayan

Poddar (1946 to till date) whose

house is being turned into public

toilets w.e.f 28.02.2016 to

05.03.2016 by Mr. Bihari Lal

Bubna, an elected Panchayati Raj

Institution (PRI) leader with the

consent of S.P. Katihar is

annexed herewith and marked as


xxxiv. That Peculiar fact of this matter is that the

Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a role

of respondents throughout the case from Trial

Court to High Court either in Delhi or in

Bihar. Actual party has not even filed a single

piece of paper before the Ld. Trial court at

New Delhi. However, actual party has appeared

once on 09.02.2011 and has filed Vakalatnama

before Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi.

xxxv. Had the Hon’ble Judges not played a role of

Respondent the matter would have been disposed

of on 30.05.2011 itself? It is evident from the

records of Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi,

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and SCR of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. Bad elements of State

Apparatus have turned the settled matter into

complex matter intentionally for their own

vested interest and have contracted the matter

till date to finish the vulnerable petitioner

by way of trapping him into the courts without

harming themselves. Matter is ex parte and

Hon’ble Judges have played a role of

respondent.

xxxvi. That a Letter-Petition against Ld.

CJM Begusarai affecting the administration of

Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary no. 35529

has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court as it

did not cover under the guideline of PIL;

although the matter in the larger public

interest. The bugs would have been stopped and

killed; had this Hon’ble court would have taken

an appropriate action against the Letter-

Petition dated 19.08.2016.

A True Copy of Letter-Petition dated

19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India is annexed herewith


from to )

VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND

IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE

PETITIONER



factual contentions of the petitioner and

violates the principle of Natural Justice

against the petitioner:

xxxvii. That Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public

Information Officer District Court Begusarai

Bihar has furnished false and frivolous RTI

reply on 27.08.2016.

A True Copy of false RTI reply by Ld.

CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 to the

petitioner is annexed herewith and


to )

xxxviii. That the RTI reply of Ld. Chief Judicial

Magistrate Cum Public Information Officer

District Court Begusarai Bihar under QUESTION

NO.07 in Case No. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic

violence Act, "the application for cancellation

of NBW was never pressed before court, so no

order was passed upon it and neither the

petitioner nor his advocate had appeared before

the court" has been falsified by the record of

certified copy of Order dated 4.4.2011 issued

by the same Begusarai Court and the same has

been placed on record at Ld. Trail Court at New

Delhi in Case No. HMA-700 of 2010 and on the

ground of which Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has

pronounced the Judgement in Case No. MAT. APPL.

7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 in favor of the

petitioner.

xxxix. That aggrieved by the false RTI

reply dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld. CJM

Begusarai, petitioner has filed Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 on 30.08.2016 before this

Hon’ble Court for quashing of frivolous

criminal proceedings.

xl. Application dated 03.10.2016 in

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for

mentioning of fresh matter for urgent listing

earlier than the scheduled date and urgent

relief is sought against Writ Petition Criminal

136 of 2016 has been sent through R&I

department of this Hon’ble Court after a huge

hue and cry as initially R&I refused to take

this Dak and subsequently being filed through

filing counter of Party in Person as well on

the same date.

A True Copy of application before the

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for

mentioning of fresh matter urgently

dated 03.10.2016 by the petitioner is



xli. That the petitioner applied for

urgent mentioning of the matter in Writ

Criminal 136 of 2016 before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India through Mentioning

officer of this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016

without routing through the registry

through caveat clearance counter on the

following grounds viz. Senior Citizen

woman, harassment of OBC woman, prevention

of corruption, issuance of N.B.W dated

08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. without

the knowledge of petitioner and after the


Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013

in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of

demolition of property, interlinkages of

matter with old matter of this Hon’ble

Court and short matter, as has been laid

down in the handbook of this Hon’ble Court.

A True Copy of filing index of

Urgent Mentioning application


India’s Court through Mentioning

Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the

petitioner through Caveat clearance

Counter without receipt is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-9

(Page from to )

xlii. That the Mentioning officer of

this Hon’ble Court has intentionally listed

my urgent mentioning application in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before Court

No.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief Justice

of India’s Court in the evening of

06.10.2016 despite of my strong protest to

directly allow me for mentioning before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India as per

the provisions laid down in the handbook of

this Hon’ble Court.

xliii. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by

the intentional act of Mentioning officer for

listing the matter before the Court No.06 as

the same Hon’ble bench of this Court No.06 has

dismissed the Writ (C) 90 of 2016, although the

petitioner had apprised the Hon’ble Court

through interlocutory applications that 498A

has been instituted in the state of Bihar even

after the settlement of the same matter by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

xliv. That the petitioner submitted before

the Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the

mentioning officer has cheated the petitioner

and intentionally listed the matter for

mentioning before this court. Petitioner has

humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court No.06

to grant him liberty to mention the matter

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s

Court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016 has been

passed by the Hon’ble Court No. 06 in Writ

(Crl.) 136 of 2016.

A True Copy of order dated

07.10.2016 in Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 passed by this

Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith


from to )

xlv. That aggrieved by the intentional act

of Mentioning officer, the petitioner no.02 has

submitted Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 and

13.10.2016 before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India through email; speed post; and by hand

respectively against rampant atrocities on

Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two states viz.

Bihar as well as in Delhi since 12 years.



Chief Justice of India is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure P-

11 (Page from to )

xlvi. After an Order dated 07.10.2016 in

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 passed by

this Hon’ble Court and upon the request made by

the petitioner, petitioner being called on

17.10.2016 by the mentioning officer for fresh

application for urgent mentioning before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, however

petitioner being harassed whole day from PRO to

mentioning officer and directly refused by the

mentioning officer as his role is over now.

xlvii. Upon direct refusal by mentioning

officer to allow the petitioner to mention the

matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India as per the provisions laid down in the

handbook of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and

the schedule listing of the matter fixed by the

registry on 21.10.2016; the petitioner left

with no option and filed an application for

listing this matter before the constitution

bench of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878


of 2016.

A True Copy of application for

constitution bench along with

Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide

diary no. 77878 filed against Writ

Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016 is



xlviii. Office report dated 20.10.2016 against Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been

supplied nor been uploaded at the website of

this Hon’ble Court by the Registrar, Section X.

Petitioner has applied for the certified copy

of the same on 28.10.2016 with an application

registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide diary no.

PC-732 and received the certified copy of

Office-Report on 08.11.2016. Office-Report

dated 20.10.2016 does not contain the

application dated 03.10.2016 before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India for mentioning of fresh

matter urgent listing earlier than the

scheduled date and urgent relief is sought

against Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016. The

record has not been placed on record and has

been intentionally erased from the office

report. Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 further

wrongly records the date of filing of

application for listing the writ petition

before a constitution bench on 18th January

2016 while the petitioner has filed the same on

18th October 2016. Moreover, it is circulated

‘unregistered’. Criminal Misc petition no. has

not been allotted against application dated

18.10.2016 intentionally by the Registrar.

A True Copy of certified copy of

office report dated 20.10.2016

by the Registrar, Section X in

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016 is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-13 (Page

from to )

xlix. That this Hon’ble Court has

dismissed the Writ petition Criminal 136 of

2016 with liberty on 21.10.2016 and directed

the petitioner to approach Patna High Court.

A True Copy of final Order dated


Court in Writ Petition (Criminal)

136 of 2016 is annexed herewith


from to )

l. As per the direction by this

Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016, Petitioner tried to approach Patna High

Court through Second Appeal vide diary no.

183722 dated 03.11.2016 via Central Information

Commission (CIC) on the ground of ‘Life or

Personal liberty’ with a prayer for urgent

hearing on 30.11.2016 but failed to approach

Patna High Court.

A True Copy of email letter of

prayer by the petitioner for

urgent hearing of Second Appeal

vide diary no. 183722 dated

03.11.2016 via Central Information

Commission (CIC) on the ground of

‘Life or Personal liberty’ dated

30.11.2016 is annexed herewith and


to )

li. DS, Central Registry, CIC has

turned the request of Petitioner down on the

ground of “no ground of ‘life or personal

liberty’ at any stage i.e. RTI application, 1st

Appeal or even in 2nd Appeal has been made out

or claimed by the petitioner”. Although, the

content of the second appeal is self-

explanatory at page no.02 and para no. 6, which

reads as “another N.B.W dated 08.09.2011

process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been issued by the

same CJM division against applicant and his

Senior Citizen ailing mother in another

frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of 2013 u/s

498A after the closure of case no. 9P of 2010

and kept it secret since then without the

knowledge of applicant to usurp his property in

Bihar”. Moreover, CIC has invoked section 7(1)

of RTI Act 2005 in N.N. Kalia Vs University of

Delhi case and recorded its observation “the

life and liberty provision can be applied only

in cases where there is an imminent danger to

the life and liberty of a person and the non-

supply of the information may either lead to

death or grievous injury to the concerned

person. Liberty of a person is threatened if

she or he is going to be incarcerated or has

already been incarcerated and the disclosure of

the information may change that situation. If

the disclosure of the information would obviate

the danger then it may be considered under the

provision of section 7(1). The imminent danger

has to be demonstrably proven”. In this case

imminent danger has been demonstrably proven

through photographs of the above the knee

amputee father of the petitioner who has been

encircled to death untimely by the nexus of bad

elements of State Apparatus and Mafia in 2007

and through the photographs of oxygen dependent

71 year old mother, as petitioner no.02 in this

petition, who is residing on rented

accommodation at New Delhi and dependent upon

unemployed petitioner no.01 only and her life

has been threatened by the issuance of

frivolous N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83

Cr.Pc. after the settlement of the same matter

by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and is going

to be incarcerated which may either lead to her

death or grievous injury to the petitioner

no.02 and the petitioner no.01. Hence, this was

a fit case to invoke section 7(1) of RTI Act

2005 by CIC. Ironically, the second appeal does

not have any defined format where applicant can

mention the exact word of ‘life or personal

liberty’ to make the provision of section 7(1)

applicable as per the RTI Act 2005.

Nevertheless, Online CIC complaint format

contains this dropdown box of ‘life or personal

liberty’ to make the provision of section 7(1)

applicable. Petitioner has also filed

complaint against Patna High Court to CIC under

the dropdown box of ‘life or personal liberty’

to make the provision of section 7(1)

applicable.

A True Copy of email reply by

DS(CR) CIC turning down the

petitioner’s prayer for urgent

registration of Second Appeal on

the ground of ‘life or personal

liberty’ dated 02.12.2016 is



A True Copy of online complaint by

the petitioner against Patna High

Court to CIC under the dropdown

box of ‘life or personal liberty’

to make the provision of section

7(1) applicable is annexed


17 (Page from to )

lii. That this Hon’ble Court has also

dismissed the Review Petition Criminal 825 of

2016 on 01.12.2016, upholding its final order


of 2016.

A True Copy of Order dated


Court in Review Petition

(Criminal) 825 of 2016 is annexed


18 (Page from to )

liii. That petitioner no.01 and 02

cannot remain live or sustain their life in any

state of India if the Hon’ble Apex Court does

not invoke its inherent power under Article 32

of the Constitution of India to enforce

guaranteed fundamental rights of the petitioner

under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

2. ABUSE OF PROCESS AND GROSS

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: IMPUGNED JUDGMENT FAILED

TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE

OF RECORD; FACTUAL ERRORS




to give reasons on its conclusions:

a. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court violates the Part IV of

ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 which

was framed in exercise of the powers conferred

by Article 145 of the Constitution. Provision

of the Part IV of Order XXXV of Supreme Court

Rules, 1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution shall be in

writing and shall be heard by a Division Court

of not less than five Judges provided that a

petition which does not raise a substantial

question of Law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution may be heard and decided by a

Division Court of less than five Judges, and,

during vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting

singly. (2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous

applications connected with a petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard

and decided by a Division Court of less than

five Judges, and, during vacation, by the

vacation Judge sitting singly, notwithstanding

that in the petition a substantial question of

Law as to the interpretation of Constitution is

raised.”

b. That the Writ and review Petition

which have been dismissed by the Order, against

which Curative Petition is hereby moved, did

raise ‘substantial question of law as to the

interpretation of the Constitution and this

Hon’ble Court was not required to decide any

‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’

‘connected with the petition’. The humble

Petitioner had submitted this in his Writ

Petition, pleadings/arguments and through

written submission followed by interlocutory

application for constitution bench on

18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878 in Writ


c. That During the course of hearing

on 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016, the petitioner not being heard properly

rather directed to engage Advocate although the

Petitioner has clarified the strong reason for

not engaging any Advocate against this matter

in writing in the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016 as well as with the Registrar during the

interaction interview dated 03.10.2016 that

“Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a

role of Respondent throughout the case from

Trial Court to High Court”.

d. For that there is sufficient

reason to cure the Order of this Hon’ble Court

as it contains material and apparent errors in

passing directions to the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court.

e. For that the Order of this Hon’ble

Court incorrectly directs the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court, which has resulted

in gross miscarriage of justice.

3. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT FAILS TO

CONSIDER CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER MADE WITH

RESPECT TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION; RIGHT

OF DIGNITY, LIBERTY AND AUTONOMY

It is submitted that the impugned judgment fails

to take into account the following factual

contentions of the petitioner and order stood in

breach of Article 21 of Constitution of India:

a) For that Article 21 of the

Constitution protects an individual’s right

to autonomy, liberty, basing this submission

on the jurisprudence of this Hon’ble Court.

