Thursday, June 11, 2015

documents misplaced by court

PLEASE FIRST READ DISCLAIMER AT BOTTOM*

NOTE:- Advise available for all countries laws vis-a-vis adultery & divorce so if you want divorce from your adulterous wife & want to have Consultation with ATUR CHATUR by paying him the consultation fees then contact him at +91-9873540498 & must also leave an email at ATURCHATUR@YAHOO.COM





Documents misplaced by court

Question by Manisha: Dear all, in 138 matter all original documents misplaced/lost by Court itself. What is the legal remedy available to the Complainant ?

Reply by Atur Chatur: If you have the CC then go file a complaint to this effect to REGISTRAR VIGILANCE OF HIGH COURT.

If it is Delhi HC then the currently the letter will goto Sh.Chandrashekhar Ji whose office staff will pass that letter to CS to CJ of HC which is currently designated to Mr.H.C.Suri Sir. Who in turn willl transfer the case file to a 2 or 3 Justice Bench who sits near his office within thesame complex at 4th floor as per my limited knowledge.

CAUTION:- File a complaint against a judge/MM only if you feel that these papers have been deliberately done with his involvement citing sme other reasons due to which you feel he is biased against the other party.

In the prayer mention that the MM should NOT recuse himself from this case after seeing this complaint because they must NOT get away by doing any wrong to your case. If you are hell bent then you can also file CRIMINAL DEFAMATION against a judge & ask for compensation because due to lose of these documents your fame/ reputation will be put in jeopardy which happened due to unethical practices happening in his Hon'ble Court..

Do NOT attach an afidavit to the above complaint against judge/MM made toi REG.VIG/HC.

Instead, just 3 days after posting that complaint thru regd post (with AD) you simply write an RTI & ask for ACTION TAKEN REPORT.

Best Wishes !!!
Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"



PROSECUTION OF JUDGES

@manisha, if u goto google & type, "nilesh okja" "defamation" "mumbai" you will get
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenewauth.php?auth=cGF0aD0uL2RhdGEvanVkZ2VtZW50cy8yMDE0LyZmbmFtZT1DUldQMzYxMTE0LnBkZiZzbWZsYWc9Tg==
Goto page 14 (last para) of the above link. Just get a break of this SC & write your complaint in acordance. If you can write an argument over & above this para then there is a good chance of success

NOW, LITTLE MORE ABOUT THIS MAN
This man Nilesh Ojha is from Human Rights Security Council"
He fought case for a scientist man victim of false 498a from mumbai & proved beyond reasonable doubt to the court that the false 498a was made by wife to defame her scientist husband's reputation due to which within ongoing 498a the HC of Mumbai allowed his defamation petition against the wife. Judgment came on 29th January'2015.

Also check:- PROSECUTION OF JUDGES at the below link
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141115144331-248274412-whether-prosecution-can-be-initiated-against-judges


Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"



Can Courts be Compelled to pass Meritorious Orders

Can Courts / Tribunals be compelled to pass meritous orders / judgments (in case if they don’t passes) ?

Perhaps.....

1.   Before dealing with the aforesaid proposition, let me first try to define what is meant by passing of “Meritous orders / judgments”. In my mind, it may mean –

While giving due consideration to the submissions and evidences on record of the rival parties, to record a finding with respect to disputed question of fact or of law;
Employing cogent reasons about the conclusion reached in the order / judgment.
Passing of orders in accordance with law.
Principles of natural justice are reasonably observed in the judicial proceeding.


2.   The orders of the Court are generally challenged in Appeal or in Revision, alleging the impugned Order, being infected with –

Perversity; and / or
Illegality, i.e. not in accordance with law; and / or
In breach of principles of natural justice


3.    The perversity of the order implies –
The Court ignored the relevant provision of law; and / or
The Court ignored the material facts and evidences which were on record;
The Court considered and emphasized upon irrelevant facts in its Order.

4.   In the case of Gayadin versus Hanuman Prasad – AIR 2001 SC 386, it has been observed that the expression occurring in Section 48 of the Act (U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953) means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or the findings are against the law or the order suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity.

In the case of Parrys (Cal) Employees Union versus Parrys and Co – AIR 1966 Cal 31, 42 – it is observed as – perverse finding means which is not only against the weight of the evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself.

In the case of Narayanagowde versus Girijamma – AIR 1977 Kar 58, 60, it is observed as – an Order which is made in conscious violation of pleadings and law is a perverse Order.


5.   The Illegality, i.e. not in accordance with law, of the order implies –
The plain and well settled meaning of the relevant statutory provision was ignored by the Court in its Order.


6.   Time and again, our Constitutional Courts have reiterated that Orders passed, whether by Administrative, judicial or quasi judicial authorities, must be reasoned.

Any perverse Order presupposes – (a) an unreasoned Order; (b) the non consideration of “submissions and evidences on record” of the party who is victim of the perverse Order and the opportunity of affording due hearing given is thus rendered meaningless and empty formality, thereby causing the breach of principles of natural justice.

http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.in/2012/04/natural-justice-absence-of-speaking.html

http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.in/2012/04/natural-justice-recording-of-reasons-by.html

http://thepracticeoflawjalan.blogspot.in/2012/04/natural-justice-recording-of-reasons.html


7.   Now I seek to invite attention to some of important observation and rulings of our Constitutional Courts –

(a)   In the case of S P Chengalverau versus Jagannath – (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Hon’ble SC
       had the occasion to coin the doctrine of fraud.

Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and describing the observations of the High Court as 'wholly perverse', Kuldip Singh, J. stated: "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation".          (emphasis supplied)

The Court proceeded to state: "A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party".


Every court has inherent powers to recall such judgment /order where Order / judgment is alleged to have been obtained by fraud – suppression of facts – misrepresentation; or where it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Court itself has committed a mistake.

The Court concluded: "The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants".


(b)   In  Indian  Bank  v.  Satyam  Fibres  (India)  (P)  Ltd  (1996)  5  SCC  550,  a  two-
judge  bench  of  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court,  after  making  reference  to  a  number  of  earlier  decisions  rendered  by  different  High  Courts  in  India,  stated  the  legal  position  thus:  “......  where  the  Court  is  misled  by  a  party  or  the  Court  itself  commits  a  mistake  which  prejudices  a  party,  the  Court  has  the  inherent  power  to  recall  its  order.” Paras 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30 to 33.

In this case while referring to the case of  Lazarus Estates and Smith v. East Elloe Rural District  Council, 1956 AC 336 : (1956) 1 All ER 855 : (1956) 2  WLR 888, this Court stated;
"The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151  C.P.C., to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by Fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the Decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the Constitution of the Tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business". (emphasis supplied)

(c)    Hon’ble  SC  in  Raj  Bahadur  Ras  Raja  versus  Seth  Hiralal,  AIR  1962  SC
527,  the  inherent  powers  has  not  been  conferred  on  the  court,  it  is  a  power  inherent  in  a  court  by  virtue  of  its  duty  to  do  justice  between  the  parties  before  it.

(d)   In  the  case  of  Baldlabhdas  versus  Sobhaji  Kesharisingh  (1947)  Nag  344  AIR
1948  Mad  52,  the  Court  observed  that-  To  set  aside  an  order,  obtained  by  fraud  upon  the  court,  or  where  the  court  is  misled  by  a  party  or  the  court  itself  commits  a  mistake  which  prejudices  a  party.

(e)    As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case that inherent  powers  has  its
roots  in  necessity  and  breadth  is  co-extensive  with  the  necessity.  N  S  Mills  versus  UOI  AIR  1976  SC  1152.

(f)     Section 151 of CPC – To recall and cancel its invalid order or order which causes
         injustice. Sitaram versus Kedarnath AIR 1957 All 825.

(g)    While exercising powers u/s 151, the court first has to consider whether exercise of
powers is expressly prohibited by any provisions of the code, and if there is no such provision, then it will consider whether such powers should be exercised on the basis of the facts mentioned in the application. Under section 151, the court can issue directions su moto or otherwise. Sharda versus Dharampal AIR 2003 SC 3450.

(h)    In the case of Jet Ply Wood Private Ltd & Anr Vs Madhukar Nowlakha & Ors-AIR
2006 SC 1260, a party based on (mis)representation of the other party, withdrew the Suit before the trial court and the trial court in fact imposed the condition that no new suit could be filed on this cause of action. The party so misrepresented applied for recall of the (Withdrawl) Order of the trial Court. The trial court refused to Recall. The party approached Calcutta HC under Article 227. The Calcutta HC directed to restore the said Suit. The party who misrepresented went into Appeal before SC.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court said – As indicated hereinbefore, the only point which falls for our consideration in these appeals is whether the Trial Court was entitled in law to recall the order by which it had allowed the plaintiff to withdraw his suit.

From the order of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 9th Court at Alipore, it is clear that he had no intention of granting any leave for filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action while allowing the plaintiff to withdraw his suit. That does not, however, mean that by passing such an order the learned court divested itself of its inherent power to recall its said order, which fact is also evident from the order itself which indicates that the Court did not find any scope to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order passed by it earlier. In the circumstances set out in the order of 24th September, 2004, the learned trial court felt that no case had been made out to recall the order which had been made at the instance of the plaintiff himself. It was, therefore, not a question of lack of jurisdiction but the conscious decision of the Court not to exercise such jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff.

The aforesaid position was reiterated by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in his order dated 4th February, 2005, though the language used by him is not entirely convincing. However, the position was clarified by the learned Judge in his subsequent order dated 14th March, 2005, in which reference has been made to a bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rameswar Sarkar (supra) which, in our view, correctly explains the law with regard to the inherent powers of the Court to do justice between the parties. There is no doubt in our minds that in the absence of a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure providing for the filing of an application for recalling of an order permitting withdrawal of a suit, the provisions of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be resorted to in the interest of justice.

The principle is well established that when the Code of Civil Procedure is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the court can come to its aid to act ex debito justitiae for doing real and substantial justice between the parties. This Court had occasion to observe in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, as follows:

"It is well settled that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, for the simple reason that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating all the possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing the procedure for them."

Based on the aforesaid principle, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in almost identical circumstances in Rameswar Sarkar's case, allowed the application for withdrawal of the suit in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon holding that when through mistake the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit, the Court would not be powerless to set aside the order permitting withdrawal of the suit.

(i) In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581 : JT
2000 (3) SC 151, by practising fraud upon the Insurance Company, the claimant obtained an award of compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.  On coming to know of fraud, the Insurance Company applied for recalling of the award.  The Tribunal, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that it had no power to review its own award.  The High Court confirmed the order.  The Company approached this Court.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders, this Court stated;

"It is unrealistic to expect the appellant company to resist a claim at the first instance on the basis of the fraud because appellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by the claimants. If the Insurance Company comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation, and if by that time the award was already passed, it would not be possible for the company to file a statutory appeal against the award. Not only because of bar of limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings made till then.

Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No Court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim.


(j) It is worthwhile to record the striking obsewrvation of Hon’ble SC in the
    case of A.V. PAPAYYA SASTRY & ORS versus Govt of A.P. & Ors –
    (2007) 4 SCC 221 –
    Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by
Fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries,    Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal".

It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.

(k)   In the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, the Apex
Court observed as saying  that once the court comes to the conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it becomes the solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same, (2011) 3 SCC 436.

(l)     In the case of Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action
Group, (2011) 3 SCC 363, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as saying that “Court cannot be blind to reality of situation”, Appellants knowingly and purposely damaged mangroves and vegetation of wetland of CRZ-I area. Under garb of repairing old bund, appellants constructed pukka bund using boulders and debris with huge platform violating norms of environmental law and in flagrant violation and utter disregard of Court orders.

(m)   In the very recent case of State of Punjab versus Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar – 2012
AIR SCW 207, the Apex Court has in Para 27 said – If a judgment / order has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it; or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of the court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, that in such eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of section 362 CrPC would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. Other judgmenrs relied upon in the aforesaid judgment are –
1970 CrLJ 378;
1985 CrLJ 23;
AIR 1987 Raj 83 (FB) – Paras 42, 43, 44, 45 and 24 (Imp)
AIR 1972 SC 1300 – Publication of defective cause list – advocate remained absent – order of conviction from acquittal – ordered for rehearing afresh
AIR 1981 SC 1156, Para 2 – Breach of principles of natural justice – matter remanded back to HC.
(2009) 2 SCC 703;
AIR 2011 SC 1232. Paras 3, 4, 5, 9.

(n)   In the case of Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2010) 14 SCC 792,
the Hon’ble Apex Court, in  a Ex-parte Judgment, however, held that Recall of judgment is not warranted where the party not appearing in a “specially directed matter'' for which adequate notice was given.


8.   Some other important observation and rulings of our Constitutional Courts are –

An extension of principles of natural justice requires a reasoned decision – R B Desai versus UOI – (1987) 3 Comp LJ 111 (Del).
Speaking orders – Necessity of – Order of HC setting aside Interlocutory Order without assigning any reason – Not proper – AIR 2011 SC 1353.
Orders passed must be reasoned – AIR 2011 SC 1883 – Para 27.
Order / judgment was passed considering Irrelevant & extraneous material – 2011 (3) ABR (NOC) 261 Bom –Paras 6, 7, 56, 57 – M/s Formac Engineering versus MCGM;
Appellate Auth did not considered several material pieces of evidence while passing impugned order – Appellate auth failed in its duty in deciding the Appeal in accordance with law – a fit case for remanding the matter to the Appellate auth for deciding the Appeal afresh on merit – in accordance with law – Khatri Film Ent versus Vijay Cycle – 2010 (2) All MR 722 – Para 3
Misadventure of Subordinate court – resulting in grave injustice – Balaji Properties & Developers versus The Church of St. Matias – 2010 (3) All MR 62
Interlocutory orders – wrong notions of law canvassed before lower court – Kanhaiyalal K Kewalramani versus Anil K Gurbakshani – 2010 All MR (Cri) 797
Suit filed for temporary Injunction – Appeal court granted Injunction – failure of Appellate court to consider relevant material and appreciation of findings of trial court – omissions can be corrected at under Article 226, 227 – General Manager versus Mehmooda Shikshan and Mahila Gramin – 2010 All MR (Supp) 676 – Para 10; Relied on (2008) 9 SCC 1; (2001) 8 SCC 97; (2002) 1 SCC 319; (1998) 3 SCC 341; (2006) 5 SCC 282;
Challenge to order of Civil Court – Material irregularity – Francisco Rodrigues versus Angelica Rebello – 2010 (5) All MR 516;
Passing of speaking order, discussion of relevant case law, analysis of defence pleas, and recording of findings is an essential requirement of natural justice. Govan Soma Tandel versus C C (Prev) – (2000) 115 ELT 772;
Where the Decree is passed by a court lacking inherent (subject matter) jurisdiction – it can be challenged at any stage – (2011) 11 SCC 198 – Paras 20, 24 and even Application under Article 227 can be maintained before the High Court concerned;
decree obtained by fraud – misrepresentation – can be invoked – Kedariseth Atmaram versus Seetharamaraju – CRA – 5044 / 2009 – Judgment dated – 31-08-2010 – AIR 2011 (NOC);
Where the Court while passing the Order / judgment, has misinterpreted the provision of law and thus acted beyond the scope of their powers conferred upon them under the Statute, then, their such Orders / judgments may be deemed as Ultra Vires and can be challenged under Writ Jurisdiction. Acting beyond Statutory powers / exceeding Statutory powers – (2010) 14 SCC 1.