The petitioner’s written submissions contain

these averments in pages 15 to 17(para xxvii

to xxix); page 27, (para L, M, N); Page 31,

(para W, X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34

(para BB) and Pages 50 to 57 where

clarification has been sought by the

registrar dated 07.09.2016 in Writ Petition



MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: ON

THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDER OF DISMISSAL ARTICLE

145 (1).




to give reasons on its conclusions:

That the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 was framed in

exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of

the Constitution. Part IV, ORDER XXXV of the said

Rules runs as under:

“1.(1) Every petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution shall be in writing and shall be heard

by a Division Court of not less than five Judges

provided that a petition which does not raise a

substantial question of Law as to the

interpretation of the Constitution may be heard and

decided by a Division Court of less than five

Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge

sitting singly.

(2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous

applications connected with a petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard and

decided by a Division Court of less than five

Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge

sitting singly, notwithstanding that in the

petition a substantial question of Law as to the

interpretation of Constitution is raised.”

The effect of the aforesaid Order is:

(a) That Writ petition involves

questions pertaining to the interpretation

of the Constitution, the Writ Petition must

be heard by a bench of not less than five

Judges;

(b) That if Writ Petition ‘does not

raise a substantial question of Law as to

the interpretation of the Constitution’ it

‘may be heard and decided by a Division

Bench of the Court of less than five


vacation Judge sitting singly’;

(c) That all ‘interlocutory and

miscellaneous applications’ connected with

a petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution, may be heard and decided by a

Division Court of less than five

Judges,……’; and

(d) That all that can be decided in

matters mentioned at interlocutory and

miscellaneous application’, leaving the

actual Writ Petition intact before the

Court to be disposed of as per the law and

the Constitution.

That the Writ and Review Petition which have been

dismissed by the Order, against which Curative

Petition is hereby moved, did raise ‘substantial

question of law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was not


miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with the

petition’.


MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF

THE CONSTITUTION WERE INVOLVED BEING IGNORED BY

THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

It is submitted that the impugned judgment fails

to take into account the following factual

contentions of the petitioner and fails to give

reasons on its conclusions:

I. Article 32 confers a guaranteed

fundamental remedy but Article 226 confers no

such guaranteed rights. This state of affairs

makes Article 32 a dominant and specific

provision whereas Article 136 or Article 226

are, in the context of the enforcement of the

fundamental rights, clearly general and

additional.

II. Dr. Ambedkar described Article 32

of the Constitution as “the very soul and the

very heart of the Constitution”. Article 136, a

discretionary remedy, cannot be elevated to

become the very soul of the Constitution.

III. In a given case where certain

Fundamental Rights are violated or non-

protected, a remedy under Article 32 must be

granted as a matter of course;

IV. Remedy under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India is a matter of course

whenever on account of state action a

Fundamental Right granted as per provisions of

the Part III of the Constitution are breached,

or ignored.

V. That, as such, the Remedy under

Article 32 of the Constitution is ex propio

Vigore available to protect a citizen’s

Fundamental Right which he believes to have

been breached or non-protected by a judicial

order of the Superior Judiciary;

VI. That the order stood in breach of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to say

in other words, this Right was not protected by


VII. As a point of our Constitutional

law that if there is breach or non-protection

by any organ of the state, which includes

Judiciary also, remedy under Article 32 is to

be granted as a matter of course; and

VIII. To examine the petitioner’s

contentions to appreciate if the Case presented

deserves the grant of such a Remedy on its

merits.

6. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

AS THESE QUETION(S) OF LAW BEING IGNORED TO APPLY

JUDICIAL REVIEW



question of law as laid down in the review

criminal and subsequently fails to apply

judicial review and give reasons on its

conclusions:

That the main questions of Law to be decided in

this petition are:-

a) Whether after the settlement of the matter

by one High Court; one has to approach

another High Court for the same cause of

action and for the same relief wherein the

respondent has already appeared into the

matter and contested the matter indirectly?

b) Whether the matter involves two states

jurisdictions for the same cause of action;

Hon’ble Apex Court must not invoke its

inherent power under Article 32 to enforce

and guarantee the fundamental rights of the

citizen under Article 21?

c) Whether the Writ petition involves questions

pertaining to the interpretation of the

Constitution; the Writ Petition is liable to

be dismissed by a bench of less than five

Judges?

d) Whether the petitioner approached to this

Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 against

rampant atrocities by the state apparatus in

two states and for enforcement of his

fundamental rights under Article 21 to be

subjected to violation of principle of

Natural Justice by this Hon’ble Court?

e) Whether dismissing the Writ petition with

liberty and directing the petitioner to

approach to Patna High Court by the two

Judges Bench of this Hon’ble Court; does not

violate the provisions of Supreme Court

Rules, 1966 which was framed in exercise of

the powers conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution under the Part IV of ORDER

XXXV? And whether Article 226 confers

guaranteed fundamental rights to the

petitioner for enforcement of Article 21?

7. GROUNDS TO SUBMIT THAT THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENTS ARE OPPRESSIVE TO THE

JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE

It is submitted that the impugned judgments

suffers from errors apparent on the face of

record. The impugned judgments disregard

past precedent and the nature of the role

of this Hon’ble Court in safeguarding and

upholding constitutional principles and

Fundamental Rights.

Though this Curative Petition, the

petitioner seeks reconsideration of the

judgment, inter alia, on the following

grounds which are independent and without

prejudice to each other.

That being aggrieved by order dated

01.12.2016, the petitioner is challenging

the same on the following amongst other

grounds: -

A. That the present petition is

clearly within the scope and ambit of

the curative powers of this Hon’ble

Court as spelled out in Rupa Ashok Hurra

Vs Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, where

this Hon’ble Court held that this Court,

to prevent abuse of its process and to

cure a gross miscarriage of justice, may

consider its judgment in exercise of its

inherent power” (Para 49). Para “42… we

are of the view that though judges of

the highest court do their best, subject

of course to the limitation of human

fallibility, yet situations may arise,

in the interest of rare cases which

would require reconsideration of final

judgment to set right miscarriage of

justice complained of. In such cases it

would not only be proper but obligatory

both legally and morally to rectify the

error. After giving our anxious

consideration to the question, we are

persuaded to hold that the duty to do so

justice in theses rarest of rare cases

shall have to prevail over the policy of

certainty of judgment as though it is

essentially in the public interest that

a final judgment of the final court in

the country should not be open to

challenge, yet there may be

circumstances, as mentioned above,

wherein declining to reconsider the

judgment would be oppressive to judicial

conscience and cause perpetuation of

irremediable injustice”. Para “50……the

court in Rupa Ashok Hurra had stated

that it was not possible to enumerate

all the grounds on which a curative

petition may be entertained. Para

“51…….A curative petition only be filed

under the following grounds: 1. Where

there is violation of principles of

Natural Justice in that the aggrieved

party filing a curative petition was not

a party to the lis but the judgment

adversely affected his interest or if he

was a party to the lis, he was not

served with notice of the proceedings

and the matter proceeded as if he had

notice. 2. Where in the proceedings a

learned judge failed to disclose his

connection with the subject matter or

the parties, giving scope for an

apprehension of bias and the judgment

adversely affects the petitioner”. Para

“52….the ‘curative petitioner’ must aver

specifically that the grounds mentioned

in the curative petition had been taken

in the review petition and that such

review had been dismissed by

circulation. A curative petition has to

include a certificate by a Senior

Advocate indicating that the same

grounds in the curative petitions had

also been taken in the review petition”.

It is further submitted that the

instances given in para 51 of the said

judgment are not exhaustive, which is

evident from the observation of the

court in para 50 itself wherein it was

observed that it was not possible to

exhaustively enumerate the instances

when a curative would lie. It is

submitted that the present case is a fit

case for exercise of curative powers by


B. In A.R. Antulay Vs R.S.Nayak

(1988)2 SCC 602, at para 48 this Court

has held:

We are of the opinion that this Court is

not powerless to correct its error which

has the effect of depriving a Citizen of

his Fundamental Rights and more so, the

right to life and liberty. It can do so

in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction

in any proceedings pending before it

without insisting on the formalities of

a review application. Powers of review

can be exercised in a petition filed

under Article 136 or Article 32 or under

any other provision of the Constitution

if the Court is satisfied that its

directions have resulted in the

deprivation of the Fundamental Rights of

a Citizen or any legal right of the

petitioner.

In Ramdeo Chauhan V. Banikanta Das

(2010) 14 SCC 209, at para 50, this

court held

50…..The assumption in the judgment

under review that there can be no

violation of a person’s human right by a

judgment of this court is possibly not

correct.

It is submitted that in light of the

continuous, irreparable harm to the

Fundamental Rights of millions of Senior

Citizen Women who are victim of the

rampant misuse of 498A and

malfunctioning of state apparatus, this

court ought to exercise its remedial

powers to ensure that the continuous

irremediable injustice is not

perpetrated.

C. It is humbly submitted that there

are serious and manifest errors on the

face of record which have led to grave

and irremediable injustice to Senior

Citizen Women, their families who are

victim of the rampant misuse of 498A and

malfunctioning of state apparatus which

would be oppressive to judicial

conscience and would affect public

confidence in the judiciary. Therefore,

the exercise of the inherent

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court would

be merited in the present case.

D. For that it would be equitable and

in the interest of justice that the

Order dated 21.10.2016 and 01.12.2016,

under curative in this petition, are

recalled and the case is decided on

merits otherwise grave prejudice shall

be caused to the curative petitioner

herein.

GROUNDS SHOWING IRREMEDIABLE INJUSTICE:

E. For that the order violates the

provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966

which was framed in exercise of the

powers conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution under ORDER XXXV.

F. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that Writ

petition involves questions pertaining to

the interpretation of the Constitution, the

Writ Petition is not liable to be dismissed

by a bench of less than five Judges?

G. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that it

has severely affected the administration of

Justice delivered by the Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi; way back in 2013 in favor of

petitioner.

H. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that there

is a sheer violation of Principle of

Natural Justice.

I. For that the order fails to take

into account voluminous evidence adduced

and substantive contentions urged by the

petitioner through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012,

SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013, Writ (C) 90 of 2016 and Writ

(Crl.) 136 of 2016 before this Hon’ble

Court.

J. That the final order of this

Hon’ble Court suffers from errors

apparent on the face of record,

resulting in grave miscarriage of

Justice.

K. Public Confidence in

administration of justice will be shaken

by reason of the association or

closeness of judge with the subject

matter of dispute; establish wrong

precedent of procedural Judicial

System, encourage malfunctioning of

the State Apparatus; weaken the

basic fabric of the institutions;

ignore constitutional priority; if

the order is permitted to stand

L. For that cure of this Order is

necessary as it ‘failed for the sake of

justice’.

M. For that cure of this Order is

necessary as it fails to protect the

interest of the neglected Senior Citizen

in the family.

N. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that if

Order is not being cured in constructive

manner than common man will be

discouraged and demotivated to save the

life of an old age person and aged

person will be neglected in the every

household. No one would try to save the

life of an aged person at the cost of

his or her life in the fast moving

material world.

O. For that cure of this Order is

necessary as it fails to preserve the

dignity of our holy Constitution as well

as the dignity of our Hon’ble Apex

Court.

P. For that cure of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will pass a wrong

message to the society that Hon’ble Apex

Court is in support of the

malfunctioning of State Apparatus and

against the protection of Fundamental

Rights of a common citizen.

Q. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that

there is a sheer violation of Human

Rights throughout the case from Ld.

Trial Court to the Hon’ble Apex Court.

R. For that cure of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will pass wrong

message to the petitioner that all

events have taken place against him

(since 2010 to till date, either in

Bihar or in Delhi) so far at the behest

of Hon’ble Apex Court.

S. For that cure of this Order is

necessary otherwise individual priority

will overshadow the Constitutional

priority?

T. For that cure of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will encourage

the morale of bad elements of state

Apparatus and weaken the basic fabric of

the institutions.

U. For that cure of this Order is


the morale of those who consider court

as their personal property.

V. That the matter is not an

individual as it is in the interest of

larger Public. Thus, power elite can

infringe the right to life or personal

liberty of a vulnerable common man or

woman and take them on hostage to make

them a bonded labour; can infringe the

right to live with dignity.

W. That the matter is a

constitutional as well. It is the

concern of all citizens. Thus, after

winning from one High Court one cannot

go to another High Court for the same

cause of action and for the same relief.

X. That the matter is also concern in

the interest of all Senior Citizen

Women.

Y. For that cure of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will weaken the

institution of marriage and encourage

the morale of those who are indulged in

the commercialization of marriage for

the lust of property and financial

gains.

Z. For that cure of this Order is


the rampant misuse of 498A in the

country.

AA. For that cure of this Order is

necessary otherwise it will not act as a

deterrent and make the women responsible

and accountable towards the Senior

Citizen disabled and ailing in-laws.

BB. For that cure of this Order is

necessary to give right direction to the

feminist movement in India.

CC. For that cure of this Order is

necessary to redefine the role of Women

Protection Officers in India down the

line.

DD. For that cure of this Order is

necessary to fix responsibility,

accountability and stern punitive action

against Women Protection Officer so that

the genuine victims get the benefit out

of it.

EE. For that cure of this Order is

necessary to stop the rampant misuse and

abuse of power by the Women Protection

Officers for their own vested interest

defeating the very purpose of the

institutional arrangements made under

the domestic violence Act 2005 for women

safety and empowerment those genuinely

victimized in the society.