9.   Therefore, in my view, in the light of above discussion, any Order / judgment of any Court / Tribunal which is alleged to be – 

(a)  Obtained by fraud;
(b)  Obtained by Suppression of facts;
(c) Obtained by misrepresentation;
(d) Where it is brought to the notice of the Court / Tribunal that the Court / Tribunal
      itself has committed a material mistake as to law;
(e) Where if an Order has been pronounced without jurisdiction;
(f) Where if an Order has been pronounced in violation of principle of natural justice;
(g) Where there is non consideration of material submissions and evidences of the party, which would amount to breach of principles of natural justice;
(h) As far as illegality of the Order of the Court / Tribunal is concerned, I will borrow
the words of Justice Lord Denning, in the case of Pearlman versus Governor of    Harrow School, [1978] 3 WLR 736, he said – Whenever a tribunal goes wrong in law, it goes outside the jurisdiction conferred on it and its decision is void, because Parliament only conferred jurisdiction on the tribunal on the condition that it decides in accordance with the law –
may be Recalled, instead of preferring an Appeal / Revision or Writ.


10.       In Raghubir Saran versus State of Bihar– “The Courts exist not only for securing obedience to law of the land but also for securing ends of justice in its widest sense. All Courts, including the HC can exercise such powers as the law of the land confers upon them as well as such inherent powers to do justice as are preserved expressly or are not taken away by a Statute. It is necessary to remember that courts are established to do justice.

Every practice of court must find its ultimate justification in the interest of justice. Every Court possesses the power to do justice. Absence of conferment of powers on subordinate courts does not change this basic and fundamental principle which is inbuilt in every civilized system of law. The primary duty of the court is to see that truth is arrived at.

In The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Nooh [1958 SCR 595] Vivian Bose, J. said that justice should be done in a common sense point of view stating: "I see no reason why any narrow or ultra technical restrictions should be placed on them. Justice should, in my opinion be administered in our courts in a common sense liberal way and be  broad based on human values rather than  on narrow and restricted considerations hedged round with hair-splitting technicalities...."

Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"


Can Courts be Compelled to pass Meritorious Orders: [ATUR CHATUR VERSION]

YES JUDICIARY CAN BE MADE/COMPELLED TO PASS MERITORIOUS ORDERS.
The process is very simple & direct as follows:-

WE JUST NEED TO TELL THE JUDGE NOT TO PASS ARBITRARY ORDERS
That's it !!! So Simple !!! So Fast !!!

SEE HOW?
(1) Like there is a theory to stop police from arbitrary arrest.
(1) Similar theory works to stop the judiciary from passing arbitrary orders.

(2) In order to make police accountable we use the method of looping i.e., the higher authoroties are looped into viz., MHA, PHQ, CAW HO, CWC and SESSIONS JUDGE.
(2) Similarly, this approach to protect oneself from arbitrary orders (i.e., non-meritorious orders) you need to work right from the beginning i.e., alongwith WS you need to file certain preliminary objections which give a hint vis-a-vis human rights invocation.

(3) Like for police, certain RTI's are used & questions are asked / certified copies are asked.
(3) Similarly, you need to ask certain questions in the name of LETTER SEEKING ACTION & forward that copy to DJ, FC, REG VIG, MM, CJ HC, CJI, SESSIONS JUDGE concerned. After 7 days ask ATR. Do NOT expect any action. If any action well and good ELSE at least your LETTER & subsequent RTI has been put on record. This will save u from arbitrary orders especially wrt those grounds mentioned in that letter.

Also study PROSECUTION OF JUDGES on internet.

Also ask for AFFIDAVIT/ OATH filed by that MM while joining duties as MM & study it find out.

BELIEVE ME, This process is VERY DIRECT.
You just need the courage to go ahead.
And of course REMEMBER:- NEVER FILE AFFIDAVIT ALONGWITH A COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO REG VIG else they might take conviction type action against you.
Instead, write LETTER SEEKING ACTION (without affidavit)
and after 7 days file RTI and just ask ATR.
That's it !!!

Thanks & Regards
ATUR CHATUR


HOW TO CHALLENGE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER IN HIGH COURT

Submit all evidences in Trial Court itself.

Get CC of Order.

List out why judge justified the order , if there is no justification, highlight that.

List out the contradictory statements, concealed/ undisclosed facts etc, you brought to court notice but judge ignored.

Have patience, you might have to goto SC to get the relief.

Caution : See the order, has judge taken shelter of any assumption or noted any unclean hands of yours or not . It is often seen that in such order normally judge relates a husband with some unclean hands assumption and do not consider any evidences by him. [Study these]

Stay order is must else you have to fight, else they will file execution and if higher court ask to pay some amount, don't get adamant, pay offer some 20 or 25 % to get the appeal admitted.


Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"


Hope this will help you guys....................all the best
Issued in Public Interest by ATUR CHATUR COUNSELLING *


शादी से पहले और शादी के बाद 
ATUR CHATUR  को रखना याद


Email:- aturchatur@yahoo.com









PURSHISH REJECTED BY JUDGE - latest 2015


Criminal Case Registered against Mumbai Sessions Judge Mr. V K Shewale u/s IPC 503, 504, 506, 294, 500, 350, 351, 355

IN THE HON. JMFC THANE COURT, AT THANE
Criminal Complaint No.    of 2015

COMPLAINT U/S 190 CrPC
For Offences under Indian
Penal Code (IPC) Sections
503, 504, 506, 294, 499, 500
350, 351, 355

  1. Mohini Naraindas Kamwani    )
Age 80 years – VERY Sr. Citizen Widow)

2. Dilip Naraindas Kamwani,           )
Age 59 years                                    )
Both residents of:                            )
101,Mauli Society, A Wing,              )
Plot No. 29C, Sector No. 4,               )
Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703         )       … Complainants

Versus

Mr. V K Shewale                             )
Judge, City Civil Court                     )
& Addl. Sessions Judge,                  )
Gr. Bombay.                                     )
Add.:                                                )
Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court        )     
Old Secretariat Building,                 )     
Fort, Bombay-400 032.                    )       … Accused

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR : -

THE COMPLAINANTS ABOVE NAMED MOST HUMBLY BEG TO SUBMIT AS UNDER : -

  1. That the Complainant No.1 Mohini Kamwani, an 80 year old VERY Senior Citizen Widow of Freedom Fighter who went to Jail with Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi, and her son Complainant No. 2 Dilip Kamwani aged 59 are filing this Criminal Complaint after being aggrieved by the Shouting, Offensive Verbal Abuse, Insults, Humiliations and Serious Threats issued and Criminal Defamation by the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale in the Open Court on 23-6-2014 in Thane Sessions Court.

 2. That this is a VERY Serious Matter of the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale Abusing and Threatening an 80 year old VERY Senior Citizen Widow Victim and Original Complainant under IPC Sections 503 (Criminal Intimidation to Injure), 504 (Intentional Insult), 506 (Criminal Intimidation), 294 ([b]. utters any Obscene Word in or near any public place), 499 (Defamation), 500 (Punishment for Defamation), 350 (Criminal Force to cause Injury, Fear or annoyance), 351 (Assault by making any Gesture or preparation to use Criminal Force), 355 (Assault or Criminal Force with Intent to Dishonour a person, otherwise than on grave provocation).

3. That the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale Abused and Threatened us both the Complainants on 23-6-2014 when we went to submit our PURSHISH (Written Submissions) - ON BEHALF OF ORIGINAL COMPLAINANTS (INTERVENERS) in the matter of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 534 of 2014 at Thane Sessions Court – after giving a Copy of Complaint in the morning at around 12 to Hon. Thane PDJ Mr. R R Gandhi (along with a Copy of the said PURSHISH) against Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale because he did not allow us a proper hearing on Saturday 21-6-2014.

4. That the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale Abused us by saying “Bloody Nonsesnse…I have already dictated the order at 11.00 AM…now throw this Purshish in the Dustbin”.

My son, Complainant No. 2 Protested to the Judge “Your Honor, how can you use bad words like Bloody Nonsense especially to an 80 year old lady ?”

When we pleaded with him that we had already given a Copy of the Purshish to Hon. PDJ and he had asked us to go to the Court and give it to the Lady Officer, the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale Threatened us “If you speak one more word…I will Arrest you both and take you in Custody”.

We told him we were not allowed to speak on Saturday at least take our Written Submissions as Hon. PDJ has asked us to give it to the Lady officer, he said “Now you can go to Hell and Complain to PDJ or HC or SC…I don’t care”

IMMEDIATELY ON THE SAME DAY AND TIME AT 1.45 PM ON 23-6-2014 we gave aHandwritten Complaint of the above incident to Hon. Thane PDJ.

Annexed and marked as Exhibit “A” is the Copy of our Handwritten Complaint – showing the time 1.45 PM mentioned therein by us and the acknowledgment.

5.          That the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale had Humiliated and Insulted us on 21-6-2014 also in Open Court while not allowing us a proper Hearing by saying “You are Interveners, Why are you coming to this Court. Did the Court call you ? (!)…Why are you coming to the Court to add to the Crowd and Rush ? (!)”…”Don’t come to the Court, the Court will pronounce the Order then you can collect the Copy of the Order” and “Stand in the Corner…come in front of the Court only when called…Don’t even come in the front when Accused’s Advocate/APP is talking” (!)…and finally when called “Now Finish your Argument in 2 Minutes” (!).

Annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” is the Copy of our Complaint dated 23-6-2014 against Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale to Hon. Thane PDJ Mr. R R Gandhi along with a Copy of the said PURSHISH giving Details of Material Facts and Documentary Evidences as our Written Submission, because he did not allow us a proper hearing on Saturday 21-6-2014.

6. NO SANCTION REQUIRED TO PROSECUTE A JUDGE FOR COMPLAINT U/S 504, ETC. – FOR USE OF WORDS "NON-SENSE" AND 'BLOODY FOOL' BY PRESIDING OFFICER AGAINST COMPLAINANT:

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

Bidhi Singh, Petitioner …Versus..M. S. Mandyal and another, Respondents. 1993 CRI. L. J. 499

Crl. Misc. Petition (M) No. 229 of 1983, D/- 13 -10 -1992.

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.197 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION – Prosecution of judges and public servants - Complaint under Section 504 I.P.C. - Use of words "non-sense" and 'bloody fool' by Presiding Officer against complainant – Sanction to prosecute, not necessary – This is not the part of his official duty.

“A Presiding Judge is expected to maintain decorum in the proceedings before him. He is expected also to act with restraint- One would expect him to be sober, unruffled and temperate in language even when faced with a situation where those appearing before him may tend to lose their composure. In this scheme of things any vituperative outburst on the part of the Presiding Officer, howsoever grave the provocation to him, cannot be countenanced as an action sustainable as one performed by him "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty."

Annexed and marked as Exhibit “C” is the Copy of the above Case Law.

7. In Jaichand vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 March, 2010 Criminal  Revision  No. 175  Of  2007, Bombay HC Nagpur Bench – Held:

Reading of clause (b) of Section 294 of Indian Penal Code clearly shows that it is not necessary that the abuses should be given only in any public place. On the contrary, this clause (b) shows that the abuses given in or near any public place will also constitute offence under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code.

It is true that because of conviction under Section 294 and 323 of Indian Penal Code for abusing and assaulting a woman, the applicant may lose his employment. The offer made by the applicant to compensate the complainant with Rs.25,000/- in this background and looking to the habits of the applicant to abuse his neighbours, as deposed by the witnesses, in a very filthy language in disrespect to the womanhood, I do not think that this Court should show any sympathy. The offence proved against him cannot be washed away by paying money, particularly when he has no respect for womanhood.

Annexed and marked as Exhibit “D” is the Copy of the above Case Law.

8. That the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale is a Habitual ABUSER and he Insults everybody as Advocate Members of Pune District Bar Association also have informed me in Pune where I met them in person that they had also Complained and Protested against Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale and that is how he was TRANSFERRED from Pune !!!

9. CLINCHING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ACCUSED JUDGE SHRI V K SHEWALE AS TO WHY HE SHOUTED AT US, ABUSED AND THREATENED US:

Bare perusal of the copy of the attached Order passed by the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale on 23-6-2014 in the concerned matter shows various Evidences therein that he was Influenced and hence Biased against us that is why he Shouted at us, Abused and Threatened us.

Documentary Evidences in the said Order of Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale by ignoring material on record and considering extraneous material by DELIBERATELY Misquoting law laid down by Hon. SC and HC and this is Fraud on Power as has been held by Hon. Supreme Court (Full Bench) in the case of Vijay Shekhar vs. Union of India 2004 (3) Crimes (SC).:

(a).   In Para 11 of his Order dated 23-6-2014  the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale has stated that in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Mahrashtra…”para 24, 25…constant or frequent interference in prosecution…in session triable cases and offences, intervener has no right to make oral submission …but he may file written arguments” (AFTER HE HAS NOT ALLOWED US A PROPER HEARING OR TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS THROUGH PURSHISH ON 23-6-2014 !!!)

-              On the Contrary, THE Ld. Thane Judge Mr. V K Shewale has committed Further Fraud in the said Order by Misquoting the Apex Court, as Apex Court has clearly stated in Paras 24, 25 in Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Mahrashtra that the Complainant or Informer may be Heard so that his interests in the Prosecution are not prejudiced or jeopardized !!!: 

Please see the Actual Paragraphs 24 and 25 from the said SC Judgment reproduced below”

-              “24… However, if the proceedings are likely to be quashed, then the complainant should be heard at that stage, rather than compelling him to assail the quashment by taking recourse to an appeal. Sections 225, 301 and 302 were also adverted to and, thereafter, it was opined that a private person is not altogether eclipsed from the scenario, as he remains a person who will be prejudiced by an order culminating in the dismissal of the prosecution…” 

“25… So far as the Sessions Court is concerned… The complainant or informant or aggrieved party may, however, be heard at a crucial and critical juncture of the Trialso that his interests in the prosecution are not prejudiced or jeopardized… If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge harbours the opinion that the prosecution is likely to fail, prudence would prompt that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party be given an informal hearing Reverting to the case in hand, we are of the opinion that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party who is himself an accomplished criminal lawyer and who has been represented before us by the erudite Senior Counsel, was not possessed of any vested right of being heard as it is manifestly evident that the Court has not formed any opinion adverse to the prosecution. Whether the Accused is to be granted bail is a matter which can adequately be argued by the State Counsel. We have, however, granted a full hearing to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate and have perused detailed Written Submissions since we are alive to impact that our opinion would have on a multitude of criminal trials.”

BUT SHOCKINGLY HERE THE ACCUSED JUDGE MR. V K SHEWALE HIMSELF HAS CONSPIRED IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WITH OUR ACCUSED KARANI FAMILY TO SEE THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILS !!!

And the Accused Judge has Not Allowed us to file the Written Submissions on 23-6-2014 also as per his Own Order, though which is a Wrong Order as he has Deliberately Misquoted the said SC Judgment !!!

(b).   Moreover, in Para 11 the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale is LYING openly by stating that “Complainant No. 2 was instructed to submit written brief of argument…”
       
        The point to be noted here Your Honor is that, the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale heard the matter for the First time on Saturday 21-6-2014 after 3 pm so if he had instructed us to submit written brief of argument, then when will we submit the same ?...of course on the Next working day which was Monday 23-6-2014 – But on 23-6-2014 the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale not only Not allowed us to submit our PURSHISH (Written Submissions) but he Shouted at us, Abused and Threatened us as explained above and in our Complaints to Hon. Thane PDJ annexed as Exhibits “A” and “B”. 

        If the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale had instructed us on 21-6-2014 to submit written brief of argument, then:

        (i). How has he passed the said Order on 23-6-2014 in a HURRY – without waiting for us to submit the written brief of argument ?

        (ii). Why would we file a Complaint to Hon. Thane PDJ on 23-6-2014 in the morning with the Copy of our PURSHISH (Written Submissions) stating clearly that as the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale did not allow us a proper hearing on 21-3-2014 so we are filing our written submission ?

        (iii). We would have directly filed our written brief of argument in the Court and the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale would have taken that on Record and the same would have reflected in his said Order which he would have passed not on 23-6-2014 but after taking“our written brief of argument – as instructed by him” !

        THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE ACCUSED JUDGE MR. V K SHEWALE IS LYING IN HIS ORDER THAT HE INSTRUTED US TO SUBMIT THE WRITTEN BRIEF OF ARGUMENT.

(c).   In Para 12 of his Order dated 23-6-2014 the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale hasFalsely stated that there is No IO report that Accused have not co-operated the IOin the Investigationwhen IO Report dated 9-6-2014 to the Court is there and it clearly States in Para 4 – Point 10 “Accused are NOT co-operating in the Investigation” !!!

        Annexed and marked as Exhibit “E” is the Copy of the Order dated 23-6-2014 of the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale.

Annexed and marked as Exhibit “F” is the Copy of the Report dated 9-6-2014 submitted by IO to the Court.

Annexed and marked as Exhibit “G” is the Copy of the SC Case Law Deliberately Misquoted by the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale in his said Order dated 23-6-2014.

10. Hence, based on the above additional Proofs, the Motive of Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale becomes Crystal Clear for Shouting at us, Abusing and Threatening us on 21-6-2014 and 23-6-2014.

11. We humbly request the Hon. Court to note that we are not challenging the said Order dated 23-6-2014 of the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale in this petition.

We have challenged the said Order by filing a Bail Cancellation Application No.349/2014 in Hon. Bombay High Court.

However this fact of his said Order is mentioned in this petition only with the purpose to show the Malafides of the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale and to show that he was not acting as a Judge but acting as an Instrument working in the hands of our Rich and Powerful Original Accused Karani family to help give wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss to us –THAT IS WHY HE SHOUTED AT US, ABUSED AND THREATENED US ON 21-6-2014 AND 23-6-2014.

12. That for the said offences of the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale of Interpolation in Order, Deliberate Misquoting of the said SC Judgment, Dishonest Concealment and Twisting of Facts to help other criminals, the present Complainants are approaching the appropriate authority to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale.

13. That 80 year old VERY Senior Citizen Widow VICTIM of Freedom Fighter Mohini Kamwani humbly requests this Hon. Court to note that everybody respects the age and seniority of an 80 year Poor Widow and if anyone Insults, Abuses or Threatens her the Judge is supposed to take action against the Offender; but here Shockingly the Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale HIMSELF has Abused and Threatened me in the Open Court.

Hence Strict Legal Action needs to be taken against such Judge who has not only done an act unbecoming of a Judge but also done Contempt of Court Himself.

14. In C. Ravichandran Iyer   v.   Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors.,   (1995)  5 SCC 457, Hon. Supreme Court has stated as follows:

[30]  
    
 Judicial office is essentially a public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have moral vigour, ethical firmness and impervious to corrupt or venial influences. He is required to keep most exacting standards of propriety in judicial conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process. Society, therefore, expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary, as wholesome standard of conduct which would generate public confidence, accord dignity to the judicial office and enhance public image, not only of the Judge but the court itself. It is, therefore, a basic requirement that a Judge's official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate. In fact, even his private life must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety, higher than those deemed acceptable for others. Therefore, the Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the fallen standard in the society.

15. We quote from Canons of Judicial Ethics - Speech as part of MC Setalvad Memorial Lectures Series, where Y. K. Sabharwal, ex-Hon. Chief Justice of India has said:

There are certain well-entrenched rules founded on principles of public policy which reflect as to what is expected in the conduct of a Judge. These rules include the following: -

i)            Regard for the public welfare is the highest law (SALUS POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX).
ii)          No man shall be condemned unheard (AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM).
iii)        An act of the Court shall prejudice no man (ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT).

These principles are fundamental rules in the administration of justice and are based on rules of good sense and fair play. Some of these are clubbed together to be categorized as rules of natural justice.

A Judge administers justice. In order to do justice, the first and foremost expectation of him is to be just. In my view, this expectation itself is the fountain source of all that can be put in the realm of canons of judicial ethics. His life must be one open to probity. As a person, in order to be just, has to be morally right, a Judge has also to be fair & impartial to all concerned. He cannot have any pre-disposed state of mind.

Restraint and discipline are most important attributes of an ideal Judge. An Ideal Judge would maintain dignity and decorum in his Court; would not indulge in loose talk; would refrain from unnecessary utterances and would keep his temper in check (and we add:would Not Threaten an 80 year old VERY Senior Citizen Poor Widow VICTIM seeking Justice).

Any power in absence of accountability would turn into a tyranny. It is the cardinal pre-requisite of democracy and rule of law that power is accompanied by accountability. Judges can be accountable only by demonstrating exemplary conduct and behaviour and showing a cultured image.

Judicial ethics are the basic principles of right action of the judges.  It consists of or relates to moral action, conduct, motive or character of judges; what is right or befitting for them.  It can also be said that judicial ethics consist of such values as belong to the realm of judiciary without regard to the time or place and are referable to justice dispensation.

Some critics have accused judges to be prone to developing “a God complex”. George Mikes in his article “Professional Deformities” writes as under : “It was not that Judges were, or are, Sadists. Very few of them are. But sooner or later most of them develop a ‘God complex.’ When everyone keeps kowtowing to you; when people laugh at your silliest jokes and listen to your most, trivial utterances though they were the Sermons on the Mount; when the outcome of quarrels and arguments, and often the fates of men, and women and their children rest in your hands; when you cannot be sacked from your job, however, incompetent or senile you become ..… when, in other words you are treated like God, then it is difficult not to believe in your own divinity. You are addressed as “My Lord”, almost like Him, so naturally you are inclined to believe. He is your colleague. ” It is a matter of saving grace that he ends by observing: I should point out, however, that this rule, like all rules, lacks universal validity. I have known cunning geese. I have met naïve foxes. And I have known modest and almost human Judges.

“Some time back I came across a quote which goes something like this: “Never become so intelligent; never become so high; never become so wise; that some day no one may be able to see the human in you”. It is necessary, and it is my firm view, that judges must remain humane and considerate. They have been vested with divine duties but they would never attain divinity. They are mere agents of the superior power that controls us to do justice between man and man. They have to bear in mind the maxim “Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you”. A humane Judge will always be just and merciful. He would always remember that “mercy seasons justice”. A just and humane Judge will always be non-partisan. He would be above narrow considerations and not prone to external influences.”

16. That due to such humiliation and insulting words by Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale, the Complainants got annoyed and would have replied the Accused, but to maintain the Decorum of the Court the Complainants did not argue in harsh manner.

The Accused tried to Provoke the Complainants, but the Complainants protested that the Judge may pass any Order, but as per the law he cannot Abuse and Threaten the Complainants – especially an 80 year old VERY Senior Citizen Widow Victim.

17. As the incident took place inside the premises of Thane Sessions Court Jurisdiction, Hence we are filing this case in Thane Court.

18. PRAYERS:

Hence the Applicants pray this Hon. Court may please:

(i)          Record our Statements under oath for Verification;

(ii)        Order Issue Process to issue Summons against Accused Judge Mr. V K Shewale u/s of IPC 503, 504, 506, 294, 499, 500 350, 351, 355;

(iii)      Grant any other reliefs as this Hon. Court deems just, fit and proper for Natural Justice;

(iv)       Grant compensation of Rs. 50 Lac to Poor Complainants.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE APPLICANTS AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Place: Thane
Date:  15-4-2015


Complainant No. 1 … Mohini Kamwani


Complainant in-Person No. 2 … Dilip Kamwani



Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"








DEEMED SANCTION


https://www.facebook.com/notes/mohini-kamwani/criminal-case-registered-against-mumbai-sessions-judge-mr-v-k-shewale-us-ipc-503/813262412086542

My PURSHISH - Written Notes of Arguments - in my Case against 2 Bombay High Court Judges


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4188  OF 2014
Dist: Thane

Mohini Naraindas Kamwani & Anr                              …Petitioners
Versus
Mr. Justice P VHardas & 7 Ors.                                      … Respondents

PURSHISH
WRITTENNOTES OF ARGUMENTS

1.                 PetitionerNo. 1 Mohini Kamwani humbly requests the Hon. Court to take Cognizance of thefact that I am an 80 year old Poor Widow who was Jailed Illegally in a FalseCase and that despite Clear Verdict of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. SupremeCourt all the Respondents were found Guilty and also Fined Rs. 6 Lac; butShockingly No Punishment was awarded to them by the RespondentsNo. 1 and 2 Ld. JudgesMr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar – as per the Law, SC 1997Arrest Guidelines Para 37 in D K Basu Case and our Clear Repeated Prayers for Police filing False Case, Forgery inPolice Station Diary, Perjury of filing False Affidavits, Unjustified Arrest, Violations of D K Basu SC 1997 ArrestGuidelines, etc. as explained in our main Petition.

2.           Moreover,I have obtained Clear DEEMED SANCTIONfrom Hon. President of India and Hon. CJI SC, to initiate Criminal/Civil Prosecution against RespondentsNo. 1 and 2 Ld. JudgesMr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, as per Law and Ratio laid down by Hon SC in the case ofSubramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh 2012 (Vol. 1) SCC (Crim.) 1041, as Attached and explained in my Main Petition and in the recentJudgment of August 2014 of Hon. Supreme Court inthe case of Writ Petition (C) No. 305 of 2007  Manzoor Ali Khan Vs. Union of India &Ors. Decided  on 06 August 2014. This issue is not discussed in recent judgment.

If my Clear DEEMED SANCTIONfrom Hon. President of India and Hon. CJI SC - as per Law and Ratio laid down by Hon SC in the case ofSubramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh 2012 (Vol. 1) SCC (Crim.) 1041 is Not Acceptable tothis Hon. Court; then I request this Hon. Court to issue me an Order to obtaina Sanction from Hon. President of India and Hon. CJISC – so I can Approach them for a Sanctionwith this Hon. Court’s Order.

3.           More important to note that, Hon.President has Not Rejected my Complaint against Respondents No. 1and 2 Ld. Judges Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar; but forwarded my Complaint to Dept. of Justice and Hon. Law Ministry has sent a Letter to Hon. Registrar General of Hon. BombayHC asking to takeaction on the Ld.Judges as per my Complaint and Intimate me. This is all Attached and explained in my Main Petition.

4.           As RespondentsNo. 3 and 4 Hon. Registrar General and Hon. Chief Justice did Not take any Action against RespondentsNo. 1 and 2 Ld. JudgesMr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar since June 2014 even after Law Ministry letter and the DEEMED SANCTION; hence the 80 year old Poor Petitioner has been FORCED to file thispresent Petition to seek Justice from this Hon. Court.

5.                 That the Petitioner humblyRequests this Hon. Court Not to Dismissmy this Petition No. 4188/2014 on the basis of Order dated 11/11/2014 passed inCrim. WP No. 3611/2014, as that Judgment is NOT Binding and Applicable tothe case of the Petitioner on following Grounds:

(i). The abovesaid Judgment is ‘Judgmentper-incuriam’ as it is passed by Ignoringsettled principles of Law laid down by Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswamy case (1991)3SCC 655, because in the said Judgmentthough the guidelines given that the prior consultation of the Hon. ChiefJustice of India is necessary but that is only regard with offences relatingwith corruption and for any other offences under IPC, such procedure is Notnecessary. Relied on 2001 Cri. LJ 800.This issue is Not discussed in the said Order in Crim. WP 3611/2014 and therelevant paras of the said Constitution Bench Judgment are Not analyzed.

Please see Para 55 bottom of the Page No. 43 and Page No.44 of my Main Petition.

Cross Citation : AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1729 = 2000 AIR SCW 1561
SUPREME COURT OFINDIA

Coram: 2    V. N. KHARE AND Y. K. SABHARWAL,JJ.
CivilAppeal No. 883 of 1993* with C.A. Nos. 2456 and 2457 of 2000 (with C.C. No.2243 of 1995 @ SLP (C) Nos. 6070 of 2000 and 23174 of 1995), D/- 5 -4 -2000.
Government.of A.P. and another v. B. Satyanarayana Rao (dead) by L.Rs. and others,Respondents.
================================================
PRECEDENT - Precedents - Rule of per incuriam - Whenapplies -Rule of per incurium can be applied where a Court omits to consider abinding precedent of the same Court or the superior Court rendered on the sameissue or where a Court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue.    (Para 8)

(ii). Moreover, as per law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy’s case (2012)3 SCC 64,it is laid down that when no Sanction is accorded on the application forSanction within 3 months then Prosecution can be launched by considering it tobeDEEMED SANCTION.