FF. For that cure of this Order is

necessary to give guidelines to the

State Governments for appointment of the

qualitative & right candidates as Women

Protection Officers in the State.

GG. For that cure of this Order is

necessary to impart essential training

and build capacity of the Women

Protection Officers to develop a sense

of discrimination between genuine and

frivolous domestic violence to exercise

their power carefully and diligently to

ascertain the gravity of the affected

Women.

HH. For that cure of this Order is

necessary to break the hegemony of bad

elements of state Apparatus who want to

govern the mind and body of a common man

or woman.

II. For that the order fails to take

into account the face of records that

petitioner’s life is at stake and this

order will kill the petitioner no.01 and

02 slowly and silently.

8. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:

BECAUSE NEW AND IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AS GROUND BEING

IGNORED TO APPLY THE JUDICIAL REVIEW:



important evidence as ground which has been

laid down in the review petition criminal and

subsequently fails to apply judicial review on

its conclusions:

(i) For that this Order ought to be

cured as it fails to take into account new and

important evidence as ground.

(ii) That the petitioner has been

stopped and offended by the Registry,

Mentioning Officer and PRO by this Hon’ble

Court to mention the matter before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India on the ground of

provisions laid down in the handbook of this

Hon’ble Court. It is evident from an

application before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India for mentioning of fresh matter urgently

dated 3.10.2016 through R&I and Registry both

and subsequent suppression of the record by the

Registrar Section X as evident from certified

copy of Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 annexed herein as

annexure P-13; an application for urgent

mentioning of the matter before Hon’ble the

Chief Justice of India through Mentioning

officer of this Hon’ble Court dated

06.10.2016 without routing through the

registry as per the provisions laid down in

the handbook of this Hon’ble Court and

subsequent listing of matter before Court

no.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief Justice

of India’s Court on 07.10.2016 despite of

strong protest by the petitioner; order

dated 07.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble

Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016

that though the matter has been placed

before the court as mentioning item, the

petitioner submitted that he would like to

mention the matter before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India; Letter-Petition dated

08.10.2016 against mentioning officer of

this Hon’ble Court through R&I; Letter-

Petition dated 13.10.2016 against rampant

atrocities on Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent,

uneducated, OBC, voiceless, rural woman

through R&I; after an order dated 07.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 and upon request by the

petitioner, petitioner being called on

17.10.2016 for fresh mentioning of the matter

urgently before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India by the mentioning officer and being

harassed whole day from PRO to mentioning

officer and directly being refused by the

mentioning officer at the end of the day that

his role is over now; consequently, an

application was moved for listing this matter

before the constitution bench of seven Judges

vide diary no. 77878 dated 18.10.2016 in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; office report

dated 20.10.2016 neither being uploaded at the

website in public domain nor being supplied to

the petitioner even after several reminders

orally and through email dated 27.10.2016 to

the Registrar, Section X; application for the

certified copy of the same was made on

28.10.2016 with an application registration no.

A1-32350/2016 vide diary no. PC-732 and

received the certified copy of same on


2016 is annexed herein as Annexure P-13; all

evidences have been placed on record with

this curative Petition Criminal and are

annexed herein as Annexures P-8 to P-9 and P-

11 to P-13.

(iii) That the petitioner who approached

this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India for enforcement of his

guaranteed Fundamental Right being subjected to

gross violation of Human Rights; and gross

violation of provisions, procedure and practice

of this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the

handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the Quasi-

Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) That a well-designed criminal

conspiracy being commissioned and strategy

being adopted against the petitioner by the

Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble Court to

spoil the valid ground of the Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 and make it liable to be

dismissed with liberty by this Hon’ble Court

and to close the door of the Hon’ble Apex Court

under Article 32 for enforcement of guaranteed

fundamental right of the petitioner under

Article 21.

9. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DISREGARDED PAST PRECEDENT IN

SAFEGUARDING AND UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL

PRINCIPLES AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: QUANTUM OF

AFFECTED PERSON AS GROUND FOR UPHOLDING

CONSTITUTIONALITY BEING IGNORED


fails to take into account the following past

precedents as ground to safeguard the

fundamental rights of the petitioner and uphold

the constitutional principles, which has been

laid down in the review petition, and

subsequently fails to apply judicial review on

its conclusions:

a. For that this Hon’ble Court has

held in the case of RK Dalmia vs Justice SR

Tendolkar [AIR 1958 SC 538](noted by this

Hon’ble Court in the impugned judgment) that:

“….a law may be constitutional even though

it relates to a single individual if, on

account of some special circumstances or

reasons applicable to him and not

applicable to others, that single

individual may be treated as a class by

himself”

b. The aforementioned principle has

inter alia been followed by a bench of this

Hon’ble Court in Ashok Thakur vs Union of India

[2008)6 SCC 1], wherein the court held that

even when it notices that “…..even one

individual’s freedom has been curtailed, this

court is duty-bound to entertain his or her

claim.” However, the order dated 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court has failed to apply this

principle to the Petitioner no.01 & 02 affected

by the malfunctioning of the state apparatus

down the line.

10. That the justice delivery system

of the country is such that in spite of

noticing a breach of public interest with a

corresponding social ramification, court

maintains delightful silence. However, this

Hon’ble Court has never maintained a

delightful silence with a blind eye and deaf

ear to the cry of a society in general or even

that of a litigant on the ground of finality

of an Order as passed by this Hon’ble Court.

11. That the Order dated 01.12.2016

and 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court implies a

closed door of this Hon’ble Court for the

petitioner and depicts that the same stands in

violation of natural justice adversely and

seriously affecting the rights of the

petitioner or the same depicts manifest

injustice rendering the order a mockery of

justice which causes insurmountable difficulty

and immense public injury. Hence, the

principle of concept of justice, ex debito

justitiae may play a pivotal role in curing

the order of the present curative petition

criminal.

12. The present curative petition is

being filed to avoid grave miscarriage of

justice to millions of Senior Citizen Women in-

Laws who have been victimized and aggrieved by

the order dated 01.12.2016 and 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court and have been put on risk of

rampant atrocities by the malfunctioning of

State Apparatus after the closure of the matter

by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, upon

rampant misuse of 498A across India.

13. It is submitted that no new

grounds have been taken in this Curative

Petition and all the grounds mentioned

therein had been taken in the Review

Petition which was dismissed by

circulation.

14. It is submitted that the

Certificate dated 09.12.2016 by Mr. Om

Prakash, Petitioner-In-Person that the

Curative Petition fulfils the requirements as

per the guidelines laid down in Rupa Ashok

Hurra Vs Ashok Hurra 2002 (4) SCC 388.

15. It is further submitted that the

Certificate by Sr. Advocate has not been filed

by the petitioner because of the valid and

unavoidable reasons which has been caused by

this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner has been

pushed into the Curative stage intentionally

by this Hon’ble Court to close the door of

this Hon’ble Court for the petitioner no.01

and 02 in the garb of certificate by Sr.

Advocate, as the petitioner had refused to

engage any legal Aid Advocate against this

matter in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.

The mentioning officer of this Hon’ble Court

has stopped the petitioner no.02 who was

eligible to mention the matter before Hon’ble

the Chief Justice of India’s court and

Registry has circulated unregistered

Interlocutory Application for constitution

bench dated 18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878 in

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016. Further

Registry has suppressed the record of

application dated 03.10.2016 for urgent

mentioning of the matter and urgent relief

sought before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India filed by the petitioner on behalf of

petitioner no.02 as per the guidelines and

grounds laid down in the Handbook of this

Hon’ble Court. Registry did not surrender the

file before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India’s Court which has been disclosed through

certified copy of the office report dated


2016. Hence, Mentioning Officer and Registry

both have spoiled the valid ground of

Constitution bench and mentioning the matter

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s

Court to make it liable to be dismissed with

liberty by the two judge bench violating the

Order XXXV of Supreme Court Rule 1966. In

other words, petitioner has been pushed into

the Curative stage intentionally by this

Hon’ble Court to close the door of this

Hon’ble Court for the petitioner no.01 and 02

in the garb of certificate by Sr. Advocate, as

the petitioner had refused to engage any legal

Aid Advocate against this matter in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016; which has

resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. In

view of the above mentioned circumstances,

Petitioner no. 01 and 02 has been left with no

option but to survive or may not survive at

the mercy of the GOD.

16. That no other Curative Petition

against the said orders dated 01.12.2016 and

21.10.2016 has been filed.

17. That the applicant has a good

prima facie case of curative criminal against

the Order dated 01.12.2016 and 21.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court in Review

Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 and Writ


18. Hence, it is prayed that the

present Curative Petition Criminal be allowed.

-:PRAYER:-

In the above premises, it is prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

(i) To Set aside and recall the judgment

and order dated 21.10.2016 in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 and

the order dated 01.12.2016 in Review


(ii) To pass such other orders and

further orders as may be deemed

necessary on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER

SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

DRAWN & FILED BY:


OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 09.12.2016.

Diary No : 41026




IN


IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITON NO.136 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ……….PETITIONER

VERSUS


AFFIDAVIT

I, Om Prakash S/o Late Deep Narayan Poddar, aged 42

years, R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar

Part-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, 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 Curative

Petition Criminal [para 1 to 18.], [Page 01 to

92] and Synopsis and List of Dates (Page A to

K’], and I, As. having understood the contents

thereof I say that the facts state therein are

correct which are based on the official record.

3. That the Curative Petition Criminal Paper Book

contains total 220 pages.’

4. That the annexures are true copies of their

respective originals.

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 9th day of

December, 2016.

DEPONENT




IN


(Decided on 01.12.2016)

IN


(Decided on 21.10.2016)

[Arising out of the final Order dated 21.10.2016

passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 136 of 2016 read with the Order

dated 01.12.2016 passed in Review Petition Criminal

825 of 2016 by this Hon’ble Court therein.]

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ……….PETITIONER

VERSUS


BETWEEN




Raj Nagar Part-2,

Palam Colony

New Delhi-110077



R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS





Bihar-855114

VERSUES





High Court,

Through


Patna High Court

Patna-800028


Through Ld. CJM

Begusarai, Bihar


at Begusarai, Bihar





CERTIFICATE

1. That having gone through the Order and

records mentioned hereinabove as also the

law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in case

of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok Hurra & Anr.

Reported in (2002) 4 SCC 388 and para 42,

49 to 52 thereof in particular, I certify

that:-

A. That I have gone through the

Curative Petition Criminal/Review;

Petition Criminal; the Writ Petition

Criminal; the Writ Petition Civil 90

of 2016; SLP(C)19073 of 2013; SLP

(C)9483 of 2013; SLP (C)9854 of 2012;

of this Hon’ble Court; MAT.APPL. 7 of

2012 of High Court of Delhi;

complaint case 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of

domestic violence Act with N.B.W

dated 25.08.2010 under CJM division

Begusarai which has been closed; and

complaint case 5591 of 2013 u/s 498A

which is pending before CJM division

Begusarai Bihar and has been

disclosed through RTI reply dated

27.08.2016 by CJM-cum-PIO with an

N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83

Cr.Pc.; and the judgments and the

orders dated 01.12.2016; 21.10.2016;

18.04.2016; 05.07.2013; 01.04.2013;

23.04.2012; 23.07.2013; 04.04.2011;

and 26.08.2016 respectively passed

therein. I have also gone through the

pleadings, grounds and the other

relevant records connected with this

petition.

B. That the present Curative Petition

seeks to prevent the abuse of the

court process and to cure a gross

miscarriage of Justice as is obvious

from the grounds set out in the

Curative Petition Criminal against

the Order dated 01.12.2016 whereby

the Review Petition Criminal has been

dismissed by circulation upholding

its order dated 21.10.2016 in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016;

whereby and where it has directed the

petitioner to approach Patna High

Court with liberty.

C. That the Order dated 01.12.2016 in


does not give any reasons and

justification on what ground

petitioner should approach Patna High

Court with liberty which has resulted

in oppressive to judicial conscience

and has shocked judicial conscience

by its failure to give reasons for

its conclusion.

D. That the Order dated 01.12.2016 in


has violated the third principles of

Natural Justice by way of not giving

reasons for its conclusions against

the contentions raised regarding

violation of Article 21 of the

Constitution by the bad elements of

State Apparatus those have been given

license to preserve, protect and

adhere the Rule of Law. Above the

knee amputee father of the petitioner

no.01 and husband of petitioner no.

02 who was passing urine and stool

through catheter has been encircled

to death untimely in 2007. The oxygen

dependent mother and petitioner

no.02, who is dependent on unemployed

petitioner no.01 only and residing on

rented accommodation in Delhi, has

been encircled in the same manner and

has been put on risk of rampant

misuse of 498A by the abuse of court

process, likely to be subjected to

death. The flame of the funeral of the

petitioner’s father has not extinguished

till date and still flaming in the mind

of the petitioner will be added by the

flame of the funeral of the petitioner’s

mother. The petitioner’s written

submissions contain these averments with

material evidence in pages 6 to 8(para

vii to xi) in Review Petition Criminal

825 of 2016. The house of the petitioner

no.02 has been turned into Public

toilets with Posters by the elected PRI

leader with the consent of SP Katihar

w.e.f 28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016 without

the permission of the petitioner no.02

violating the Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. The petitioner’s

written submissions contain these

averments with material evidence in page

19 (para xxxiii) in Review Petition

Criminal 825 of 2016 and in page 39

(para 1 sub para xxxiii and Annexure P-1

to P-5) in Curative Petition Criminal.