While discussing this authority the Divisional Bench held in Para 18 ofthe Order in Crim. WP 3611/2014 that in Subramanian Swamy’s case the provisionsof Section 3 of Judges Protection Act were not considered.

This is Judicial Impropriety as has been laid down by Hon. Supreme Court in the case ofAIR 2002 SC681.

  AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT681 = 2002 AIR SCW 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From : (2001) 3 Crimes 185 (Chennai))
Coram : 2  K. T. THOMAS AND S. N. PHUKAN , JJ.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 65-66 of 2002 (arising out of SLP (Cri.)Nos 2699-2700 of 2001), D/-15 -1 -2002.
Suganthi Suresh Kumar , Appellant v. Jagdeeshan , Respondent.
==================================================
Constitution of India , Art.141 - SUPREME COURT - Law declaredby Supreme Court - Cannot be by-passed by High Court on ground that some pointhas not been considered - By passing such directions Single Judge of High Courthas committed an impropriety - We express our disapproval of the course adoptedby the said Judge - It is impermissible for the High Court to overrule thedecision of the Apex Court on the ground that Supreme Court laid down the legalposition without considering any other point. It is not only a matter ofdiscipline for the High Courts in India, it is the mandate of the constitutionas provided in Art. 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall bebinding on all courts within the territory of India- Ruling by Supreme Courtthat order for payment of compensation can be enforced by imposing sentence indefault - High Court holding that it need not be followed by Subordinate Courtsof State as the ruling has been made without considering S. 431 of Criminal P.C. (Para 9)
By expressing that the said legal direction of the Supreme Courtshould not be followed by the subordinate courts in Kerala as Supreme Court haslaid down the said legal proposition without adverting to S. 431 of the Code,the learned single Judge of High Court of Kerala has committed an impropriety .


Moreover, it was the duty of the Division Bench to explain what can bedone if no Sanction is accorded.

Needless to mention here that even obiterdicta of the Supreme Court is also Binding and in Subramanian Swamy’s casein Para 20 it has been Ruled that absence of any time limit in grantingSanction is not in conosence with the requirement of the due process of lawwhich has been read by Constitution Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978)1 SCC 248.

Needless to mention here that Hon.Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 261 has said that it is the Duty of the Judgesof Superior Courts to make law more predictable. The question of law directlyarising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The lawmust be made more effective as a guide to behavior.

CrossCitation :AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 261 =1991 AIR SCW 2124
SUPREME COURT
(From: Bombay)

Coram: 2    G. L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHASHETTY, JJ.
CivilAppeals Nos. 5736 of 1985 and 508 of 1986, D/- 13 -7 -1989.
SundarjasKanyalal Bhathija and others …. v… The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and othersAND
PrahladHiranand Advani and others ….vs... The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra
================================================
Constitutionof India, Art.141- PRECEDENTS - Judges are bound by precedents and procedure -They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to befound, no rule and no authority - where a single judge or a Division Bench doesnot agree with the decision of a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the mattershall be referred to a larger Bench. It is a subversion of judicial process notto follow this procedure - it is the duty of judges of superior courts andtribunals to make the law more predictable. The question of law directlyarising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The lawmust be made more effective as a guide to behaviour. It must be determined withreasons which carry convictions within the Courts, profession and public.Otherwise, the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how toadvise their clients. Sub-ordinate courts would find themselves in anembarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinions. The generalpublic would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimatelyfalls into disrepute- One must remember that pursuit of the law, howeverglamorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench. (Paras 17, 20)

(iii). DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY:
PROTECTION PROVIDED TO JUDGES UNDER THE JUDGESPROTECTION ACT – IS FOR HONEST JUDGES ONLY.

While considering the issue regarding Discharge of Official Duty, it issettled law that it is not the Official Duty of any Judge to pass an Order soas to give Escape Route to the Accused; in other words it is an Offence u/s 218of IPC and it can be understood by Case Law ofBombay High Court in AIR 1921 Bom 115 where it has been laiddown that the gist of Section 218 of IPC is Stifling of Truth and thePerversion of the Cause of Justice in case where an Offence has been committedto Screen any particular person. It is sufficient that he knows it to be likelythat Justice will Not be executed and that someone will Escape from Punishment.

(iv). Moreover the issue discussed by my Respondent No. 4 in Nilesh Ojha’scase that the Officer who passes an Order is entitled to get protection u/s3(1) of the Judges Protection Act is also Not Applicable in my case because:
(a). As per the law laid down by Catena of Judgments and by this Hon.Court in 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 42says that nothing can be said to have been done in good faith if it is not donewith due care and caution and in such Complaints the Hon. Court is Bound totake Cognizance against Public Servant.
(b). Moreover as per Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act, the Hon.High Court is having Authority to direct initiation of Prosecution against aJudicial Officer.
This point is Misconceived in Nilesh Ojha’s case.

(v). Moreover Judgment passed in Nilesh Ojha’s case is Vitiated and Nulland Void in view of law laid down by Hon.Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Davinder Singh Bhullar 2011(14) SCC770, where it has been laid down that when there is any element of Bias/ Apprehension of Bias in the mind of party and if that party raises objectionthen such person / Judge should not hear that case and if he hears the casethen the Judgment, Order etc. stands Vitiated for want of Impartiality. SuchJudgment is a Nullity and the trial ‘CoramNon-Judice’.
In the case of Nilesh Ojha he Registered a Complaint against Hon. CJShri Mohit Shah, my Respondent No. 4, for Misusing his Power to Save AccusedJudge Smt. Roshan Dalvi and Prayed that his Any matter should not be placedbefore Hon. CJ Shri Mohit Shah. A copy of the said Complaint of Nilesh Ojha isenclosed.
Under these circumstances, hearing the matter of Crim. WP 3611/2014which was in fact assigned to Bench of Hon. Justice Shri V M Kanade and passingthe Order is sufficient to hold that the Orderis NULL and VOID.
Moreover in Nilesh Ojha’s case, the Case Law laid down by Division Bench of this Hon. Court in Deelip B Sonawane Vs. State 2003(1)B.Cr.C. 727 was not considered where it has been laid down that as perSection 3(2) of Judges Protection Act, High Court can direct initiation ofProsecution against Judicial Officer and no Sanction is required.
In 2009 (2) B.Cr.C. 188 (SC)it has been laid down that protection u/s 197 CrPC would be unavailable to aPublic Servant if authority vested in public servant is Misused for doingthings which are Not otherwise Permitted under Law.
Full Bench of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of 2001(2)B.Cr.C. 750 laiddown that the question of Sanction to Prosecute need not be decided asPreliminary Issue, question can be left open for decision on Conclusion ofTrial.

6.                 Furthermore,in my case Grave and Serious Criminal Offences of the 4 Guilty Police officershave been Proved by this Hon. Court and upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court Notgiving any Relief to the Guilty Police AND THEIR Conviction has attainedFinality.

7.           That whether ONLY Compensation to an 80 year oldSenior Citizen Widow of a Freedom Fighter Arrested and Jailed Illegally in aFalse Case and in Violations of D K Basu SC 1997 Arrest Guidelines – ISSUFFICIENT AND NO PROSECUTION OF GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS ???!!!

In factthe proper order which can be passed is as has been passed by Hon. Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 117.

8.                 It ishumbly requested that all my points should be explained and decided as per theguidelines of Hon. Supreme Court inthe case of Suga Ram Vs. State 2007 ALLMR (Cri.) 546 (SC) – as mentioned on Page No. 39 of my Main Petition  and all the Case Laws relied by me be dealtwith as per law laid down by Hon.Supreme Court (3-Judge Bench) in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Case – AIR (1997)SC 2477 relied at Page No. 23 of my Main Petition which laid down the ratiothat no order can be passed without going through the applicability ratio laiddown by Hon. Supreme Court.


Place:Mumbai                                                                          
Date:14-11-2014              
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONERSWILL ALWAYS REMAIN GRATEFUL.

MohiniNaraindas Kamwani – PETITIONER-IN-PERSON NO. 1

DilipNaraindas Kamwani – PETITIONER-IN-PERSON NO. 2

Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"


Hope this will help you guys....................all the best
Issued in Public Interest by ATUR CHATUR COUNSELLING *


शादी से पहले और शादी के बाद 
ATUR CHATUR  को रखना याद

Email:- aturchatur@yahoo.com







Rs. 20 Crore (200 Million) Criminal + Defamation Cases on 2 Bom. HC Ld. Judges - by Mohini Kamwani - Part - 1

►►►I am Grateful to SC/HC Advocate Nilesh Ojha…for his Kind Guidance…in d Drafting ofthis Case…He has also Written a Book…”HOW TO PROSECUTE JUDGES, POLICE &GOVT. PLEADERS”…

Though Nilesh Ojha is an Advocate…but HeGets us Justice…LIKE A JUDGE…by Showing us the Ways through his Book…&Prosecuting Judges, Police, APP, etc. !!!
Because…some Corrupt Judges…don’t even…ACT ASADVOCATES…for the Poor Victims…WHICH IS THEIR DUTY !!!



►►► AS the Matter is too Long …For the …FULL CASE Copy…PleaseClick on this Link►►► https://www.dropbox.com/s/ty50oqovmcjw8ie/NHRC%20-%20Hardas%20%26%20Bhatkar%20Case.pdf

Or

►►► Read it in 3 Parts - in my Notes


My Case in NHRC: Part - 1

BEFORE HON’BLE HUMAN RIGHTSCOMMISSION, NEW DELHI
          PETITION NO. ______/ 2014
PETITIONER :       Smt. Mohini Naraindas Kamwani – Age 79years
MOB - 9920412577– RES. TEL - 022-27823443
Address – 101,Mauli, 1st Floor, A-Wing, Plot No. 29-C, Sector 4, Vashi, NaviMumbai 400703 Maharashtra - INDIA.
EMAIL-mohini.kamwani@gmail.com
…….V/S……
RESPONDENTS:- 1) Shri P V Hardas
                             Judge,Bombay High Court,
Fort, Fountain, Mumbai 400001.
2)Smt. Mridula Bhatkar
                             Judge, Bombay High Court,
Fort, Fountain, Mumbai 400001.
3) Hon. Registrar General,
Bombay High Court,
Fort, Fountain, Mumbai 400001.
4)Hon. Chief Justice,
BombayHigh Court,
Fort, Fountain, Mumbai 400001.
5)CBI Director,
RoomNo. 114, North Block,
NewDelhi 110001.
          6) CBI Joint Director - Zone-I,
TannaHouse, Nathalal Pareekh Marg,
Mumbai400039.
          7) State of Maharashtra, through Govt.Pleader.
BombayHigh Court,
Fort, Fountain, Mumbai 400001.


PETITIONU/SEC 18(3) OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 FOR INTERIM COMPENSATION OFRS. 2 CRORE (ii) FILING OF APPROPRIATE WRIT BEFORE HON,BLE SUPREME COURT AS PERSEC. 18(2) FOR FILING WRIT PETITION BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ON OUR BEHALFFOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF OUR HUMAN RIGHTS BY PASSING A BIASED AND PARTIAL FINALJUDGMENT ORDER DATED 13-6-2013 BY SHRI JUSTICE P V HARDAS AND SMT. JUSTICE MRIDULABHATKAR ONLY AWARDING US RS. 6 LAC COMPENSATION AND PROTECTING 4 GUILTY POLICEOFFICERS BY NOT TAKING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THEM AS PER OUR CLEAR PRAYERS ANDALSO FOR VIOLATION OF 1997 D. K. BASU SC ARREST DIRECTIVES AND CONTEMPT OF HON.SUPREME COURT AND FORGERY AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY GUILTY POLICE WHICH WAS CAUGHT BY ANOTHER BENCH OF HON.BOM. HC VIDE 2 HC ORDERS DATED 20-11-2012 AND 23-11-2012 IN OUR CRIM. WP NO.1857/2012 AND CAUSING SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO US.
         Ref. : -  Honble Supreme Court Judgment in (2011)3SCC (Cri)727 which says that Human Rights Commission is havingjurisdiction to deal with the case of Violation of Fundamental Rights by Courtsincluding High Court.

Thepetitioner humbly submits as under;
1.   That the petitioner MohiniKamwani is a Senior Citizen aged 79 years widow of Freedom Fighter WHO WAS INCARCERATED WITH M.K. GANDHIIN 1942 QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT.

2.    Thatthe Petitioner is filing this Petition with Hon. NHRC against 2 Hon. Bom. HC Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar who were the presiding Judges in the petitioner’s Criminal Writ Petition no.1857/2012 in Bombay High Court and who vide their Final Judgment dated 13-6-2013 Violated thepetitioner’s Fundamental and Human Rights and Protected the 4 Police officers whowere found Guilty (and my Accused Karanis), who Arrested and Jailed thepetitioner and her son Illegally in a False Case that we were going to commitSuicide, by Not Prosecuting the 4 Guilty Police officers for the Forgery,Perjury, Filing of False Affidavits/Cases, Contempt of all the Courts and NotPunishing the Police for clear Violations of 1997 SC Arrest Guidelines in D K Basu vs. Stateof Bengal and  Not initiating Contempt of SC proceedings asper Para 36 of the said SC Guidelines – Despite Clear Prayers by the Petitioner– Resulting in:

a).Severe Injustice, Mental Torture and Harassment caused to the 79 year old Petitioner,her son and a Mentally Challenged Daughter

b).Additional Costs of Litigation to Petitioner by approaching Hon. SC and LowerCourt for FIR against 4 Guilty Police officers and my Accused Karanis and Stillfighting these unwanted Court Cases in HC and other Courts since 2013

c).As the Guilty Police were Not Punished as per the Law, they were Not Dismissedbut they got Medals and Promotions

d).As the Guilty Police were Not Punished as per the Law, Police got Bold and alsoBeat up the petitioner’s son – Just Before the Final Judgment

Annexed and marked as  Exhibit “A” is a Copy of the Biased Final Judgment Order dated 13-6-2013 of the petitioner’s Criminal Writ Petition no. 1857/2012in Bombay High Court issued by Respondents No. 1 and 2 ,the Hon. Bom. HC Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar.

3.    Thatthe petitioner is filing this Petition with Hon. NHRC against 2 Hon. Bom. HCJudges for only her Fundamental and Human Rights and that she Reserves herOther Rights, for which she is filing the respective Criminal and/or otherCases against the Judges in the concerned Courts.