Hence, the matter is full of

bloodshed, will remain in bloodshed

and will end in bloodshed.

Eventually, the natural question

arises herein in the mind of every

common citizen, as to why then,

people should resort to courts and

not to arms? Nevertheless, the

principles of Natural Justice mandate

that every order of a court should be

speaking order and there is an

obligation on all courts to give

reasons for their conclusion.

E. That it is averred in para 13 that

no new grounds have been taken in

this Curative Petition and all the

grounds mentioned therein had been

taken in the Review Petition which

was dismissed by circulation. I find

these averments to be correct. I also

find from the contents of the

Curative Petition that it fulfils the

requirements of para 42, 49, 50, 51

and 52 of the judgment of this

Hon’ble Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s

Case (Supra).

F. That the final Order dated 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court violates the Part IV

of ORDER XXXV of Supreme Court Rules,

1966 which was framed in exercise of the

powers conferred by Article 145 of the

Constitution. Provision of the Part IV

of Order XXXV of Supreme Court Rules,

1966 says, “1.(1) Every petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution shall be

in writing and shall be heard by a

Division Court of not less than five

Judges provided that a petition which

does not raise a substantial question of

Law as to the interpretation of the

Constitution may be heard and decided by

a Division Court of less than five


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.”

G. That it is averred in para no. 1 to

7 of the Curative Petition Criminal

that ‘two States jurisdiction for the

same cause of action and

interpretation of the Constitution’

grounds have been taken in the Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 which

has been incorrectly dismissed by the

two Judges bench of this Hon’ble

Court. I certify that these averments

to be correct. I also find from the

contents of the Curative Petition

that it fulfills the requirement of

the law laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra

vs Ashok Hurra & Anr and as per the

rules made under Article 145 by this

Hon’ble Court under the Supreme Court

Rules, 1966.

H. That it is averred in para no. 8 of

the Curative Petition Criminal that

new and important grounds have been

taken and corresponding evidences have

been placed on record. I certify that

these averments to be correct and the

same grounds have been taken as new

ground in the review petition as

well. I also find from the contents

of the Curative Petition that it

fulfills the requirement of the law

laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs

Ashok Hurra & Anr.

I. That from the perusal of Order and

the records I find that N.B.W dated


been issued and kept it secret and


27.08.2016 by Ld. CJM cum PIO,

Begusarai, Bihar against the

petitioner no.02, a Senior Citizen,

Oxygen dependent woman, dependent

upon petitioner no.01 after the


Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which has

been totally ignored by the bias

judgment of this Hon’ble Court and

has been put on risk of rampant abuse

of court process infringing the

principles of Natural Justice,

resulting in suspension of life or

personal liberty. I also find that

the petitioner has not been heard

properly and the final order suffers

from ‘likelihood of bias’, adversely

affecting the life or personal liberty

of the petitioner which contains

material and apparent errors in passing

directions to the petitioner to approach

Patna High Court.

J. That the Petitioner had raised

‘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 Criminal 136 of 2016,

pleadings/arguments and through written

submission followed by interlocutory

application for constitution bench on

18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878.

K. That the Writ Petition Criminal

and Review Petition Criminal, which have

been dismissed by the Order, against

which Curative Petition is hereby moved,

did raise ‘substantial question of law

as to the interpretation of the

Constitution and this Hon’ble Court was

not required to decide any

‘interlocutory and miscellaneous

application’ ‘connected with the

petition’.

L. That Article 21 of the

Constitution protects an individual’s

right to autonomy, liberty, basing this

submission on the jurisprudence of this

Hon’ble Court. The petitioner’s written

submissions contain these averments in

pages 15 to 17(para xxvii to xxix); page

27, (para L, M, N); Page 31, (para W,

X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34(para

BB) and pages 50 to 57 where

clarification has been sought by the

registrar dated 07.09.2016 in Writ


M. That petitioner no.01 and 02

cannot remain live or sustain their life

in any state of India if the Hon’ble

Apex Court does not invoke its inherent

power under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India to enforce

fundamental rights of the petitioner

under Article 21 of Constitution of

India. The petitioner’s written

submissions contain these averments in

page 29(para l); page 47 (para FF) and

its reasons in page 16 to 29 (para xxvii

to l) in Review Petition Criminal 825 of

2016.

N. That the direction mentioned in the body

of the order dated 21.10.2016 shows that

the clauses of prayers mentioned in the

Writ Criminal 136 of 2016 have not been

taken care of; and this Hon’ble Court

incorrectly directs the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court, which has

resulted in gross miscarriage of

justice.

O. Article 32 confers a guaranteed

fundamental remedy but Article 226

confers no such guaranteed rights. This

state of affairs makes Article 32 a

dominant and specific provision whereas

Article 136 or Article 226 are, in the

context of the enforcement of the

fundamental rights, clearly general and

additional.

P. That the order stood in breach of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

to say in other words, this Right was

not protected by this Hon’ble Court.

Q. That as a point of our Constitutional

law that if there is breach or non-

protection by any organ of the state,

which includes Judiciary also, remedy

under Article 32 is to be granted as a

matter of course; and to examine the

petitioner’s contentions to appreciate

if the Case presented deserves the grant

of such a Remedy on its merits.

R. That there is sufficient reason to

set aside the Order of this Hon’ble

Court as it contains material and

apparent errors in passing directions to

the petitioner to approach Patna High

Court.

S. That the Order of this Hon’ble Court

incorrectly directs the petitioner to

approach Patna High Court and put on the

risk of rampant abuse of court process,

which has resulted in gross miscarriage

of justice.

T. That the petitioner has approached this

Hon’ble Court against the malfunctioning

of State Apparatus affecting the

administration of justice after the

settlement of the matter by the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi and against the

gross violation of Human Rights

throughout the case by the bad elements

of state Apparatus in two States.

U. That the petitioner who approached this

Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India for enforcement of

his guaranteed Fundamental Right being

subjected to gross violation of Human

Rights; and gross violation of

provisions, procedure and practice of

this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the

handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the

Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble

Court. The evidences have been placed on

record with this Curative petition and

are annexed herein as Annexure P-8 to P-

9 and Annexure P-11 to P-13.

V. That the Public Confidence in

administration of justice will be shaken





System, encourage malfunctioning of

the State Apparatus; weaken the

basic fabric of the institutions;

ignore constitutional priority; if

the order is permitted to stand. The

petitioner’s written submissions contain

grounds against these averments in page

39 to 53(para 7 to 12) in Review


W. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of

this Hon’ble Court implies a closed door

of this Hon’ble Court for the petitioner

and depicts that the same stands in

violation of natural justice adversely

and seriously affecting the rights of

the petitioner or the same depicts

manifest injustice rendering the order a

mockery of justice which causes

insurmountable difficulty and immense

public injury. The petitioner’s written

submissions contains new and important

evidence as grounds against these

averments in page 47 to 50(para 8) in

Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016.

X. The present curative petition is being

filed to avoid grave miscarriage of

justice to millions of Senior Citizen

Women in- Laws who have been victimized

and aggrieved by the order dated

21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court and

have been put on risk of rampant

atrocities by the malfunctioning of

State Apparatus after the closure of the

matter by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi, upon rampant misuse of 498A

across India. The petitioner’s written

submissions contains grounds against

these averments in page 41 to 50(ground

J, K, T, U, and X) in Review Petition


Y. That the final order has totally

overlooked the abuse of court process by

the Women Protection Officers across

India which has derailed the basic

objective of feminist movement in India

from women empowerment to women

criminalization. The petitioner’s

written submissions contains grounds

against these averments in page 45 to

50(ground Y, Z, AA, BB, CC and DD) in


Z. That the final order has totally

overlooked the contentions of the

petitioner that the abuse of court

process has been rampantly used as a

weapon by the bad elements of State

Apparatus across India for their own

vested interest in weakening the

institution of marriage and encouraging

the morale of those who are indulged in

the commercialization of marriage for

the lust of property and financial

gains. The petitioner’s written

submissions contains these averments in

page 5 to 29( para 1 sub para iii to l);

page 29 to 31( para 2 sub para a to e);

page 32 (para 3 sub para a); page 32 to

34( para 4 sub para 1, 2, a, b, c and

d); page 35 to 37( para 5 sub para I,

II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII); page

37 to 39( para 6 sub para a, b, c, d and

e); page 39 to 47( para 7, ground A to

FF); page 47 to 50( para 8, New Grounds

(i) to (iv)); page 51( para 9, quantum

of affected person as Grounds a and b)

and page 52 to 53(para 10 to 12) in


AA. That in the above backdrop, a gross

miscarriage of justice including the

violation of principle of natural

justice has taken place in this case.

BB. That these facts constitute sufficient

reasons to entertain this petition to

set aside the final Order dated

21.10.2016 which has arisen out of

dismissing Review Petition (Criminal)

825 of 2016 passed by this Hon’ble

Court.

CERTIFIED ACCORDINGLY

DRAWN & FILED BY:


OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 09.12.2016.

Annexure P-1

Date: 03.03.2016

To,

The Superintendent of Police (SP)

Katihar, Bihar

Sub: Complaint against installation of Public tube

well inside the house premise of Widow Asha Rani

Devi & Mr. Om Prakash Poddar, R/O Shukkar Hatt,

Durga Sthan, Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar without their

information by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, Mukhiya,

Kantiya Panchayat.

Sir,

Complainant is S/O Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar,

the permanent resident of Shukkar Hatt, Durga

Sthan, Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar, Bihar-855114.

Complainant is presently residing in New Delhi.

Complainant came to know that his house has been

ransomed and Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, Mukhiya of

Kantiya Panchayat has installed a public tube well

inside the premises of Complainant's resident

without his prior permission.

On the ground of this information I telephoned

(09431284332) to Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, Mukhiya of

Kantiya, Sonaili, Kadwa, Katihar at 9:38 AM on

03.03.2016.

In response to the telephone call, Mr. Bubna took

the responsibility of the above mentioned work.

When I asked why he did not take prior permission

from the owner of that property, Mrs. Asha Rani

Devi and her son Mr. Om Prakash Poddar; he replied

that he does not take permission for this petty

thing and he has installed this public tube well

for the public cause. When I asked that on what

ground Mukhiya can take this decision to install a

public tube well inside the premises of private

property without the consent of owner of that

property, he replied that he has got discretion to

do so. He also fearlessly asked me to complaint

against him to SP, Katihar, as police is his

political master.

His other family members, Mr. Vishwanath Bubna,

Shyamar Bubna and Bunty Bubna (Petrol Pump Owner)

are already on your record, vide complaint dated

07.04.2011, dated 16.07.2011, dated 03.08.2011,

dated 29.09.2011, dated 31.12,2012. They have

killed my handicapped father in 2007.

Since 2004, these Bubna families are behind my

family as per the previous police record.

Complaint has already been faxed and emailed to

S.P. Katihar on 03.03.2016.

Kindly take the cognizance of this criminal offence

as Mr. Bubna is planning to usurp my property.

With Best Regards,

Om Prakash Poddar

Complainant

RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg,

Raj Nagar, Part-2

Palam Colony, New Delhi-110077

Mob: 9968337815

E-mail:[email protected]

Annexure: P-2

POSTER WITH TEXT “TOILET FOR FEMALES” PASTED AT THE

ENTRY GATE OF HOUSE PORTION

POSTER WITH TEXT “TOILET FOR MALES” HANGED IN THE

MIDDLE OF HOUSE PORTION

TUBE BO INSTTALLATION OF TUBE-WELL WITHOUT PERMISSION OF

PETITIONER NO.02 BY ELECTED PRI LEADER WITH THE

CONSENT OF SP KATIHAR W.E.F 28.02.2016 TO

05.03.2016

PUBLIC TUBE-WELL PORTION

DAMAGE OF COCONUNT TREE PORTION

PUBLIC TOILET FOR FEMALE PORTION

ANNEXURE P-3

Letter No. 358/J.SHI.KO

OFFFICE OF SUPRENTENDENT OF POLICE, KATIHAR

From,

Superintendent of Police,

Katihar

To,

In-charge

Janta Darbar Cell

Police Head Quarter

Bihar, Patna

Katihar dated 07.05.2016

Ref: Your letter no.80/J.SHI.KO(PU.MU.)dated

28.03.2016 and reference to 999990303160113

Sub: Copy of investigation inquiry report against

application of applicant Om Prakash Poddar S/O Late

Shri Deep Narayan Poddar R/O Asha Deep Niwas,

Shukkar Hatt, Sonaili, P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar-

reg.

Sir,

Application of applicant Om Prakash Poddar S/O Late

Shri Deep Narayan Poddar R/O Asha Deep Niwas,

Shukkar Hatt, Sonaili, P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar is

being investigated by DSP Barsoi. After the

competition of investigation conducted by DSP

Barsoi, a copy of inquiry report received from DSP

Barsoi vide letter no. 874/16 dated 02.05.2016

which is self-explanatory. A copy of inquiry report

is sending for your perusal.

Enclosure: As above

Yours faithfully

SP Katihar

Copy to:-

A copy of inquiry report to In-charge PS Kadwa for

information and necessary action please. He should

supply the copy of inquiry report to the applicant

with receipt of the same.