Thatthe Petitioner is seeking total Compensation of Rs. 20 Crore through Criminaland Defamation Cases from RespondentsNo. 1 and 2 Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar under theremedy available to her in law in the appropriate Courts/Forum and that thePetitioner is Praying to Hon. NHRC to grant her Rs. 2 Crore as InterimCompensation in this Present Petition to Hon. NHRC.

4.    A).That the Fundamental Rights to life includes “Right to Life with dignity”.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (2012)3 SCC (Cri)733 heldthat Rights of reputation is also a facel under Art.21 of the Constitution.

B).That the Petitioner’s Fundamental and Human Rights were Violated and also Violationof Arts. 3, 5 and others of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948 andViolation of Arts. 9(2) of the International Covenant Of Civil And PoliticalRights.

5.    Hon’bleNational Human rights Commission is having power to enquiry in such cases wherethere is violation of fundamental Rights even by Court.
                                          Reliedon : (2011)3SCC (Cri)727
                                                                        “Protectionof Human Rights Act (10 of 1994), Ss. 2 (d), 12 (j) - instances of  Court's judgmenteven by Supreme Court violating the human rights of the citizens- Jurisdictionof NHRC under S. 12 (j) enlarged to include enquiry in such cases where partyis denied protection of any law to which he is entitled —
'Human rights' — Broad visionof definition can­not be straitjacketed within narrow con­fines — Personentitled to benefit un­der a particular law, and benefits under that law havebeen denied to him — It will amount to a violation of his human rights —Jurisdiction of NHRC under S. 12 (j) enlarged to include enquiry in such caseswhere party is denied protection of any law to which he is entitled — Whetherdenial is by private party, a pub­lic institution, the government oreven Courts of law notwithstanding.  We are of the opinion thatif a person is entitled to benefit under a particular law, and benefits underthat law have been denied to him, it will amount to a violation of his humanrights. The assumption in the judgment under review that there can be noviolation of a person's human right by a judgment of this Court is possibly notcorrect. This Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has to deal withmany judgments of High Courts and Tribunals in which the High Courts or theTribunals, on an erroneous perception of facts and law, have  rendereddecisions in breach of human rights of the parties and this Court corrects sucherrors in those judgments. The instances of Court's judgment even by Supreme Court violating the human rights of thecitizens may be extremely rare but it cannot be said that such a situation cannever happen. “  (Paras 46, 47, 52)
Ramdev Chauhan –Vs- BaniKant AIR 2011 SC (Criminal) 31.    

6.    Thatas per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Selv- V/s - State 2014 Cri.L.J. 9 fair trial, enquiry is fundamentalright.
In order to ensure fair trialResp. no. 1 is liable to be transferred out of state. Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of …. observed that
Constitution of India ,Art21,14,- fair trial - Denial of, is crucification  of human rights.
Fairtrial is main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not behampered or threaten in any manner. Fair trial entails the interest of theaccused, the victims and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded toevery accused in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty and theaccused to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair,just reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach orviolation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as awhole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances,the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration ofjustice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law’ andthe courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct thatoccurs in relation to criminal proceedings. Denial of a fair trial is as muchinjustice to the accused as it to victim and the society .It necessarilyrequires a trial before an impartial judge , a fair prosecutor and anatmosphere of judicial claim. Since the object of the trial is to mete outjustice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should bea search for the truth and not about over technicalities and must be conductedunder such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justiceshould not only be done but should be seem to have done. Therefore, free andfair is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the constitution .Right to get a fairis not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore , anyhindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the constitution“No trial can be allowed prolong indefinitely agency or the state machinery andthat is the raison d’etre in prescribing the time frame’ for conclusion of thetrial. Article 12 of the universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for theright to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our constitution.Therefore , fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and , in a way ,an important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of law.Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights.(para 26)

7.    Ihad severed our relation Legally with my Married Daughter Sumita Karani and herfamily in 2007 by giving them Legal Notice in Vashi Times, because they hadlooted and cheated us and destroyed us financially leading to Deaths of myHusband and Son and Suicide by my 2nd Unmarried Daughter Gita in2007.

8.    Butagain from August 2010 to December 2010 my Grandson Manoj Karani startedThreatening us by coming to our house and Demanding my Bank Account No. andSignatures to loot us again.

9.    On23.12-2010, we went to Vashi Police Station to file FIR against Karani family,but Police asked us to give everything in Writing. On 24-12-2010, we approachedthen Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner Mr. Javed Ahmed who refused to take ourcomplaint. Then we went back to Vashi Police Station who only registered anN.C.

10. Asno action was taken against Karanis, I complained to higher Authorities, butstill no action was taken.

11. SoI sat on Hunger Strike at Azad Maidan from 16-01-2012 to 24-01-2012.

12. On25-01-2012 Vashi Police arrested me & my 2nd Son Dilip Kamwaniillegally and Jailed us for 4 days at Kalyan Jail in a False Case that we weregoing to commit Suicide –BECAUSE I HADCOMPLAINED AGAINST POLICE TO HIGHER AUTHORITIES THAT POLICE WERE NOTREGISTERING MY FIR AGAINST MY ACCUSED RELATIVES WHO WERE THREATENING ME !!!

13. Aftergetting out of Jail, on 07-05-2012 I filed a Criminal Writ Petition no. 1857/2012 in Bombay High Court and that Hon.Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkarwere the PresidingJudges who delivered the Final Judgment Order on 13-6-2013.

14.        I the Petitioner had filed Amendments inthe said Crim.WP 1857/2012 and Prayed for Contempt proceedingsagainst the Police and Prosecution of 4 Guilty Police officers for filing Falsecase against us that we were Arrested because we were going to Commit Suicideand also Police filing False Affidavits, False Statements, False Reports, etc.in High Court and JMFC Vashi Court and doing Forgery and PerjuryWHICHWERE PROVED BY NONE OTHER BUT HONEST JUDGE HON. JUSTICE A.S. OKA AND WHOALSO PASSED 2 CLEAR ORDERS DATED 20-11-2012 AND 23-11-2012 CLEARLY STATINGFORGERY AND PERJURY BY POLICE.

Annexed and markedas  Exhibit “B” are the Copies of the 2 CLEAR ORDERS DATED 20-11-2012 AND 23-11-2012 of Hon. Bom.HC HON. JUSTICE A.S. OKA in the Petitioner’s Crim. WP No.1857/2012, CLEARLY STATING FORGERY AND PERJURY BY POLICE.
                                
15.        That EVEN AFTER THESE 2 HC Orders and Clear Prayers forProsecution of Guilty Police, the RespondentsNo. 1 and 2 Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, neitherallowed our Prayers nor rejected it but Dismissed those Prayers withoutany Reason.

This isan Offence u/s 218, 201, 219 of IPC.

16.        This is also an Offence under Contempt of Court’s Act for Not followingguidelines of Hon. Supreme Court.

17.        BRIEF FACTS OF MY CASE

(A). 79 year Petitioner Mohini Kamwani andher son Dilip Kamwani aged 58 were Illegally Arrested and Incarcerated for 4days at Kalyan Jail on 25-1-2012, in Blatant Violations ofD.K. Basu Vs. State of Bengal 1997 SC ArrestGuidelines, in a False Case filed by Vashi Police in aCriminal Conspiracy by 2 Vashi SPIs, DCP and Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner,filing a False Affidavit in JMFC Vashi Court that PetitionerMohini Kamwani and her son were going to Commit Suicide; because Mohini Kamwanihad sent 100+ Complaints to Higher Authorities from 2011 about Police Notregistering her FIR against her Accused relatives, Karanis, who wereThreatening her from August 2010 and Demanding her Bank a/c no. and Signaturesto Loot her AGAIN, even though Mohini Kamwani had Severed her Relation Legallywith her relatives since 2007 due to their Past atrocities, Looting andFinancial Destruction leading to the untimely Deaths of Petitioner’s Husband, young2nd son and Suicide by her 2nd unmarried Daughter Gita in2007.

(B). After coming out of Jail, PetitionerMohini Kamwani filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1857/2012 in Hon.Bombay High Court on 7-5-2012, annexing several Prima Facie Documentary Evidencesas Exhibits, and other stating Criminal Conspiracy by Police Protecting my Richand Powerful Accused Karani Family and Mohini Kamwani has clearlyPrayed forthe Suspension and Prosecution of the Police.

(C). That the HONEST JUDGE JusticeShri Abahay S. Oka CAUGHT the Police LYINGinthe False Affidavit dated 3-8-2012 filed by my Accused Vashi SPIRaosaheb Sardesai and passed 2 Orders dated 20-11-2012 and 23-11-2012 (2 saidHC Orders already attached as Exhibit B) Clearly stating The affidavit filed (by SPI R. Sardesai) is totally unsatisfactory(FALSE Affidavit)” anddirected that the concerned officer (SPI R.Sardesai) toremain present on 23.11.2012 along with entire record.” and Detecting Police FORGERYin Police Station Diary entry No.26, stated Wehave perused the original arrest form of the petitioner and her son. Primafacie, it appears to us that endorsement that arrestees declined to sign thesame has been subsequently made as the handwriting appears to be different thanthe handwriting in which various details have been filled in. In any case,additional affidavit cannot be permitted to be filed to fill up any lacuna”.Hon. Justice A.S. Oka and S.S. Shinde also stated in the said Order that Prima Facie case is made out by Petitioners(us) that directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] have notbeen complied with.

Annexed and markedas  Exhibit “C” is the Copy of the False Affidavit filed by Co-Respondent No. 1 SPI R.Sardesai.

(D). On 29-8-2012, Petitionerhad filed a Rejoinder to SPI R. Sardesai’s FALSE Affidavit,clearly stating that my complaint was about Threats by Accused Karanisand NOT about Rs. 1.36 Crore, as also FALSELY Alleged by Police Respondents,and that Petitioner Mohini Kamwani had ENDED her Hunger Strike and gave anUndertaking to Azad Maidan Police on 24-1-2012 that she was NOT going to CommitSuicide.

Annexed and markedas  Exhibit “D” is the Copy of the Rejoinder dated 29-8-2012filed by Petitioner Mohini Kamwani.

Annexed and markedas  Exhibit “E” is the Copy of the undertaking dated24.01.2012 of the Petitioner MohiniKamwani given to Azad MaidanPolice wherein she has very clearly statedthat in her life of 77 years she didnot breach any law and she did not intend to do so at this stage of herlife and that she will NOT commit Suicide.

(E). On 22-2-2013, my Accused 2ndVashi Police SPI Laxman Kale, AGAIN, filed 3rd False Affidavit, even after 2 above HC Orders; but Hon. Justice P.V. Hardas, who wasassigned our case from 11-2-2013 along with Hon. Justice Ms. Mridula Bhatkar,have Deliberately NOT mentioned a word about the Falsity of this PoliceAffidavit, Nor about the Criminal Conspiracy of DCP P. Purushottam Karadattaching as Exhibit A in this False Affidavit a False Reply to Hon. BombayHigh Court on behalf of ADG Ahmed Javed, in the Final Judgment Order dated13-6-2013; even though Petitioner Mohini Kamwani has:

(i). Added aClear Prayer in Para 23 in her Amendment dated 27-2-2013 TO HON. JUSTICEP.V. HARDAS23. I request to Add/Amend this in my Prayers– as continuation – Prayer (k) - Suspension and Prosecution of Respondent No.1Laxman Kale and Raosaheb Sardesai and Respondent No.2, DCP Vashi Zone 1, forLying and sending False and Malafied Replies/Reports to Higher Authoritiesincluding toHon. Bombay High Court Registrar (Legal & Research) as Exh ‘A’ in PSILaxman Kale’s Affidavit to this Hon. Court dated 22-02-2013 about Manoj Karaniand family to Protect them and deny Justice to me, a 79 year Sr. Citizen WidowComplainant and get me Arrested And Jailed.

(ii). Repeatedly Added the same above mentioned Prayersin her Rejoinder dated 1-3-2013 TO HON. JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS in Para 4-5 and also in Para 11 –PRAYER/S: I am 79 today, I amawaiting Final Judgment. Respondents are trying all the Dubious methods toDelay my matter and submit False Sworn affidavits and False Replies tomy Submissions and go into the merits of the case by submissions/arguments onMSHRC, NCW, my alleged claim of Rs. 1.36 Crore a Civil Matter, etc., EXCEPT THESUBJECT MATTER OF MY PETITION, which is our Illegal Detention and Arrest my son’shandcuffing…. Ialso Humbly Pray, Your Lordships, pending Final Judgment, to Suspend RespondentNo.1 Laxman Kale and PSI Raosaheb Sardesai and Respondent No.2, DCP Vashi Zone1 and their Prosecution as per my Prayers (a), (b), (e), (f), (i).

(iii). Added the same Prayers in her Amendment 3 dated 28-3-2013TO HON. JUSTICEP.V. HARDASPara 37, adding the Name of Respondent No.3 Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner37.Petitioners humbly requests following Prayers to be Amended/Added: (s)Pending hearing and final disposal we request this Hon. Court be pleased todirect that officers of Respondents No.1 Vashi SPI Laxman Kale and Vashi SPIRaosaheb Sradesai, Respondent No.2 DCP Zone I Navi Mumbai and Respondent No.3Navi Mumbai Commissioner of Police be suspended and prosecuted for illegallydetaining, arresting and seeking detention order and Judicial Custody from theLearned Magistrate of Hon. JMFC Vashi Court on False SwornAffidavit/chargesheet/submissions”.

(iv). Added the same Prayers in her Amendment 4 dated 30-3-2013TO HON. JUSTICEP.V. HARDAS –with stating that Respondent Police officers have done PerjuryForgeryetc. and also in Para 43. “YourLordships, we would like to humbly request the Learned APP through this Hon.Court, and that we wish no offence to her/him, that along with being thecounsel for the Respondent Police officers, she/he is also an officer of thecourt and a woman and a human being; she/he should see the Truth and stop theRespondent Police officers from filing any further False Sworn Affidavits tomisguide this Hon. Court and hamper our Justice delivery, …and also asRespondent Police officers have already done Perjury in my case by submittingFalse Sworn Affidavits in Hon. JMFC Vashi Court which has been Proved by theorders dated 20-11-2012 and 23-11-2012 of this Hon. Court after thoroughPerusal of the Station Diary/other Records by the Hon. Court, and again FalseAffidavits filed by Respondents Raosaheb Sardesai and Laxman Kale in this Hon.Court attaching False Reports/Replies of Respondent No.2 DCP P. Karad asExhibit, who has been Lying since 2011…”

(F). On 13-6-2013, Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar gave us theFinal Judgment Order ONLY awarding us a Compensation of Rs. 3 Lac each, butNo action of Prosecution or Proceedings against the 4 Guilty Police Officersfor their Criminal Offences like filing False Affidavits, Cases, Statements,Contempt of SC/HC/JMFC Vashi Court, as Prayed by us through various Amendments,thus Protecting them from any Punishment.
Annexed and marked as  Exhibit“F” is the Copy of the additionalFALSE affidavit dated 22.02.2013 filed by Respondent No.4 Laxman Kalewith Respondent No.1 DCP Karad’s False Reply vide Exhibit A therein in CriminalWrit Petition No. 1857 of 2012.
Annexed and marked as  Exhibit“G” is the Copy of theAmendment dated 27-2-2013 filed by thePetitioner Mohini Kamwani, without Exhibits.
Annexed and marked as  Exhibit“H” is the Copy of the Rejoinder dated 1-3-2013 filed by thePetitioner Mohini Kamwani.
Annexed and marked as  Exhibit“I” is the Copy of theAmendment dated 28-3-2013 filed by thePetitioner Mohini Kamwani, without Exhibits.
Annexed and marked as  Exhibit“J” is the Copy of theAmendment dated 30-3-2013 filed by thePetitioner Mohini Kamwani, without Exhibits.