File No.874/16 DSP OFFICE BARSOI

Katihar dated 02.05.2016

To,

SP Katihar

Ref: Office of SP File No.997/J.SHI.KO dated

09.04.2016, File No.1095/ J.SHI.KO dated 20.04.2016

and In-charge Janta Darbar Cell, Police Head

Quarter, Bihar, Patna vide letter no.

80/J.SHI.KO(PU.MU.) dated 28.03.2016 and reference

no. 999990303160113

Sub: Inquiry of application of applicant Om Prakash

Poddar S/O Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar R/O Asha

Deep Niwas Shukkar Haat Sonaili P.S. Kadwa District

Katihar-reg.

Sir,

Application of applicant with reference to the

above mentioned reference and subject has been

received. He has alleged in his application for

breaking of entry gate of his house by Mr. Bihari

Lal Bubna, installation of toilets for male and

female, installation of tube-well, damage of

coconut tree without permission, religious

gathering “Bhagwat” w.e.f 28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016

in front of his house.

Allegations have been inquired on the spot on

17.04.2016.

Applicant Om Prakash Poddar S/O Late Shri Deep

Narayan Poddar R/O Asha Deep Niwas, Shukkar Haat,

Durga Sthan, PS Kadwa District Katihar is residing

in Delhi.

Pappu Poddar S/O Shri Ramanand Poddar R/O Shukkar

Haat, Sonaili, PS Kadwa, District Katihar stated

that Om Prakash Poddar alias Pappu Poddar S/O Late

Shri Deep Narayan Poddar R/O Shukkar Haat Durga

Sthan is working with NGO in Delhi. He has gone

Delhi before six months. No body stays at home.

House is locked, no one stays here. Allegations are

out of without any dispute. It is true that Durga

Mandir is nearby his house. Religious ‘Geetha

Speech’ was organized publically. Entry of the

House is without gate. Some male and females were

entering into the premises for washing hands at the

tub well considering it an empty place. Premises of

the house was empty therefore tube-well being

installed with the permission of his maternal uncle

which had been uninstalled after the finish of the

religious function. Coconut tree is old which is

still there.

Pramod Poddar, age 45 years, S/O Late Deep Lal

Poddar R/O Shukkar Haat, Sonaili 02. Kishore Gupta

age 38 years S/O Shri Kishun Prasad Gupta 03.

Chhottu Kumar Sahni age 28 years S/O Late Seeya Lal

Sahni 04. Anil Gupta Sahni S/O Shri Suresh Sahni

05.Vijay Sahni S/O Late Fagu Sahni 06. Being

interacted and examined separately and recorded

their statement that w.e.f 28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016

a religious function called “Bhagwat” was going on

in front of Durga Sthan. Only tube-well was

installed at the empty places due to gateless entry

of the house with the permission of Shri Leelanand

Poddar maternal uncle of Om Prakash Poddar during

the period of religious functions and was

uninstalled after the end of the religious

functions. There are no damage other than this.

Allegations have been exaggerated in the

application.

Find enclosed the application of the applicant.

Submitted for your information please.

Enclosure: As above

(Chandrika Prasad)

DSP Barsoi, Katihar

Annexure: P-4

Complaint Number [999990303160113]

Received At Office: CMSEC / CM SECRETARIAT

Currently At Office: SP KATIHAR

Status: Pending

Department: Home

Petition History

CMSEC:

Status : Pending

Date: 20160304

Reply: The responsible authority is hereby

requested to look into the matter and do needful.

Deadline set for is 14 days.

Status: Disposed

Date: 20160507

Reply: inquiry report

File uploaded in this reply is 0303160113.pdf

CMSEC:

Status: Pending

Date: 20160517

Rejoinder:

Dissatisfaction with Complaint is registered on pub

lic site at 20160517T12:24:55+05:30 from IP Addre

ss 106.67.107.100.

Comments Entered:

Police report is fabricated and false. Witnesses ar

e influenced.

The posters with text Toilets for female at the ent

ry gate and posters withtext Toilets for male in th

e middle of the building were pasted.

I have not authorized anyone as a local guardian fo

r the building. I havenot handed over my house key

to anyone. How can anyone give permissionexcept me.

Mukhiya is my neighbor just 3 house besideds my hou

se. He

knows everything that I am reeling under criminal c

onspiracy since 12years. Out of that I have lost my

father untimely in 2007. Mukhiya knowsthat I have n

ot given my house key to anyone. He has admitted ov

ertelephone on 03.03.2016. Hence, police has protec

ted the heinous act andcriminal trespass of Mukhiya

Bihari lal bubna.

Witnesses have been influenced and bought.

I have got the material evidence of photographs aga

inst my complaints andallegations which has been se

nt by the villagers on 05.03.2016.

Coconut tree has been damaged it is evident. But Po

lice says nothing hasbeen done. Police report says

complaint has been exaggerated by thecomplainant.

Absolutely false and fabricated report by the polic

e because it has beendone with the consent of polic

e.

There was heavy deployment of police in front of my

house which happensto be the venue of the religiou

s functions and gathering. It was more than10 lakhs

budgeted programme for 7 days.

I have faxed the complaint to SP Katihar on 03.03.2

016 but he did notorder for removal of the posters

and public toilets till 06.03.2016.

The photographs have been sent dated 5th and 6th Ma

rch by the villagersthrough Whatts up.

On the ground of this material evidence I had made

SP Katihar as a partybefore Supreme Court of India

in WRIT CIVIL 90 OF 2016.

Reply:

Document Size Date

0303160113.pdf 410360 20160507 17:01:58

Annexure: P-5

ABOVE THE KNEE AMPUTEE HEADMASTER FATHER OF THE

PETITIONER NO.01 IN THIS CURATIVE PETITION CRIMINAL

LATE SHRI DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR

(1939-2007)& (VICTIM NO.01)

OXYGEN DEPENDENT WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI (1946-TILL

DATE)& WIFE OF LATE SHRI DEEP NARAYAN PODDAR &

PETITIONER NO.02 IN THIS CURATIVE PETITION CRIMINAL

& (VICTIM NO.02)

VICTIM NO.02

VICTIM NO.02

VICTIM NO.02

LlL

Oo

Annexure: P-6


COURT COMPLAINT AGAINST CJM COURT, DISTRICT

BEGUSARAI IN BIHAR

CASE.No. 9P/2010 & 5591/2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

RINA KUMARI …………COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. OM PRAKASH PODDAR

2. WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI ….RESPONDENT

POSITION OF THE PARITES

BEFORE THE CJM COURT OF DISTRICT COURT AT

BEGUSARAI, BIHAR.

N.D.O.H:26.08.2016

BETWEEN

RINA KUMARI ………COMPLAINANT

D/O Surender Narayan Poddar

R/O RC Marketing Division

Indian Oil Corporation

Barauni Refinery,

P.S Barauni, Distt. Begusarai

Bihar

VERSUES

9. Shri Om Prakash Poddar …….RESPONDENT NO.01


R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony

New Delhi-110077

10. Widow Asha Rani Devi …….RESPONDENT

NO.02

M/o Om Prakash Poddar

Asha Deep Niwas

Shukkar Haat, Durga Mandir

Vill-Sonaili, P.S. Kadwa

Distt. Katihar, Bihar-855114

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 340 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973 AGAINST OFFENCES AFFECTING THE

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

To

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India,

Supreme Court of India.

The court complaint Petition of the

respondent most respectfully showeth :-

1. That the respondent has won the

case No. MAT. APP. 7/2012 by the High Court of

Delhi on the ground of certified copies of

Begusarai Court vide Case No.9P/2010 filed

against case no. HMA-700/2010 at Trial Court,

Dwarka Court at New Delhi.

2. That the complainant has appeared before Trial

Court in case no. HMA-700/2010 on 09.02.2011

and supplied the certified copy of case no.

9P/2010 and did not supply the copy of criminal

case no. 397C/ 2011 u/s 498A/323 of IPC and u/s

3/4 of D.P Act which converted into new CIS no.

5591/2013 filing date 7.2.2011 and first

hearing date 05.12.2013 and managed to continue

to take court dates since 7.2.2011 to till date

without the knowledge of respondents and did

not file written statement (WS) before Trial

Court at New Delhi and did not join High Court

of Delhi in case no. MAT. APPL. 7/2012 even

after receipt of service Notice which is on the

Supreme Court Record with SLP(C) no.

19073/2013.

3. That it is also on the Supreme Court Record

with SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.

9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 and Writ (C)

90 of 2016.

4. That respondent sought information on 01.03.

2016 against updation of case Status/Judgment

Data against case no. 9P/2010 through system

officer Begusarai under the intimation of

cpc[email protected] and [email protected].

5. That the information sought by the respondent

against case no. 9P/2010 and information

supplied by the Begusarai district court on

01.03.2016 against the complaint case no.

397C/2011 New CIS generated computerized

no.5591/2013, filing no.11329/2013, filing date

07.02.2011, registration no.5591/2013,

registration date 07.02.2011, case code

214200113292013 and first hearing date

05.12.2013.

6. That it also violates the directions of Hon’ble

Supreme Court which has been laid down in the

case of Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar in Cr

APP No. 1277 of 2014.

7. That the matter pertains to life or personal

liberty and freedom of movement across the

Indian Territory by the respondent no.01 and

02. It is needless to say here that for the

first time, this year; the respondents being

mailto:cpc[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

compelled to cancel their routine annual home

visit on the eve of Durga Puja.

QUESTION OF LAWS ARISES AGAINST CJM COURT:

1. Why notice of appearance not being served on

the accused within two weeks from the date of

institutions of case on 07.02.2011?

2. Why Magistrate did not order for arrest of the

accused since 5 years from the institutions of

case on 07.02.2011 to till date?

3. Why accused not being charge sheeted since 5

years from the institutions of case on

07.02.2011 to till date?

4. Why date of first hearing has been fixed on

05.12.2013 after two and half years of

institution of case on 07.02.2011?

5. Why district court Begusarai supplied the

information against case no 5591/2013 while

the information was sought by the respondent

against the case no 9P/2010?

6. What is the correlation between case no.

9P/2010 and Case No.5591/2013?

7. Why Magistrate did not take the cognizance of

replication and cancellation of NBW filed by

the respondent against the case no.9P/2010

through his advocate on 03.03.2011 wherein it

has been clearly mentioned that the

complainant has appeared before the Trial

Court in case no HMA-700/2010 at New Delhi and

has intentionally concealed this material fact

from this court?

8. Why Magistrate did not order/direct the

complainant to pursue the HMA-700/2010 where

she has already appeared on 09.02.2011 at New

Delhi because the jurisdiction of the case

falls within the South West district of Delhi?

9. Why no FIR, no written statement (WS) by the

client of women protection officer before the

Trial Court at New Delhi, no appearance by the


High Court of Delhi, yet frivolous criminal

cases are continuing for the same cause of

action in another state even after the

settlement by the High Court of Delhi in the

case No. MAT. APPL. 7/2012 on 23.07.2013?

QUESTION OF LAWS ARISES AGAINST WOMEN PROTECTION

OFFICER & HER ADVOCATE HUSBAND GOPAL KUMAR:

1. On what ground women protection officer filed

frivolous criminal case no. 9P/2010 and case

no. 5591/2013 without police diary after a gap

of 6 years from the date of occurrence on 24th

June 2004?

2. On what ground the husband of women protection

officer, Advocate Gopal Kumar, district court

Begusarai (Reg. No. 836/1991) managed to get

issued a frivolous NBW through SP Begusarai

against the respondent no.01 and his ailing

mother after a gap of 6 years which has

resulted in finishing their whole family life?

3. Why the client of protection officer concealed

the material fact from the Begusarai Court that

she is already in receipt of Notice against case

no. 700/2010 of HMA by Dwarka Court at New Delhi

which is evident from the order sheet dated

18.11.2010, 23.12.2010 and 13.01.2011 of

Begusarai Court in case no. 9P/2010?

4. Why the client of protection officer concealed

the material fact from the Begusarai Court that

she has appeared against case no. 700/2010 of HMA

before Dwarka Court at New Delhi on 09.02.2011

which is evident from the order sheet dated

22.02.2011 of Begusarai Court in case no.

9P/2010?

5. Why the client of protection officer appeared

against case no. 700/2010 of HMA before Dwarka

Court at New Delhi on 09.02.2011 after filing

criminal case no. 397C/ 2011 on 7.2.2011 u/s 498A

which converted into new CIS no. 5591/2013?

6. Why the client of women protection officer who

appeared before Trial Court at New Delhi in case

no. HMA-700/2010 on 09.02.2011 supplied the copy

of case no.9P/2010 and did not supply the copy of

criminal case no. 397C/ 2011 which was concealed

intentionally, which converted into new CIS no.

5591/2013 filing date 7.2.2011 and managed to

continue to take court dates since 7.2.2011 to

till date without the knowledge of respondents

and did not file written statement (WS) before

Trial Court at New Delhi and did not join High

Court of Delhi in case no. MAT. APPL. 7/2012 even

after receipt of service Notice which is on the

Supreme Court Record with SLP(C) no. 19073/2013.

7. What is the correlation between case no. 9P/2010

and Case No. 97C/ 2011 converted into new CIS no.

5591/2013?

8. Why no FIR, no written statement (WS) by the


Trial Court at New Delhi, no appearance by the


High Court of Delhi, yet frivolous criminal cases

are continuing for the same cause of action in

another state even after the settlement by the

High Court of Delhi in the case No. MAT. APPL.

7/2012 on 23.07.2013?

9. What departmental action has been taken against

the women protection officer Ms. Veena Kumari and

her husband, Advocate Mr. Gopal Kumar (Reg. No.

836/1991) for instituting frivolous litigations

Case no. 9P/2010 & 5591/2013 before CJM Court

Begusarai and managed to get issued frivolous NBW

dated 25.08.2010 against the respondent and his

ailing mother and sustaining criminal conspiracy

since 6 years against respondent no.01 and his

ailing mother to plunder their family life

permanently to an end; so far?

-:PRAYER:-

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed

that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India

may please to:-

i. Take the cognizance for criminal

conspiracy under sections 340 of CrPc

against the CJM Court, women

protection officer, Begusarai, Ms

Veena Kumari and her husband, Advocate

Mr. Gopal Kumar, Reg. No. 836/1991

against offences affecting the

administration of Justice and

sustaining frivolous criminal case

against respondent no.01 and 02 and to

ensure the life or personal liberty

and freedom of movement across the

Indian Territory by the respondent

no.01 and 02.

ii. Pass any other further

orders/directions, which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the

complaint against the CJM court

Begusarai, and women protection

officer, Begusarai, Ms Veena Kumari

and her husband, Advocate Gopal Kumar

Reg. No. 836/1991, district court

Begusarai and in favor of the

respondent no.01 and 02.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

RESPONDENT IN PERSON

NEW DELHI: OM PRAKASH

FILED ON : 19.08.2016

Annexure: P-7

Annexure: P-8




BETWEEN




Raj Nagar Part-2,

Palam Colony

New Delhi-110077



R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS





Bihar-855114

VERSUES





High Court,

Through


Patna High Court

Patna-800028


Through Ld. CJM

Begusarai, Bihar


at Begusarai, Bihar





APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF

JUSTICE OF INDIA FOR MENTIONING OF

FRESH MATTER URGENT LISTING EARLIER

THAN THE SCHEDULED DATE AND URGENT

RELIEF IS SOUGHT AGAINST WRIT PETITION

CRIMINAL 136 OF 2016.

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His

Lordship's Companion Justices of the

Supreme Court of India. The Humble

application of the Petitioner abovenamed.


GROUNDS FOR URGENT LISTING

1. That the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 on 30.08.2016 and the

matter has got registered on 22.09.2016 and the

same is pending for listing.

2. That the matter pertains to the main subject

categories of criminal matter vide code no. 14

and sub category of matter for quashing of

criminal proceedings vide code no. 1429.

3. That N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83

Cr.Pc. in 498A Criminal Case Complaint (P)

No.5591 of 2013 has been issued by the Ld. CJM

Division Begusarai under the Judicature of

Hon’ble Patna High Court against petitioner

no.01 and petitioner no.02 without the

knowledge of petitioners and after the

settlement of the matter on the ground of

certified copy of domestic violence case no. 9P

of 2010 of Ld. CJM Court Begusarai by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAT. APPL. NO. 7

of 2012 on 23.07.2013; which has been disclosed

by the Ld. CJM, Begusarai through RTI dated

27.08.2016.

4. That the petitioner no.02 is Senior Citizen

oxygen dependent widow women.

5. That the matter is interlinked with old matters

of this Hon’ble Court vide SLP(C) no.

9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013 and Writ (C) 90 of 2016.

6. That the matter is also interlinked with

harassment of OBC and senior citizen oxygen

dependent widow women petitioner no.02.

7. That the matter is also interlinked with the

Prevention of Corruption.

8. That the matter is short matter.

9. That the life or personal liberty of the

petitioner no.01 and petitioner no.02 is at

stake.

10. That for the first time, this year; the

petitioner no.01 and 02 is being compelled to

cancel their routine annual home visit on the

eve of Durga Puja.

11. That petitioner no. 02 has filed an

application for seeking permission to grant

special power of Attorney to petitioner no.01

to appear and argue the Writ petition

(Criminal) no. 136 of 2016 on behalf of

petitioner no.02 on 29.09.2016.

12. That petitioner no.02 is an oxygen

dependent COPD patient and undergoing treatment

with AIIMS at New Delhi which is on the Hon’ble

Supreme Court Record with SLP(C) no. 9854/2012,

SLP(C) no. 9483/2013 and SLP(C) no. 19073/2013,

therefore she is unable to attend the

proceedings of this Hon’ble Court.

13. That the urgent relief is sought for

cancellation of N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.

dated 08.09.2011 issued against petitioner

no.01 and petitioner no.02 and quashing of

criminal proceedings u/s 498A in Criminal Case

Complaint (P) No.5591 of 2013 pending before

the Ld. CJM Division Begusarai under the

Judicature of Hon’ble Patna High Court against

petitioner no.01 and petitioner no.02.

14. That petitioner no.01 and petitioner no.02

is putting up the matter for urgent listing

before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

-:PRAYER:-



(iii) To order for urgent listing of Writ

petition Criminal 136 of 2016 on

priority basis.

(iv) To pass such other orders and






DRAWN & FILED BY:

PETITIONER NO.01 IN PERSON

OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON :03.10.2016.




IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …….RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Om Prakash S/o Late Shri Deep Narayan Poddar,

aged about 43 years, R/o RZF-893, Netaji Subhash

Marg, Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony, New Delhi-

110077, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath

as under:-

1. That I am the Petitioner no.01 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

mentioning of fresh matter listing earlier than

the scheduled date and urgent relief is sought

against Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 136 of

2016 before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,

which has been drafted by me [para 01 to 14.],

[Page 01 to 09] 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 accompanying application Under Section

151 C.P.C. for urgent listing of matter totals

09 pages.’

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:





therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the 3rd day of

October,2016.

DEPONENT

Annexure: P-11


LETTER-PETITION AGAINST RAMPANT ATROCITIES ON

SENIOR CITIZEN, OXYGEN DEPENDENT, UNEDUCATED,

OBC, VOICELESS RURAL WOMAN.

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. The

Humble Letter-Petition of the Petitioner

Widow Asha Rani Devi.


15. That the petitioner is Widow Asha Devi,

aged about 71 years, wife of Late Shri Deep

Narayan Poddar, a Head Master with Government

of Bihar residing at ASHA DEEP NIWAS, Vill-

Kantiya Panchayat, Shukkar Haat, Sonaili,

in front of Durga Mandir, P.S. Kadwa,

Distt-Katihar, Bihar-855114 being

petitioner no.02 in Writ Petition

(Criminal) 136 of 2016 before this Hon’ble

Court.

16. That the petitioner had applied for

urgent mentioning of the matter before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India through

Mentioning officer of this Hon’ble Court

without routing through the registry on the













17. That the Mentioning officer initially

returned the URGENT mentioning application

of the petitioner on 06.10.2016 as it does

not qualify the ground for urgency to

mention before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India. Mentioning officer asked very

surprising question from the petitioner.

Why have you not executed the N.B.W so far?

How did you know about N.B.W.? How it came

into your mind to file RTI against Ld. CJM

Begusarai?

18. That the Mentioning officer then

consulted Registrar and reverted back after

1 and half hour and took back the urgent

mentioning application of the petitioner in

the evening of 06.10.2016 and directed the

petitioner to check the evening mentioning

cause list for 07.10.2016.

19. Hence the Court No.06 was allocated for

mentioning instead of Hon’ble the Chief Justice

of India’s Court.

20. That the Mentioning officer of this

Hon’ble Court has intentionally routed my

urgent mentioning application through

registry in the evening of 06.10.2016

despite of my protest to directly allow me

for mentioning before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India as per the provisions laid


21. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by the

intentional act of Mentioning officer to list

the matter before the Court No.06 as the same

Hon’ble bench of this Court No.06 has dismissed

the Writ (C) 90 of 2016, although the






22. That the petitioner has submitted before

the Hon’ble Court No.06 to grant me liberty to

mention the matter before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India’s Court. Hence, order dated

07.10.2016 has been passed by the Hon’ble Court

No. 06 in Writ (Crl.) 136 of 2016.

23. That the petitioner is an uneducated, OBC,

voiceless rural woman, oxygen dependent, COPD

case, undergoing treatment with AIIMS at New

Delhi which is on the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Record with SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.

9483/2013 and SLP(C) no. 19073/2013.

24. That the petitioner had two members

nuclear family i.e. an above the knee amputee

diabetic Rtd. Head Master husband who was

passing urine and stool through catheter, an

unemployed single son completing his education

at New Delhi and herself.

25. That taking benefit out of the misery of

the petitioner, Mr. Surendra Narayan Poddar,

Assistant Manager, Marketing Division, RC,

Barauni Refinery Installation, Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd solemnized a fraudulent

marriage with misrepresentation of bride with

the petitioner’s single son at gun point on

24th June 2004.

26. That from the very first day of the

marriage, we protested publically but due to

persistent threats and pressure by Mr. Surendra

Narayan Poddar and his Mafia-local leader

nexus, we could not do anything between 2004

to 2010, even we were being stopped to lodge

F.I.R. against them and had to bear with the

consequences. It is on the record of Trial

Court at New Delhi in HMA-700 of 2010.

27. Petitioner or any family member of her has

never ever been to the residence of Mr.

Surendra Narayan Poddar and even does not know

the multiple residential addresses of Mr.

Surendra Narayan Poddar since 12 years. For the

first time she came to know the official

address of Mr. Surendra Narayan Poddar on

09.02.2011 when he supplied the proceedings of

Ld. Begusarai Court against case no. 9P of 2010

before the Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi.

28. That the son of the petitioner was busy in

saving the life of his handicapped father at

New Delhi and the daughter of Mr. Surendra

Narayan Poddar was residing at rented

accommodation of Mr. Pappu Yadav, a driver of

Hon’ble Judge in Palam Colony, Raj Nagar Part-2

at New Delhi. It has also been observed by the

Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in

MAT. APPL No. 7 of 2012.

29. That Mr. Surendra Narayan Poddar took his

daughter back to Dhanbad, Bihar & Jharkhand

home on 15.04.2005 without our consent when we

needed a helping hand urgently, when the

handicapped husband of the petitioner was on

death bed, passing urine and stool through

catheters without any attendant at the top of

the roof of the slum/resettlement colony of

palam at New Delhi in the scorching heat of 47

degree Celsius and never returned back.

30. That the petitioner was residing at

Sonaili Bihar while the daughter of Mr.

Surendra Narayan Poddar was residing at Palam

New Delhi and left for her home on 15.04.2005

from Palam New Delhi which is on the record of

Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi and the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India.

31. That Mr. Surendra Narayan Poddar and his

Mafia-National political leader nexus started

misusing state apparatus thereafter, since 2010

to till date.

32. That, two N.B.W has been issued by the

same Ld. CJM division Begusarai for the same

cause of action against the same accused on

different dates without F.I.R and police diary

after a gap of 5 years from the date of

occurrence. One N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 u/s 12

of domestic violence Act in Criminal Case

Complaint (P) No. 9P of 2010 and second N.B.W.

dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. in 498A

Criminal Case Complaint (P) No.5591 of 2013 has

been issued by the same Ld. CJM Division

Begusarai under the Judicature of Hon’ble Patna

High Court against the petitioner, wherein,

N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 is open and on the

record of Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi and the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while N.B.W

dated 08.09.2011 has been kept secret by the

Ld. CJM division Begusarai.

33. That by way of instituting frivolous

criminal complaint case u/s 498A and issuing

the frivolous N.B.W and keeping it secret from

the petitioner, the State Apparatus Sitting in

ambush to attack the petitioner at the time of

their own convenience OR to repeat the whole

Trial under the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Patna

High Court and to convert it into the criminal

Appeal by the petitioner OR to make it rare of

the rarest case by killing us in the similar

fashion as they had killed my diabetic above

the knee amputee handicapped husband in 2007 to

usurp my lifetime acquired property in Bihar.

34. GOD pushed us on 01.03.2016 to inquire

about the non-availability of case data against

Case No. 9P of 2010 at the website of e-court

services through System Officer District Court

Begusarai.

35. Upon inquiry, Ld. System Officer, District

court Begusarai supplied the information

against case no 5591/2013 u/s 498A while the

information was sought by us against the case

no 9P/2010 u/s 12 of Domestic violence Act

under the intimation of e-committee Supreme

Court and Patna High Court.

36. That the case has reached up to this stage

after 12 years through RTI against Ld.

Principal Judge Deepa Sharma of Trial Court at

New Delhi for stopping the whole court

proceedings on 30.05.2011 and generating the

wrong order sheet alleging the petitioner for

requesting for adjournment of the court

proceedings while the date was fixed for WS

filing by the respondent and subsequent RTI

reply dated 30.08.2011; RTI against Hon'ble

Justice Ms Veena Birbal of Hon'ble High Court

of Delhi for adjourning the court proceeding

while the Legal Aid Advocate Jai Bansal was

absent without the intimation to the petitioner

and the petitioner in person was present and

subsequent RTI reply dated 27.08.2012; CIC

decision order dated 25.09.2014 under the title

Om Prakash Poddar Vs Department of Legal

Affairs against Delhi State Legal Services

Authority for not taking any action against

Legal Aid Advocate; Department of Justice Govt

of India letter to NALSA dated 13.04.2015;

NALSA letter to Supreme Court Legal Service

Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA letter to

Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee dated

13.05.2015; NALSA letter to Delhi State Legal

Service Authority dated 13.05.2015 and RTI

against Ld. Shri Chandra Mohan Jha, CJM, Civil

Court Begusarai Bihar of Ld. CJM Divivsion

District Court Begusarai Bihar and subsequent

RTI reply dated 27.08.2016. It is on the record

of SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013,

SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 Writ (C) 90 of 2016 filed

by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court.