18.        Inorder to prosecute the said Judges Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar and to save the pure fountain of justice fromfurther pollution and also with a view to put lid on arbitrary exercise ofpower by corrupt Judges of Higher Judiciary I sent Complaint againstRespondents No. 1 and 2 Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar on 19-3-2014 to Hon Prseident of India, Hon. CJISC, Hon. CJ Bom. HC, CBI Director Delhi and Mumbai - as my National duty andpious obligation as enshrined inArticle51 (A) (h) of the Constitution of India.

Annexed and marked asExhibit “K” is the Copyof the said Complaint against Respondents No. 1 and 2 Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar dated19-3-2014 along with the Request Letterto Hon. Justice Mr. P.V. Hardas to Resign Gracefully from Hon. Bom. HC.

19.        Moreover, in view of  the  law laid down in Ramlal –vs- State 2001 Cri.L.J. 800for registration of Criminal case against a High Court Judge sanction is notnecessary. In another case of Shri. Shameet Mukharjee –Vs- C.B.I. 2003DRJ (70) 327, the corrupt High Court Judge was arrested and detained toPCR for 12 days.

In the case of Ramanlal–Vs- State   2001 Cri. L. J. 800, it has been held that, theHigh Court Judge is liable to be prosecuted in view of Sec. 120 (B) of I.P.C.if he supports the conspirators. It has been held that,
2001 Cri. L.J. 800
A]Cri. P.C. Sec. 197 – Sanction for prosecution – Accused are Additional HighCourt  Judge, Suprintendant of Police SanjeevBhatt and others – The accused hatched conspiracy to falsely implicate a shopowner in a case under N.D.P.S. Act and when shop owner submitted to theirdemands he was discharged – Complaint u.s. 120-B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368,388, 458, 482, I.P.c. and Sec. 17, 58 (1), (2) of NDPS Act – Held – there is noconnection between official duty and offence – No sanction is required forprosecution – Registration of F.I.R. and investigation legal and proper.
B]     Cri. P.C. Sec. 156 – Investigation against accused Addl. High Court Judge –Whether prior consultation with Chief Justice is necessary prior filling ofF.I.R. against a High Court Judge as has been laid down by Supreme Court in K.Veerswami’s case (1991) (3) SCC 655) – Held – In K. Veerswami’s case SupremeCourt observed that the Judges are liable to be dealt with just the same as anyother person in respect of criminal offence and  only in offence regardingcorruption the sanction for criminal prosecution is required – the directionsissued by Hon’ble Supreme Court are not applicable in instant case.
C]     The applicant – Ram Lal Addl. High Court Judge hatched criminal conspiracy –The Bar Association submitted a representation to Hon’ble Chief Justice ofIndia on 11-09-1997 requesting to not to confirm Raman Lal as Judge of the HighCourt – Later on he was transferred to Principal Judge of city Civil andSessions Court at Ahmedabad – S.P. (C.I.D.) Jaipur sent a questionnaire throughthe registrar, Gujrat High Court to accused Addl. High Court Judge – ChiefJustice granted permission to I.O. to interrogate – Later on I.O. sent letterto applicant to remain present before Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time offiling the charge-sheet – Applicant filed petition before High Courtchallenging  it – Petition of applicant was rejected by High Court andSupreme Court in limine – No relief is required to be  granted topetitioner in view of the facts of the case.
D]Conspiracy – I.P.C . Sec. 120 (B) --Apex Court made it clear that inference ofconspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only becauseit become difficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can onlybe proved largely from the inference drawn from act or illegal omissioncommitted by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy isproved, act of one conspirator become the act of the other – A conspirator whojoins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy mustalso be held liable – proceeding against accused can not be quashed.
E]Jurisdiction – Continuing offence – Held – When Complainants allegations are ofstinking magnitude and the authority which ought to have redressed it haveclosed its eyes and not even tried to find out the real offender and the cluesfor Illegal Arrest and harassment are not enquired then he can not be let atthe mercy of such law enforcing agencies who adopted an entirely indifferentattitude – Legal maxim Necessitas sub lege Non contineture Quia Qua Quad AliasNon Est Lictum Necessitas facit Lictum, Means necessity is not restrained bylaws – Since what otherwise is not lawful necessity makes it lawful –Proceeding proper cannot be quashed.
                  In present case learned Judges misused their power to help the accused andtried to harass the complainant hence, he is co-conspirator in the main crimesand therefore, liable to be punished as per Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
20.        MOREOVER THE SERIOUS ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINTOF THE PETITIONER IS THAT IT REQUIRES THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AT THE HANDS OFC.B.I. FOR DISCLOSING THE COMPLETE CONSPIRACY IN THE MATTER.

21.        It is worth to mention here that JMFC VashiLearned Magistrate, who was also one of the co-Conspirator of Police and myAccused Relatives Karanis and who sent us to Judicial Custody for 3 days atKalyan Jail, has been SUSPENDED by the Hon’ble High Court, AS WE COMPLAINED TOHON. SUPREME COURT AND HON. HIGH COURT AGAINST HIM, along with others.

22.        Apartfrom the details of allegations given in the complaint, the petitioner wouldlike to bring to the notice of Hon. NHRC, Hon. President of India,Hon’ble Chief Justice of India SC, Hon. CJ Bom. HC & C.B.I., the malafides,clear illegalities and clear biasness on the part ofHon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar whichare essential for the charges under Section 218, 201, 219, etc. r/w 120B of I.P.C.

THE CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT & INCAPACITY OF HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR

23. OFFENCE NO. 1 #
I.P.C. 218, 201, 219, ETC. MISUSE OF POWER TO SAVE THE ACCUSED.

THAT HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDASSHOCKINGLY TOLD THE PETITIONERS THAT THE POLICE HAVE NOT DONE ANYCONTEMPT OF HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THUS PROTECTING OUR 4 RESPONDENT POLICEOFFICERS, when Petitioner’s son Humbly told the Hon. Court:
(i). that the Police have filed aFalse Affidavit under Oath in a False Case in JMFC Vashi Court to OBTAIN aFavorable Order of Judicial Custody for Petitioners;
(ii). and also filed 2 FalseAffidavits in Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Justices Shri A.S. Oka and ShriS.S. Shinde have clearly stated in the Order dated 20-11-2012 The affidavit filed (by SPI R. Sardesai) is totallyunsatisfactory” and that the Order alsostates that the “Prima Facie case is made out by Petitioners thatdirections of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] have not been complied with;
(iii). That the Police have also done Forgery in Police Station Diaryentry No. 26 which was Caught by None other but Hon. Justices Shri A.S. Oka and Shri S.S. Shinde asstated in their Order dated 23-11-2013;
(iv). That the Police haveViolated Hon. SC Arrest Guidelines of D.K. Basu Vs. State of Bengal 1997;
SO THE ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD BE SUSPENDED ANDPROSECUTED FOR ABOVE MENTIONED OFFENCES AND CONTEMPT OF COURTS; BUT HON.JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR NEITHER ALLOWED OUR PRAYERSNOR REJECTED IT, BUT DISMISSED THOSE PRAYERS WITHOUT ANY REASON. This was anact done to SAVE the Accused Police Officers.
In a similar caseDivision Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of State ofMaharashtra -vs- Kamlakar Bhavsar 2002 ALL MR Cri 2640 initiated proceedingas per provisions of section 344 of Cr. P.C against Magistrate, APP, PSI andothers as to why action should not be taken against them and they should not besummarily tried for knowing and willfully giving false evidence or fabricatingfalse evidence with an intention that such evidence be used in court inalternative why they should not be prosecuted for offences u.sec193,196,466,471,r/w 107 of IPC.

That thePetitioner states and submits that the filing False Affidavit or making FalseStatement on Oath is a Serious Offence, the Hon. Apex Court, Hon High Courtsdiscussed the said issue in following decisions;

(i)    M/s A-One Industries Vs. D.P. Garg (Delhi HighCourt) reported in 1999 Cri. L J. 4743
“B)Filing of False Affidavit – Effect of – It needs to be highlighted that filing a False Affidavit or giving aFalse Evidence in Judicial proceeding is a serious matter – Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 795 observedthat
“….filingof false affidavit or making false statement on oath in court aims at strikinga blow at the Rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has thetendency toshake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structureof an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if thefountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of falseaffidavits or giving false statements and fabricatingfalseevidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pureand anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that no one can bepermitted to undermine the dignity of Court and interfere with due course ofjudicial proceedings or the administration.”

(ii)   Pritesh Vs. State of Maharashtra (SCC)reported in 2002 Cri. L. J. 548

(iii) AIR 1927 Allahbad 45 FullBench

(iv)   Kapol Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtrareported in 2005 Cr. L. J. 765

That the Petitionerstates and submits that Respondents Guilty Police officers made FalseStatements on oath and also tried to Prejudice this Hon. Court against the Petitionerand herson. Therefore it is also necessary to initiate Contempt proceedingsagainst Respondents Police.

Hon. Supreme Court in the case of (2010) 3 SCC(Cri) 574 UP Resident Employees Co-op Housing Society and Ors Vs. New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority and Anr held as follows:
A.   Contemptof Court Act 1971 – S.2(c) - Criminal Contempt – Filing of False Affidavitintentionally – Held, amounts to Contempt of Court – On facts held, P by makinga False Statement on Affidavit with the intention of inducing the Supreme Courtnot to pass any adverse order against Noida Authority had committed Contempt ofCourt. (para 7)

B.    Contemptof Court Act 1971 – S.12 – P filing Affidavit intentionally – He submittingthat apology tendered should be accepted and/or in any event fine would suffice– Held on facts. Apology tendered only after it was worthless since it was notgenuine and bona fide and was tendered only after it was found that falsestatement had an attempt to get out of consequences of having been caught –Hence sentence of simple imprisonment for one week imposed (para 9 to 11)

Hon. Bombay High Court in the caseof AIR 1921, Bom. 115 held that,
                        AIR1921 Bom. 115
                                    “IPC 218:-The gist of the section is stifling of truth and the perversion of thecourse of justice in case where an offence has been committed, to screen anyparticular person. It is sufficient that he knows it to be likely that justicewill not be executed and that someone will escape from punishment”

AIR1956 pepsu 30
Wherea village Court Judge charged with preparation of the register-Frames recordwhich he knew to be incorrect. He can be convicted us 218 of IPC.

I.P.C.219. Whoever being a publicservant , corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of ajudicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or a decision which he knowsto be contrary to law. Shall be punished with imprisonment of eitherdescription for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or withboth.

Comment:This section should be read in conjunction with s.77. It contemplates somewillful excess of authority, in other words, a guilty knowledge superadded toan illegal act.

The Apex Court in a decision inthe case of Smt. S.R. Venkatraman vs. Union of India and Anr. Reported in(1979) 2 Supreme Court cases 491, wherein while considering thequestion of malice in law by quoting the observations of Viscount Haldanein thedecision in the case of Shearer vs. Sheilds reported in (1914) AC 808,it has been observed by Apex Court in paragraph no.5 of the said decision:
“5……. Malicein law is however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it as follows inShearer v. Shields:
Aperson who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the lawis not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to knowthe law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malicein law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he actsignorantly, and in that sense innocently.
Thusmalice in its legalsense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongfulact intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonableor probable cause.”
Theseoffences against Respondents No. 1 and 2 HON. JUSTICES MR.P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR are ex-faciely proved.
Thereforein order to be acquainted with the veracity of the case it is necessary thatthe Respondent No. 5 and 6 C.B.I. be directed to take over the investigationand submit preliminary enquiry report. The said report will be helpful to thisHon’ble NHRC, Bom. High Court and/or Hon. SC to arrive at a proper conclusion.This will also improve the faith of a common man in the Hon. NHRC and judicial system and also a message willgo that this country is governed by ‘ Rule of Law’ and wrong doer who even beJudge of High Court like Respondents No. 1 and 2 will not go scot-free. Andeven the grievance of the common man be heard and taken care by this Hon. NHRC,Bom. High Court and/orHon. SC.

24. OFFENCE NO. 2 #
JUDICIALADEVENTURISM:-

REFUSAL TO FOLLOWLAWFUL ORDERS OF SUPREME COURT IS OFFENCE U.SEC. 188, 219, 218 OF I.P.C. AND CLEAR VIOLATIONSOF DIRECTION OF HON. SUPREME COURT 3-JUDGE BENCH, BY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR:
Petitionerssubmitted various Case Laws and Citations on 8-4-2013, to Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar, the Presiding Judges, through our Submissiontitled: Filing ofcase laws/precedent judgments as case citations on record by way of ‘Purshish’and our ‘Written notes of Arguments’, WHICH WERE OF CASES WHERE COURTS HADPROSECUTED AND OR SENTENCED THE ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS FOR FILING FALSE SWORNAFFIDAVITS IN COURTS, DELIBERATE INACTION BY POLICE TO REGISTER FIR, SUMMONINGA WOMAN TO POLICE STATION FOR INQUIRY (79 YEAR PETITIONER MOHINI KAMWANI INTHIS CASE), HANDCUFFING A PETITIONER (DILIP KAMWANI IN THIS CASE), ETC; BUT Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar neither discussed nor even the Citations were Referred inthe Final Judgment Order dated 13-6-2013.

Moreover, thatfrom above said conduct on part of Respondents No. 1 and 2, also comes underthe caption of ‘Judicial Adventurism' - refusing to explain theauthorities/case laws in the Final Judgment is clear violation of law laid downby 3-Judge Bench of Hon. Supreme Court in Dwarkesh Industries vs. PremHeavy Engineering 1997 SCC (6) 450 where it has been laid down that:
JudicialAdventurism – High Court ignoringvarious laws settled by Supreme Court – Held - When a position, in law, is wellsettled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount tojudicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including theHigh Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial ordorwhich is clearly contrary to the setded legal position. Such judicialadventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of thesubordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passingwhimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wronful and unwarrantedrelief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.
It isunfortunate, that notwithstanding the authoritative pronouncements of SupremeCourt, the High Courts and the courts subordinate thereto, still seem intent onaffording innumerable opportunities for dealing with this area of law, thoughtby Supreme Court to be well settled.- order of High Court set aside – Theappellant granted to costs quantified at Rs.20,000”.
ThereforeHon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar are liable to be punishedu/sec. 188, 219 etc of I.P.C. and also u/sec. under Contempt of Courts Act.
Hon.Supreme Court in the case of SundarjasKanyalal Bathija and others vs. The Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 Supreme Court heldthat:
Constitution ofIndia, Art. 141 – PRECEDENTS – Judges are bound by precedents and procedure –They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to befound, no rule and no authority – where a single Judge or a Division Bench doesnot agree with the decision of a bench of co-rdinate jurisdiction, the mattershall be referred to a larger Bench. It is subversion of judicial process notto follow this procedure – it is the duty of judges of superior courts andtribunals to make the law more pre- dictable. The question of law directlyarising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The lawmust be made more effective as a guide to behaviour. It must be determined withreasons which carry convictions within the Courts, profession and public. Otherwise,the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise theirclients. Subordinate courts would find themselves in an embarrassing positionto choose between the conflicting opinions. The general public would be indilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimately falls into disrepute– One must remember that pursuit of the law, however glamorous it is, has itsown limitation on the Bench (Paras 17, 20).

25. OFFENCE NO. 3 #
HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR SAVED MY ACCUSED 4 POLICE OFFICERS – EVEN AFTER MINISTRY OF LAWAND JUSTICE (DEPT. OF JUSTICE0) SENT A LETTER TO THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Ministry of Law and Justice,Dept. of Justicealso sent a Letter No.L-15012/5/2012-Jusdated 16-10-2012 to Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Justice P.V. Hardas askedthe Petitioner to show the Court the Complaint sent by the Petitioner toMinistry of Law and Justice, which the Petitioner showed saying that she hadComplained to Hon. Prime Minister and the Hon. PMO had sent the Petitioner’sPetition dated 21-08-2012 to Ministry of Law and Justice, where the 79 year Petitioner has shown Fear of being KILLED by herAccused Police Officers and Accused Relatives Karanis, because she has filed aCase against them in High Court + Police filing False Affidavits; Butstill Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar did not takethe matter Seriousely and initiated no Proceedings against Police.
This resultedin 2 unknown persons beating up Petitioner’s son Dilip Kamwani on 26-10-2013and when he went to Complain about it in Vashi Police Station, the ConstableDeshmukh did not file his complaint but beat him up and Fractured his LeftThumb.  Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardasand Ms. Mridula Bhatkar have mentioned this incident in the Final JudgmentOrder dated 13-6-2013, BUT AGAIN PROTECTED THE POLICE BY NOT EVEN MENTIONINGHIS NAME AND ONLY ASKING THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE AND REGISTER FIR AGAINST 2UNKNOWN PERSONS AND SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THE HON. COURT.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER OFPETITIONER’S SON (PETITIONER NO. 2 DILIP KAMWANI) BEATEN UP BY 2 UNKNOWNPERSONS + POLICE – WHILE THE CASE IS UNDER HEARING IN. HON. BOM. HC AND PROOFOF POLICE YET AGAIN FILING FALSE AFFIDAVIT AND RESPONDENT JUDGES PROTECTING THEPOLICE AGAIN !!!
 Annexedand marked as Exhibit “L-Colly.” are the Copies of theAffidavits and Rejoinder filed by Petitioner’s Son – with Govt. Hospital X-RayReports of Thumb Fracture and one more FALSE Affidavit filed by thePolice.

26. OFFENCE NO. 4 #
That Hon. Justices Mr.P.V. Hardas was the Presiding Judge from February 2013 and heard my Petition andArguments 3 times while 2 more Hon. Judges were changed and upto April 2013till 13-6-2013, Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar were theHon. Judges, who delivered the BIASED Final Judgment PROTECTINGmy Accused Police Officers by NOT Prosecuting them for filing False Affidavitsand Contempt of Court.

27. OFFENCE NO. 5 #
MY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERSWERE PROMOTED AND GIVEN MEDALS EVEN AFTER THEIR CRIMINAL OFFENCES WERE PROVEDBY NONE OTHER BUT HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BECAUSE HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS ANDMS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SAVED THE CORRUPT POLICE.
ThatPetitioner also Informed the Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. MridulaBhatkar, that BECAUSE THE HON. JUDGES HAD NOT INITIATED ANY PROCEEDINGSAGAINST OUR ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS, HENCE our Accused Navi Mumbai PoliceCommissioner Ahmed Javed was PROMOTED as ADG Law & Order Maharashtrain 2012 and again as DGP Home Guards Maharashtra and Accused Vashi SPI LaxmanKale, who Arrested us Illegally Blatantly Violating D.K. Basu 1997 SC ArrestGuidelines, was given a DGP’s Medal on 1-5-2013 and PROMOTION as SPI in-Chargeof Vashi Police Station on 28-5-2013 (he was API Nerul Police Station),JUSTBEFORE THE FINAL JUDGMENT ON 13-6-2013; WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT, PROBABLY,THE FINAL JUDGMENT WAS “INFLUENCED AND DICTATED” BY OUR POWERFULACCUSED: THE STATE, SENIOR POLICE OFFICERS AND OUR RICH AND POWERFUL ACCUSEDKARANI FAMILY, BECAUSE Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. MridulaBhatkar DID NOT INITIATE ANY PROCEDDINGS AGAINST NONE OF THE 4 GUILTY POLICEOFFICERS FOR PERJURY, FORGERY, CONTEMPT OF COURTS, ETC., AS REPEATEDLY PRAYEDBY THE PETITIONERS THROUGH THEIR VARIOUS AMENDMENTS AND HON. JUSTICES MR.P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKARPROTECTED THE GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS.

28. OFFENCE NO. 6 #
VIOLATION OF OATH TAKEN AS HIGH COURTJUDGES AND VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY HON.JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR.
TheConstitution of India Schedule III Articles 75 (4), 99, 124 (6), 148 (2), 164(3), 188 and 219 provides that forms of Oaths or Affirmation No. VIII is asfollows:
“ Form of oath or a affirmation to be made by theJudges of a High Court.”
I, A.B., having been appointed Chief Justice (or aJudge) of the High Court at (or of) ----------------- do that I will bear truefaith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, [thatI will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India] that, I will duly andfaithfully and to the best of my ability, Knowledge and judgement perform theduties of my office without fear or favour,  affection or illwill and thatI will uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Article14 of the constitution of India makes it mandatory to give equal treatment toall citizens  (1956 Cri. L.J. (Bom.) Hon’ble Bombay HighCourt in the case of Amnachalam Swami-Vs- State AIR 1956 Bombay 695 held that,
“(Para 4)       Mr.Kavelkar is right when he urges that Article 14 assures to the citizen equalitynot only in respect of a substantive law but also procedural law, and if anyprocedure is set up which deprives a citizen of substantive rights of reliefand defence the citizen is entitled to complain of this procedure if twopersons equally situated the older procedure is still available where thesesubstantive rights of relief and defence were secured.”
In the FinalJudgment of my CrimWP No. 1857/2012, Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, neitherdiscussed nor even Referred the Citations and neither allowed our Prayers norrejected it but Dismissed those Prayers without any Reason, when we haveclearly Prayed for Contempt proceedings against the Police and proceedings forfiling False Affidavits, Statements, Reports, etc. in High Court and JMFC VashiCourt and doing Forgery and Perjury, THEREBY PROTECTING OUR ACCUSED 4GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS.

29. OFFENCE NO. 7 #
EVEN THOUGH 79 YEAR PETITIONER MOHINI KAMWANI MADE CLEAR PRAYERSTHAT SHE HAS SERIOUS THREAT OF LIFE FROM HER ACCUSED NAVI MUMBAI POLICEOFFICERS - HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR DID NOTINITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS.

That the Petitioner has clearly made SERIOUSPrayers in her Amendment 4 dated 30-3-2013, to Hon. Justices Mr.P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, that she is 79 year old poor Widow andthat she and her family has Serious Threat of Life from her Accused NaviMumbai Police Officers, as the same Police Officers have been foundinvolved with a Murder Accused Suresh Bijlani, suspected conspirator ofMurdered Sunil Kumar Lahoria and that he was also a Complainant like us and ourAccused SPI Laxman Kale was the IO in his Police Complaint and he was laterMURDERED and that our Accused Relatives Karani Family have Close Relations withthe Murder Accused Suresh Bijlani, his neighbors staying in the same Buildingin Vashi, Bombay Annex, for the past 30 years; BUT STILLHon.Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar took No Prosecution Actionagainst the 4 Guilty Police Officers.

30. OFFENCE NO. 8 #
CLEAR VIOLATION AND NON IMPLEMENTATION IN OUR CASE OF ILLEGALARREST AND JAILING, BY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,OF 1997 HON. SUPREME COURT ORDER OF PUNISHMENT TO GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS WHOVIOLATE D.K. BASU SC ARREST GUIDELINES AS PER PARA 36 OF SC ORDER:

YOUR LORDSHIPS, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE, THAT
Whenclear violation of Supreme Court direction in D.K.Basu,s case is found then HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR were bound to initiate Contemptproceeding Suo Motu. Same procedure is followed by another Bench of thisHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurudas Gaonkar ..Vs. .. Statethrough P. P. 2012 ALL MR (CRI.) 2280 . As per judicial propriety andas per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh it ismandatory to all court/Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction to have consistentopinion on same set of fact and law . Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Shri Srinivasa CutPieces Cloth Shop, Rajahmundri, (A.P.) & Anr.Vs. State of Maharashtra &Anr.2004 ALL MR ( Cri ) 1802 ruled that the court of Co-ordinatejurisdiction should have consistant opinion on same set of facts and point oflaw. If this procedure is not followed then instead of achieving harmony it maylead to judicial anarchy as different person approaching different Judge mayget different orders in like matters. But Justice Hardas violated thisprocedure and there is biasness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
IMPORTANT: OTHER HON. BENCHES HAVE TAEN SUO MOTU ACTION OFCONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IN D.K. BASU VIOLATIONS CASE, BUT IN OUR CASE HON.JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR DID NOT INITIATE SUO MOTUCONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, NOR EVEN AFTER OUR REPEATED PRAYERS AND PLEADINGS.

FOR THAT the Hon. Justices Mr. P.V.Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar ought to have followed the consequences,laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of D. K.Basu vs. State ofWest Bengal reported in 1997(1) SCC416 which has categoricallystated that in addition to departmental proceedings, contempt proceedings oughtto be initiated against the persons guilty of violation of guidelines issued inthe said judgment. It is held in para 36 as under:
“36. Failure to comply withthe requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the officialconcerned liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punishedfor contempt of Court and the proceedings for contempt of court may beinstituted in any High Court of the country having territorial jurisdictionover the matter.”

That RespondentsNo.1 and 2 Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkarhave actedin utter disregard and defiance of the principles of natural Justice and lawlaid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K.Basu vs.State of West Bengalreported in1997(1) SCC 416 andhave done CONTEMPT OF HON. SUPREME COURT BY Not ordering Consequential DepartmentalAction and Not Instituting Contempt of Court proceedings by the Hon. Bom. HCagainst 4 Guilty Police officers – as per Para 36 of the said Hon. SC JudgmentDirections cited above.
                            Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Rabindra  NathSingh –Vs- Pappu Yadav (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 165 laid down that the HighCourt Judge commits contempt in not following the directions of SupremeCourt.

              Sameview is reiterated in the case of Spencer Co-Ltd –Vs- Vishwadarshan(1995) 1 SCC 259.

That Hon.Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar have ClearlyPROTECTEDour Accused 4 Police Officers by NOT taking the Consequencial action as perHon. Supreme Court Order for our Illegal Arrest and Jailing.

FOR THAT Hon. JusticesMr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar failed to appreciatethat merely granting compensation is notsufficient when there is gross violation of fundamental rights. It is the dutyof the Hon. Judges to see that the crime should not go unpunished and thepolice authorities who have been held guilty of abuse of their police powersand of taking of law in their hands, in total disregard to the basic humanvalues and rights which are guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of theconstitution, should be punished in accordance with law.

31. OFFENCE NO. 9 #
FRAUD ON POWER PASSING THE ORDER BYIGNORING MATERIAL ON RECORD BY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULABHATKAR:
That NONEother than this Hon. Court has itself found the Forgery, Perjury done by myAccused Police Officers vide Orders dated 20-11-2012 and23-11-2012 and Blatant Violations of D.K. Basu vs. West Bengal 1997 SCArrest Guidelines and Petitioner has also Prayed for theSuspension and Prosecution of the 4 Guilty Police Officers for filing FalseAffidavits and Contempt of Courts, but Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar neither allowed our Prayers nor rejected it butDismissed those Prayers without any Reason. This clearly shows the Misuse ofPower by the Hon. Judges TO PROTECT MY 4 ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS.