37. That the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Bihar

Secretariat has found the online grievances no.

999990118071603221 & 999990118071603224 dated

18.07.2016 of us against Ld. CJM Court

Begusarai and Ms Veena Kumari, Women Protection

Officer, Begusarai under the negative list

and forwarded it to the Law Department,

Government of Bihar for requisite reply and

necessary action for redressal.

38. That Petitioner has filed a complaint

against Advocate Gopal Kumar Reg No.836/1991

and Advocate Dhirendra Prasad Reg. No. 963/1990

for instituting frivolous litigation after a

gap of 5 years from the date of occurrence and

issuing frivolous N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 &

08.09.2011 against petitioner for the same

cause of action against the same accused from

the same Ld. CJM Division Begusarai Bihar; for

presenting distorted picture of case history

before the Ld. CJM and obstructing the path of

Ld. CJM in right delivery of judgment and for

consistent planting of criminal conspiracy

against the Family Pension Bank Account of

petitioner before the Bihar State Bar Council

Patna on 02.05.2016.

39. That Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public

Information Officer District Court Begusarai

Bihar has furnished false and frivolous reply

on 27.08.2016.

40. That Certified Copy of Order dated 4th

April 2011 issued by District Court Begusarai

Bihar which falsifies the RTI reply under

QUESTION NO.07 by Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum

Public Information Officer District Court

Begusarai Bihar.

41. The RTI reply of Ld. Chief Judicial

Magistrate Cum Public Information Officer

District Court Begusarai Bihar under QUESTION

NO.07, "the application for cancellation of NBW

was never pressed before court, so no order was

passed upon it and neither the petitioner nor

his advocate had appeared before the court" has

been falsified by the record of Ld. Trail Court

at New Delhi in Case No. HMA-700 of 2010 and on

the ground of which Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

has pronounced the Judgement in Case No. MAT.

APPL. 7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 in favor of us.

42. Ld. Public Information Officer, Law

Department, Government of Bihar has directly

refused to reply under RTI Act 2005 on the

ground of "non-availability of records and PIO

is not answerable to imaginary questions of

applicant" while the Hon'ble Chief Minister's

Secretariat has found it under negative list

and forwarded our complaint dated 18th July

2016 to the Law Department Government of Bihar

as evident from the TWO disposal order (without

resolution in the garb of section 2(a) of Bihar

Public Grievances Redressal Right Act 2015)

passed by the Law Department itself on

11.08.2016

43. Peculiar fact of this matter is that the

Hon’ble Judges have played a role of

respondents throughout the case either in Delhi

or in Bihar. Actual party has not even filed a

single piece of paper before the Ld. Trial

court at New Delhi.

44. Since 2004 to 2009, criminal conspiracy

through local leaders and Mafia and since 2010

to till date, through Indian Courts.

45. Everything has been finished. 12 years

long criminal conspiracy has taken away the

life of my above the knee amputee husband

untimely in 2007 and we (me and my ailing son)

have been kept captive and house arrest

virtually.

46. That the criminal trespass has been

committed by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected

PRI leader with the consent of S.P. of Katihar.

House of petitioner has been turned into public

Toilet with the posters which has been placed

on record with Writ (C) 90 of 2016 before this


application. False police enquiry report has

been submitted by the S.P. Katihar to the Chief

Minister Secretariat denying the very fact of

the incident. However, the villagers have sent

us the snaps of public toilet through Watsup

which has been declined by the police enquiry

report.

47. How State Apparatus and Mafia are involved

in criminal conspiracy against a vulnerable OBC

senior citizen oxygen dependent voiceless widow

woman in two states viz. Delhi & Bihar since

2004 has been apprised before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India from time to time


9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 and Writ (C)

90 of 2016?

48. Hon’ble Retd. Justice, Mr. S.B. Sinha of

this Hon’ble Court and aborigine of Dhanbad,

Jharkhand Bihar is mastermind behind it.

49. On the ground of reliable information

received from a driver of the Judges, we have

immediately contacted Rtd. Hon’ble Justice

S.B.Sinha over his landline telephone 011-

23010350 at his Government allotted residence

and subsequently sent an email letter dated

17.08.2011 to him on his official email ID

[email protected], then holding the post

of Chairman at Telecom Disputes Settlement and

Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), New Delhi to stop

the criminal conspiracy against me and my

ailing son. He did not pay any heed, rather

raised a question "Who the hell are you???" My

son replied back that he is a common man.

Second question; who told you? Son replied back

a driver of Judges and he is the tenant of that

driver in Palam Colony at New Delhi; he asked

him to put the phone down.

50. It is also evident from an application at Palam

Village Police Station, South West District of

Delhi vide diary no. 37B and complaint

no.00081710571601332 dated 30.05.2016 for

registration of criminal complaint against the

spoofed calls with life threat u/s 200 of Cr.Pc.

and registration of FIR u/s 154(3) of Cr.Pc.

51. Police did not register F.I.R against the

Judge. Police directed us to go to the Court;

and upon the direction of Court, Police will

register F.I.R.

52. That the matter is interlinked with

Corruption.

53. That the life or personal liberty of the

petitioner is at stake.

54. That for the first time, this year; the

petitioner is being compelled to cancel her

routine annual home visit on the eve of Durga

Puja.

55. That the petitioner has been encircled by

Mr. Surendra Narayan Poddar and his Mafia-

political leader-State apparatus nexus in Delhi

as well as in Bihar to kill the petitioner and

her single son to usurp her property in Bihar

process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. after the death of the

petitioner and her son which has been kept

secret by the Ld. CJM Court Begusarai since

2011 to till date.

56. That Mr. Praveen Kumar from Indian Defense

Account Service, presently as C&MD on

deputation basis with Indian Drugs &

Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi has encircled the petitioner and her

son in Delhi and has kept the petitioner and

her son captive under house arrest virtually.

57. That the matter is not an individual as it

is in the interest of larger Public. Thus,

power elite can infringe the right to life or

personal liberty of a vulnerable common woman

and take them on hostage to make them a bonded

labour; can infringe the right to live with

dignity.

58. That the matter is a constitutional as

well. It is the concern of all citizens. Thus,

after winning from one High Court one cannot go

to another High Court for the same cause of

action and for the same relief.

59. The matter is also concern for all Senior

Citizen Women.

60. The letter-petition is also concern with

the entire petitioner-in Person.

61. That petitioner is putting up the matter

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

-:PRAYER:-



(v) To admit the letter-petition as PIL.

(vi) To save the life of the voiceless

OBC Senior Citizen Woman from the

rampant atrocities of State

Apparatus in Bihar as well as in NCT

of Delhi.

(vii) To ensure life or personal liberty

of the petitioner under Article 21

of the Constitution of India.

(viii) To cancel the N.B.W dated 08.09.2011

process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. issued by Ld.

CJM Division Begusarai, Bihar.

(ix) To quash the criminal proceeding u/s

498A pending before the Ld. CJM

division Begusarai, Bihar.

(x) To ensure the right of petitioner to

mention the matter before Hon’ble

the Chief Justice of India’s Court.

(xi) To pass such other orders and






DRAWN & FILED BY:

PETITIONER

ASHA RANI DEVI

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 13.10.2016.

Annexure: P-12



I.A.NO. OF 2016

IN


IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER

VERSUS


APPLICATION FOR LISTING WRIT PETITION

CRIMINAL 136 OF 2016 BEFORE THE

CONSTITUTION BENCH OF SEVEN JUDGES BENCH.

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India of

the Supreme Court of India. The

Humble petition of the Petitioner

abovenamed.

MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above named petitioner has

filed the accompanying present petition under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India to

enforce the Rights under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India to quash the order dated

26.08.2016 in case No.5591 of 2013 u/s 498A

passed by the Ld. SDJM Court No.16, Ld. CJM

Division at Begusarai under the jurisdiction of

Hon’ble High Court of Patna which has directly

infringed the Fundamental Rights of the

petitioner under Article 21 of the constitution

of India whereby and where the Ld. CJM cum PIO

has furnished the false RTI reply against the

same question of law laid down in the petition

and has erred in holding the frivolous criminal

proceedings for the same cause of action which

has been settled by the Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi in MAT. APPL. 7/2012 on 23.07.2013, which

has resulted in miscarriage of justice, the

contents of which are requested to be read as

part of this application, as the same are not

being repeated here for the sake of brevity.

2. That the petitioner had applied

for urgent mentioning of the matter before

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India through

Mentioning officer of this Hon’ble Court

without routing through the registry on the













3. That the Mentioning officer

initially returned the URGENT mentioning

application of the petitioner on 06.10.2016

as it does not qualify the ground for

urgency to mention before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India. Mentioning officer asked

very surprising question from the

petitioner. Why have you not executed the

N.B.W so far? How did you know about

N.B.W.? How it came into your mind to file

RTI against Ld. CJM Begusarai?

4. That the Mentioning officer then

consulted Registrar and reverted back after

1 and half hour and took back the urgent

mentioning application of the petitioner in

the evening of 06.10.2016 and directed the

petitioner to check the evening mentioning

cause list for 07.10.2016.

5. Hence the Court No.06 was allocated

for mentioning instead of Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India’s Court.

6. That the Mentioning officer of

this Hon’ble Court has intentionally routed

my urgent mentioning application through

registry in the evening of 06.10.2016

despite of my protest to directly allow me

for mentioning before Hon’ble the Chief



7. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by

the intentional act of Mentioning officer for

listing the matter before the Court No.06 as

the same Hon’ble bench of this Court No.06 has

dismissed the Writ (C) 90 of 2016, although the






8. That the petitioner has submitted

before the Hon’ble Court No.06 to grant me

liberty to mention the matter before Hon’ble

the Chief Justice of India’s Court. Hence,

order dated 07.10.2016 has been passed by the

Hon’ble Court No. 06 in Writ (Crl.) 136 of

2016.

9. That the petitioner being called on

17.10.2016 by the mentioning officer for fresh

application however petitioner being harassed

whole day from PRO to mentioning officer and

directly refused by the mentioning officer as

his role is over now.

10. That the petitioner no.02 has

submitted Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 and

13.10.2016 before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of

India through email; speed post; and by hand

respectively against rampant atrocities on

Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,

OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two states viz.

Bihar as well as in Delhi since 12 years.

Letter-Petition dated 19.08.2016 vide diary no.

35529 has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court

as it did not cover under the guideline of PIL;

although the matter in the larger public

interest.

11. That the petitioner no.02 had two members

nuclear family i.e. an above the knee amputee

diabetic Rtd. Head Master husband who was

passing urine and stool through catheter, an

unemployed single son completing his education

at New Delhi and herself.

12. Since 2004 to 2009, criminal

conspiracy through local leaders and Mafia and

since 2010 to till date, through Indian Courts.

13. Everything has been finished. 12 years

long criminal conspiracy has taken away the

life of my above the knee amputee husband

untimely in 2007 and she (she and her ailing

son) have been kept captive and house arrest

virtually.

14. That the criminal trespass has been

committed by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected

PRI leader with the consent of S.P. of Katihar.

House of petitioner has been turned into public

Toilet with the posters which has been placed

on record with Writ (C) 90 of 2016 before this


application. False police enquiry report has

been submitted by the S.P. Katihar to the Chief

Minister Secretariat denying the very fact of

the incident. However, the villagers have sent

us the snaps of public toilet through Watsup

which has been declined by the police enquiry

report.

15. How State Apparatus and Mafia are involved

in criminal conspiracy against a vulnerable OBC

senior citizen oxygen dependent voiceless widow

woman in two states viz. Delhi & Bihar since

2004 has been apprised before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India from time to time


9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 and Writ (C)

90 of 2016?

16. That two states jurisdictions

involved into this matter.

17. That the matter is a constitutional.

It is the concern of all citizens. Thus, after

winning from one High Court one cannot go to

another High Court for the same cause of action

and for the same relief.

18. That, two N.B.W has been issued by

the same Ld. CJM division Begusarai for the

same cause of action against the same accused

on different dates without F.I.R and police

diary after a gap of 5 years from the date of

occurrence. One N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 u/s 12

of domestic violence Act in Criminal Case

Complaint (P) No. 9P of 2010 and second N.B.W.

dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. in 498A

Criminal Case Complaint (P) No.5591 of 2013 has

been issued by the same Ld. CJM Division

Begusarai under the Judicature of Hon’ble Patna

High Court against the petitioner no.01 & 02,

wherein, N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 is open and on

the record of Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi and

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while N.B.W

dated 08.09.2011 has been kept secret by the

Ld. CJM division Begusarai. Records of

application for cancellation of N.B.W dated

25.08.2010 has been erased by the Ld. CJM Court

Begusarai which has been disclosed through RTI

reply dated 27.08.2016. However, the records

are available at Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi

on the ground of which Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi has pronounced Judgment in MAT.APPL. NO.

7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013.

19. That upon direct refusal by

mentioning officer to allow the petitioner to

mention the matter before Ho’nble the Chief


down in the handbook of Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India and the schedule listing of the matter

fixed by the registry on 21.10.2016; the

petitioner has been left with no option but to

file an application for listing this matter

before the constitution bench of seven Judges.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to:

(a) Kindly list the Writ Criminal 136 of 2016

before the Constitution Bench of Seven Judges.

b) 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:


OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON :18.10.2016. VIDE DIARY NO.77878.




IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


AFFIDAVIT

I, Om Prakash S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 42 years,

R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar Part-II,

Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby solemnly

affirm and state on oath as under:-





application Under Section 151 C.P.C. for

listing the Writ Petition (Criminal) 136 of

2016 before the Constitution bench of Seven

Judges, which has been drafted by me [para 01

to 19.], [Page 01 to 09] 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 accompanying application Under Section

151 C.P.C. for permission in person total 09

pages.’

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:





therefrom.


October, 2016.

DEPONENT

Annexure: P-15

Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]>

Sub: Prayer for URGENT hearing against Second Appeal Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016; which pertains to ‘Life or Personal liberty’ of a Senior Citizen Women-reg.

Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:13

PM To: [email protected]

Date: 30.11.2016

To,

The Chief Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission

Room No.339, II Floor

August Kranti Bhavan

Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi-110066

Sub: Prayer for URGENT hearing against Second

Appeal Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016; which

pertains to ‘Life or Personal liberty’ of a

Senior Citizen Women-reg.

Hon’ble Sir,

1. The matter pertains to Life or Personal liberty

of a Senior Citizen Women Widow Asha Rani Devi,

age about 71 years against Diary No. 183722 dated

03.11.2016. Hence, Matter is URGENT. Patna High

Court (FAA) has not replied it back against First

Appeal till date.

2. That data is important to file Curative

Petition Criminal before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India after the dismissal of Review

Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 in Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016; which will be heard on

01.12.2016 in the Chamber of Justice Pinaki

Chandra Ghose & U U Lalit at 1:30 PM.

3. N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.

has been issued and kept it secret since then for

the same cause of action which has been settled

by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013

in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 after the appearance by

the respondent on 09.02.2011 before the Ld. Trial

Court at Dwarka at New Delhi.

4. Therefore praying for early hearing against the

diary no.183722 dated 03.11.2016 on the ground of

urgency; as it is still pending under scrutiny

stage with the Central Registry of CIC, New

Delhi.

Second Appellant

Om Prakash

RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2


Mob: 9968337815


Enclosure: As Above

CIC_early hearing against diary no 183722 dated 03.11.2016.pdf 98K


https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5635d69bd5&view=att&th=158b4678afd043dd&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_iw4oqosh0&safe=1&zw

Annexure: P-16

Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]>

Sub: Prayer for URGENT registration of matter against Second Appeal Diary No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016; which pertains to ‘Life or Personal liberty’ of a Senior Citizen Women-reg.

UmeshChandra Joshi <[email protected]> Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:36 AM To: Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]>

Sir, With reference to your above said mail, the Appeal diarised vide diary No.183722 dated 3.11.2016 was examined and it found that you have not claimed the ground of life and liberty at any stage i.e RTI application, Ist appeal or even in IInd appeal. It is out of preview of Central Registry to acceede to you request. DS(CR) On 11/30/16 02:42 PM, Om Prakash Poddar <[email protected]> wrote:

Date: 30.11.2016

To,

Shri U.C.Joshi

August Kranti Bhavan

Bhikaji Cama Place

New Delhi-110066

Sub: Prayer for URGENT registration of matter

against Second Appeal Diary No. 183722 dated

03.11.2016; which pertains to ‘Life or Personal

liberty’ of a Senior Citizen Women-reg.

Sir,

1.The matter pertains to Life or Personal liberty

of a Senior Citizen Women Widow Asha Rani Devi,

age about 71 years against Diary No. 183722 dated

03.11.2016. Hence, Matter is URGENT. Patna High

Court (FAA) has not replied it back against First

Appeal till date.

2.That data is important to file Curative

Petition Criminal before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India after the dismissal of Review

Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 in Writ Petition


Criminal 136 of 2016; which will be heard on

01.12.2016 in the Chamber of Justice Pinaki

Chandra Ghose & U U Lalit at 1:30 PM.

3.N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.

has been issued and kept it secret since then for

the same cause of action which has been settled

by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013

in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 after the appearance by

the respondent on 09.02.2011 before the Ld. Trial

Court at Dwarka at New Delhi.

4.Therefore praying for early hearing against the

diary no.183722 dated 03.11.2016 on the ground of

urgency; as it is still pending under scrutiny

stage with the Central Registry of CIC, New

Delhi.

Second Appellant

Om Prakash

RZF-893, Netaji Subhash Marg

Raj Nagar Part-2


Mob: 9968337815





I.A.NO. OF 2016


IN


IN


IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER

VERSUS


APPLICATION FOR AND ONBEHALF OF THE

PETITIONER NO.01 AND 02 HEREIN IN THIS

CURATIVE PETITION CRIMINAL NAMELY OM

PRAKASH AND WIDOW ASHA RANI DEVI FOR

RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2011

WHEREBY N.B.W WAS ISSUED PROCESS U/S 83

CR.PC. AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.01 AND 02

BY THE SDJM COURT NO.16 UNDER THE CJM

DIVISION BEGUSARAI BIHAR AND FOR

CANCELLATION OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANT AND

FOR QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN

COMPLAINT CASE NO.5591 OF 2013 U/S 498A

To

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India of

the Supreme Court of India. The

Humble petition of the Petitioner

abovenamed.

MOST RESPECFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above named petitioner has

filed the accompanying present Curative

petition criminal under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside

the order dated 21.10.2016 in Writ

Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 of this

Hon’ble Court on the ground of abuse of

process of court and gross miscarriage of

justice; whereby Writ Petition Criminal

136 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner

was dismissed with liberty and directed

the petitioner to approach Patna High

Court and subsequently the Review Petition

Criminal 825 of 2016 filed by the

petitioner was also dismissed by this

Hon’ble Court by an order dated 01.12.2016

upholding its final order dated 21.10.2016

in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016;

which would have far reaching

consequences against the interest of

public at large and against the right

of Senior Citizen Woman in particular

and would shake the public confidence





system, encourage malfunctioning of the

State Apparatus; weaken the basic

fabric of the institutions; ignore

constitutional priority; which has

caused gross injustice, violated the

principle of natural justice, ignored

the principle of ex debito justitiae

and resulted in miscarriage of justice,

the contents of which are requested to be

read as part of this application, as the

same are not being repeated here for the

sake of brevity.

2. That the N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process

u/s 83 Cr.Pc. in case no. 5591 of 2013 u/s

498A has been issued, kept it secret and


27.08.2016 by the Ld. CJM cum PIO Civil

Court, Begusarai, Bihar through vide

letter no.115 dated 22.08.2016 under the

reply of question no.02 against case

no.5591 of 2013 furnished by Shri Nitin

Kaushik, S.D.J.M, Court Begusarai (True

copy of RTI reply by Ld. CJM Begusarai

dated 27.08.2016 annexed herein with this

curative petition criminal as Annexure P-

7) after the settlement of the same matter

by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on

23.07.2013 in MAT.APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 in

favor of petitioner on the ground of

certified copy of the same CJM division

Begusarai against case no.9P of 2010 u/s

12 of domestic violence Act and after

three SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.

9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 before


3. That the petitioner has also filed an

application for cancellation of FIRST

N.B.W dated 25.08.2010 and replication of

complaint no.9P of 2010 u/s 43 (12) of

protection of women from domestic violence

Act, 2005 for setting aside order u/s 18,

19, 20, 21 and 22 through his Ld. Advocate

Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Reg. No.6255 of

1995 on 03.03.2011 before the same CJM

division Begusari court and certified copy

of the same has been filed before the Ld.

Trial Court at Dwarka court, New Delhi in

case no. HMA-700 of 2010 which later

renumbered as HMA-678 of 2010 and on the

ground of which Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi has pronounced judgment on

23.07.2013 in MAT.APPL. 7 of 2012. It is

evident from the record of all the three

SLPs filed before this Hon’ble Court.

However, this record has been erased by

the Ld. CJM division Begusarai which has

been admitted by Ld. CJM through RTI reply

dated 27.08.2016 under the reply of

question no.07 against case no. 9P of 2010

vide letter no.14 dated 23.08.2016

furnished by Shri Amit Anand, in charge of

vacant court of Shri Santosh Kumar, JM,

Begusarai.

4. That the criminal case complaint (P) no.

397C of 2011 new CIS generated No. 5591 of

2013 has been filed on 07.02.2011 and the

client of Respondent no.04 has appeared

before Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi on

09.02.2011 in case no. HMA-700 of 2010

and supplied the copy of case no. 9P of

2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence with

N.B.W issued dated 25.08.2010 and did not

supply the copy of criminal case complaint

(P) no. 397C of 2011 new CIS generated No.

5591 of 2013 u/s 498A to the Ld. Trial

Court at New Delhi with criminal intention

and managed to get issued SECOND N.B.W

dated 08.09.2011, Process u/s 83 Cr.P.C.

and continued to take dates up till now

without the Notice/Summon to the

petitioner with criminal intention.

5. That the criminal case u/s 498A is not

maintainable in the state of Bihar and is

maintainable in the South West District of

Delhi and F.I.R is to be lodged at Palam

Village Police Station, south west

district at New Delhi wherein the client

of Respondent No.04 has last resided till

15.04.2005. However, in this matter the

client of Respondent No.04 has filed a

criminal case complaint u/s 498A in the

state of Bihar after a gap of 6 years on

07.02.2011 without an F.I.R and without

police diary and without the intimation to

the petitioner no.01 and 02 as on date and

after the closure of frivolous Case No.9P

of 2010 u/s domestic violence Act which

was instituted on 30.03.2010 before the

same Ld. CJM division Begusarai.

6. That the cause of action is the same and

the jurisdictions of two states viz. Bihar

& Delhi are involved in it. The first

cause of action arose in the south west

district of Delhi and has been settled by

the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on

23.07.2013 on the ground of certified copy

of Ld. District Court, Begusarai Bihar, in

MAT. APPL. No. 7 of 2012. Trial for the

same cause of action cannot be conducted

in the two states by two Hon’ble High

Courts at different point of time after

the settlement by one Hon’ble High Court.

7. That the jurisdiction “ground K” has been

taken at page no. 26 in Writ petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 whereby the

petitioner has averred that the

jurisdiction of the ailing petitioner is

south west district of Delhi and the

jurisdiction of petitioner’s ailing mother

is Bihar however the first cause of action

arose in the south west district of Delhi

subsequently the clarification has been

sought by the Registrar of this Hon’ble

Court dated 07.09.2016 at page no. 50 to

57 in the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of

2016.

8. That the criminal proceeding has taken

place in the state of Bihar because of

dismissal of all SLP(C) no. 9854/2012,

SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.

19073/2013 of the petitioner by this

Hon’ble Court which has encouraged the

morale of bad elements of State Apparatus

in Bihar as well as in Delhi. 498A is the

outcome of this encouragement.

9. That Ld. CJM has admitted in his RTI reply

dated 27.08.2016 that case no. 9P of 2010

u/s 12 of domestic violence Act is not

pending before the Ld. CJM division

Begusarai through the reply dated

22.08.2016 furnished by Shri Ravish Kumar,

O/C SDJM, Begusarai. How 498A can be

instituted after the closure of domestic

violence under the same Ld. CJM division?

10. That the Petitioner did raise

‘substantial question of law through

interlocutory application for constitution

bench dated 18.10.2016 in Writ Petition

Criminal 136 of 2016 before this Hon’ble

Court as to the interpretation of the

Constitution is required into this

petition and two-judge bench was not


miscellaneous application’ ‘connected with

the petition’ as per the Order XXXV of

Supreme Court Rule 1966.

11. That from the record it appears that

498A has been instituted with criminal

intention to kill the petitioner no.01 &

02 evading the rule of law and N.B.W

process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been issued to

humiliate and usurp the property of

petitioner no.02.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to:

(a) Recall and cancel the order dated 08.09.2011

whereby Non-Bail able Warrant process u/s 83

Cr.Pc. issued against petitioner no.01 and 02

namely Shri Om Prakash and Widow Asha Rani

Devi by SDJM court no.16, CJM division,

Begusarai Bihar in case no. 5591 of 2013 u/s

498A.

(b) Quash the criminal proceedings against

complaint case no.397C of 2011 CIS Reg. no.

5591 of 2013 u/s 498A/323 of IPC & u/s 3/4 of

D.P. Act pending before the Shri Nitin

Kaushik, S.D.J.M Court no.16 Begusarai, Bihar

under the judicature of Patna High Court.

(c) 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:


OM PRAKASH

NEW DELHI:

FILED ON : 09.12.2016.




IN


IN


IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


AFFIDAVIT

I, Om Prakash S/o Late D. N. Poddar, aged 42 years,

R/o RZF/893, Netaji Subash Marg, Raj Nagar Part-II,

Palam Colony, New Delhi - 77, do hereby solemnly

affirm and state on oath as under:-





application for cancellation of N.B.W dated

08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. against Om

Prakash Poddar and Asha Devi issued by the

S.D.J.M court no.16, CJM division Begusarai and

quashing of criminal proceedings u/s 498A in

complaint case no. 5591 of 2013 pending before

the same CJM division Begusarai, which has been

drafted by me [para 01 to 11.], [Page 209 to

218] 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 accompanying application for

cancellation of N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 and

quashing of criminal proceedings u/s 498A total

pages 10.’

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:





therefrom.


December,2016.

DEPONENT