Hon"bleSupreme Court (3-Judge Bench) in the case of Vijay Shekhar Vs. Unionof India 2004 (3) Crimes (SC) 33 held that
"Fraud on power voids the order if it is notexercised bonafide for end design. There is a distinction between exercise ofpower in good faith and misuse in bad faith . The former arises when onauthority misuses its power in breach of law , by taking in to accountbonafide, end with best intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoringrelevant matter that would render the impugned act or order powers.
The misuse in bad faith arises when the power isexercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudgeor for wreaking vengenence of a minister as in S. Pratap Singh - Vs - State (AIR 1964 SC 733)
A power is exercised maliciously if its repositoryis motived by personal ani­mosity towards those who are directly affected by itsexercise Use of power for on alien purpose other than the one for which thepower is conferred is malafide use of power. Same is the position when an orderis made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. Theulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power.
It was said by Warangton C. J. in Short - Vs -Poole corporation (1926) 1 ch 66 that:
No public body can be regarded as having statutoryauthority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives and any action purportingto be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corruptmotives would certainly be held to be inoperative.
In Lazarus Estates Ltd - Vs - Beasely (1956) 2 QB 702 at Pp 712-13 Lord DenningL.J. Said
"No judgment ofa court no order of  Minister can be allowed to stand if it has beenobtained by fraud , fraud unravels everything ".(emphasissupplied
Seealso in Lazarus case at p.722 per Lord Parker C.J.
"Fraud" Vitiates all transactions knowto the law of however high a degree of solemnity.
(Para 10 ) Similar is the view taken by this courtin the case of Ram Chandra Singh - Vs-Savitridevi and ors. (2003 (8)) SCC 319) Wherein this court speaking through one of us(Sinha J.) Held thus:
"Fraud as is well known vitates every solemanact .Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either byletter or words which induces the other person or authority to take a definitedeterminative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by wordor letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts tofraud. Indeed, innocent representation may also give reason to claim reliefagainst fraud. A fraudlent misrepresentation is called deceit and in leading aman into damage by willfully or recklessy causing him to believe an act onfalsehood.
It is a fraud in law if a party makesrepresentation which he knows to be false and injury ensues there from.Although the motive from which the representation proceeded may not have beenhad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion orconspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to aproperty would render the transaction void - ab -intio Fraud and deception issynonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraudis anathema to all equitable principles and any o flair tainted with fraudcannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrineincluding res judicata.
2004(3)crimes (SC) 33

PrivyCouncil in the case of AIR 1945 PC 38 laid down that a Judgment which isthe result of bias or want of impartiality, is a nullity and the trial 'corumNon-Judice'.
32. OFFENCE NO. 10 #
HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR DID NOT FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF HON. SUPREME COURT AND HENCESAVED MY 4 ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS:

Petitioner and her son Clearly informedthe HON. JUDGES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR that myAccused Senior Police Officers then Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner AhmedJaved, DCP P. Karad, Principal Secretary Home Dept. and the State had NOT filedany Reply Affidavit in 1 year and Hon. Justice P.V. Hardas asked the APPwhether any one of them want to File the same and the Learned APP repliedNegatively and that the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the Petitioners wasneither disputed nor denied by the Accused Police Officers or any of theAccused by filing any counter Affidavit and hence the Hon. Judges were duty bound to accept our contention as final inview of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court(3-Judge Bench) in the case of ExpressNewspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Union of India 2009 All SCR O.C.C. 193 where it has beenlaid down that,
“(Para 115)   Wheremala fides are alleged it is necessary that the person against whom suchallegations are made should come forward with an answer refuting or denyingsuch allegations. For otherwise such allegations remain unrehutted and theCourt would in such a case he constrained to accept the allegations soremaining unrebutted and unanswered on the test of probability. That preciselyis the position in the present case, in the absence of any counter-affidavit byany of the respondents. One should have thought that the Minister for Works andHousing should have sworn an affidavit accepting or denying the allegationsmade by the petitioners. At our instance, M. K. Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministryof Works and Housing has filed a supplementary affidavit ……….”
-
33. OFFENCE NO. 11 #
HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR’S INABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTY EVEN WHEN VIOLATIONOF CONSTITUTION IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE IN A Crim.WP FILED BY A 79 YEAR POORWIDOW:

The Petitioner has clearly pointed out in her Petition that theirFundamental, Legal, Constitutional and Human rights and the Right to Libertyand the Right to Life were Violated in the matter of Articles 22, 20, 21, 1,226, and 14, 19; and also, in her Amendments and Rejoinders, clearly Pointedout the Fact that she is 79 and has a Mentally Challenged Daughter and thePolice Arrested her Illegally in a False Case by Filing False Affidavitsbecause she Complained to Higher Authorities against Police for their NonRegistration of FIR against her Rich and Powerful Accused relatives Karanifamily Threatening her and she has Serious Threats to her and her family’sLives and Liberty and Prayed for Suspension and Prosecution of 4 Guilty PoliceOfficers otherwise they will take More Revenge from her and her family; BUTSTILL Hon.Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar neither allowed our Prayersnor rejected it but Dismissed those Prayers without any Reason.

This raises a question that whether a person whocan not perform his duty as a Judge can be allowed to continue as a Judge ofthe High Court and the fundamental legal rights of the citizens be put in tojeopardy.
In another landmark judgement in the case of ‘Dr. ‘X’ Vs.Hospital (Z’ 1991 (1) ALL MR 469 (SC) Hon’bleSupreme Court observed that,
“(para43) …………………………
Moreoverwhere there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, .. FundamentalRight under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public morality orpublic interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for thereason that moral consideration’s cannot be kept at bay and the Judges are notexpected to sit as mute structures of clay, in the Hall,Known as CourtRoom, but have to be sensitive, “in the sense that they must keep their fingersfirmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day ”
(See : Legal Duties : Allen)
The totality of above settled law makes it clear that the Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar are unable to perform their duty of Judge and to do the justice and therefore they are liable to be removedfrom their post and they are also liable for strict punishment which will bedeterrent to others also.

TheFalse affidavits filed by my 2 Accused Police Officers were ex- facilelyproved. This fact was neither disputed nor denied by the persons filing falseAffidavits before Hon’ble High Court. The accused did not file their apology.The Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar were bound to punish them in view of specific law laid down by Hon’bleSupreme court in the case of U.P. Resident Employeed Co-Op. HouseBuildingSociety and others Vs. New Okhla Industrial DevelopmentAuthority 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 586. Also in view of law laid down byDivision Bench of Hon’bleBombay High Court in the case ofB.A. Shelar Vs. M.S. Menon 2002 Cri. L.J. 788 &Manlavak Singh Vs. Rmakirit AIR 1940 Pat 631 etc.
         But Hon. Justices did not pass any order on that, with ulterior motive to helpmy 4 Accused Police Officers, EVENTHOUGH THE HON. JUSTICES KNEW THAT THE PETITIONER AND HER SON WERE FIGHTINGTHEIR OWN CASE AS PETITIONERS IN-PERSON AND THEY DID NOT HAVE AN ADVOCATE.
         Our Prayers were neither allowed nor rejected.
It issettled principle of law that the discretion given to Judge are not unfettereddiscretion but it has to be guided by sound principles of law.
The Judge/Magistrate who exercise discretion are expected to bear inmind that:
"Discretion when applied to a court ofjustice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, notby humor, it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal andregular"
[Tinqley-vs-Dalby, 14 NW 1461
"An appeal to a Judge]s discretion is anappeal to his judicial conscience. The discretion must be exercised, not inopposition to, but in accordance with established principles of law."
Gudianti Narsimha -Vs- Public Prosecutor. High Court 1978 Cri. L.J. 502.
"The Judge, even when he is free, is stilinot wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure He is not a Knight - errantroaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is todraw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield tospasmodic sentiment to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise adiscretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system,and subordinated to 'the primordial necessity or order in the social life.
The Nature of the Judicial Process - Benjamin Cardozo, Yale University press (1921)]
But Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar misused their discretion to save my 4 AccusedPolice Officers.

"Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, itbecomes lifeless ".
In another judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SugaRam -Vs- State 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 546 (SC) held that,
“[para 7] Leave much to be desired Reasons introduce clarity in anorder. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have setforth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an applicationof its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue ofchallenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order notsustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. Vs. Battan and Ors.(2001(10) SCC 607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra Vs.Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982 SC1215) the desirability of a speakingorder while dealing with anapplication for grant of leave washighlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has beenjudicially recognized as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar LaiSingh Vs. Naresh Singh and Ors.
(1987(2) SCC 222). Judicial discipline toabide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under anypretext by any authority or Court, be it even the highest Court in n State,oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
Even in respect of administrative orders LordDenning M. R. in Breen Vs.Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971(1) A11E.R. 1148) observed "Thegiving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In AlexanderMachinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree (1974 LCR120) it was observed:"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons arelive links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy inquestion and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitutesubjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if thedecision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by itssilence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellatefunction or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity ofthe decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicialsystem, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to thematter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know whythe decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of naturaljustice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speakingout. The "inscrutable face of a sphirvc” is ordinarily incongruous with ajudicial or quasi- judicial performance.
The conduct of Judge in not following thedirections of Hon’ble Supreme Court amounts to contempt of Supreme Court as hasbeen held by Apex Court in the case of Robindra Nath Singh -Vs- RajeshRanjan 2010 (3) SCC Cri. 165.

In fact whenever any offence pertaining toadministration of justice is committed and more particularly when it isregarding interpolation of orders by the Judge then in fact is duty of theGovernment pleader to take effective steps for prosecution of guiltyJudge.  As every citizen belongs to state and even the permission to endhis own life is not granted to any citizen.

In thisregard it must be noted that in an identical case in --------AIR 1971 SC1708  it has been held that,
if the Judge made some interpolation in his order then he is liable tobe prosecuted under section 167, 465, 471 etc of I.P.C. and the complaint wasin fact filed by the Govt. pleader.

However no such steps were taken by the Govt.pleaders office of High Court, Bombay.  This fact requires a thoroughinvestigation because Petitioner Mohini Kamwani sent various Complaints aboutthe Final Judgment to Hon. CJI-SC and CJ-Bombay High Court but no steps weretaken which the law makes obligatory for the Govt. Pleader.

That makinginterpolation in the order is offence under sec.167, 466,193 of IPC.  Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the prosecutionof such a Judge in the case of AIR 1971 SC 1708.

34. OFFENCE NO. 12 #
HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR JOININGCRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND OTHER CRIMNAL OFFENCES AND THEREBY COMMITING OFFENCEUNDER SECTION 120-B OF I.P.C:

In the case of Ramanlal –Vs-State   2001 Cri. L. J. 800, it has been held that, the HighCourt Judge is liable to be prosecuted in view of Sec. 120 (B) of I.P.C. if hesupports the conspirators. It has been held that,
Conspiracy – I.P.C . Sec. 120 (B) --Apex Courtmade it  that inference of conspiracy hasto be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it becomedifficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can only be provedlargely from the inference drawn from act or illegal omission committed by themin furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act ofone conspirator become the act of the other – A conspirator who joinssubsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must alsobe held liable – proceeding against accused can not be quashed.
In present case Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar misused their power to help my 4 Accused PoliceOfficers and tried to harass the Petitioners hence, they are co-conspirator inthe main crimes and therefore, liable to be punished as per Section 120-B ofIndian Penal Code.
 
35. OFFENCE NO. 13 #
MY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS ARE FILING MORE FALSE AFFIDAVITS IN HON.BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THEIR NEW FALSE CASES – BECAUSE  HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR DIDNOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM:

My Accused Police Officers DCP P. Karad, DGP (HomeGuards) Ahmed Javed and PIs Laxman Kale and Raosaheb Sardesai have AGAIN fileda False Crim.WP 427/2014 andFalseCrim.WP 439/2014 in Hon. Bombay HighCourt on 4-2-2014 and have obtained an ad-interim Stay Order by filing a False Affidavit, AGAIN, [saying they did NOTArrest me and my son (!!!) when they have been Proved Guilty by HC and Sc andFined and Paid Rs. 6 Lac Compensation !!!], against Registration of FIR againstthem as per the Order of JMFC Vashi Court dated 1-2-2014 obtained by me, as perthe Directions of Hon. Bom. HC to us in the Final Judgment dated 13-6-2013 !!!
IF Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar HAD INITIATED PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, FOR FILINGFALSE AFFIDAVITS AND CONTEMPT OF COURT, THEN THE ACCUSED POLICE WOULD NOT HAVEFILED THIS NEW FALSE AFFIDAVIT IN HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND MAYBE THEY WOULDNOT HAVE FILED THE SAID FALSE CrimWP 427/2014 ALSO – GIVING ME MORE TROUBLE TOFIGHT FURTHER LITIGATION DUE TO STAY ORDER OBTAINED ON FALSE AFFIDAVIT.
Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar ARERESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THEM COMMIT MORE CRIMINAL OFFENCES AND MORE CONTEMPT OFCOURT.

36. OFFENCE NO. 14 #
HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SHOULDRESIGN OR BE REMOVED FROM THE HON. HIGH COURT:
Your Lordships, 3.5 CRORE CASES arepending in the Courts all over India.Thousands of innocent poor citizensare Arrested by Corrupt Police Blatantly Violating D.K.BASU law everyday andJailed after taking Bribes from Rich and Powerful Accused/Persons. Millions ofPoor and Innocent Victims are Rotting in Jails BECAUSE of Corrupt Police andsome Dishonest MagistratesWHY NO PUNISHMENT to Police as per D.K.Basu 1997 SC Order of Dismissal of Police and HC initiating Proceedings againstPolice for Contempt of Hon. Supreme Court ? So Police keep minting money&WE THE PEOPLE suffer !!! YourLordships, when 1 Policeman does Wrong Thousands ofCitizens SUFFER; BUT when 1 JUDGE does WRONG, CRORES of Citizens SUFFERInjustice.
So Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkarshould Resign Gracefully or be Removed from the Hon. High Court-The Temple ofJustice and the Purity of the Fountain of Justice can be maintained and NotPolluted any further.
                  But from the above documentary proofs it is clear that Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar actedagainst the oath and thereby ceased their right to continue as a Judge ofHon’ble High Court.
         As per law laid down by 5-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofK.Veerswami Vs. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 655 it is obligatory on thepart ofRespondentsNo.1 and 2 toresign from their post but they are stillworking.  
Ithas been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Veerswami’s case (Supra) that,
(53) …… The judiciary has no power of the purse orthe sword. It survives only by public confidence and it is important to thestability of the society that the confidence of the public is not shaken. TheJudge whose character is clouded and whose standards of morality and rectitudeare in doubt may not have the judicial independence and may not command confidenceof the public. He must voluntarily withdraw from the judicial work andadministration.
(54) …….. The emphasis on this point should notappear superfluous. Prof. Jackson says "Misbehavior by a Judge, whether ittakes place on the bench or off the bench, undermines public confidence in theadministration of justice, and also damages public respect for the law of theland; if nothing is seen to be done about it, the damage goes unrepaired. Thisa must be so when the judge commits a serious criminal offence and remains inoffice". (Jackson's Machinery of Justice by J.R. Spencer, 8th  Edn.pp. 369-70.
(55) The proved "misbehaviour" which isthe basis for removal of a Judge under clause (4) of Article 124 of theConstitution may also in certain cases involve an offence of criminalmisconduct under Section 5(1) of the Act. But that is no ground for withholdingcriminal prosecution till the Judge is removed by Parliament as suggested bycounsel for the appellant. One is the power of Parliament and the other is thejurisdiction of a criminal court. Both are mutually exclusive. Even agovernment servant who is answerable for his misconduct which may alsoconstitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code or under S. 5 of the Act isliable to be prosecuted in addition to a departmental enquiry. If prosecuted ina criminal court he may be punished by way of imprisonment or fine or with bothbut in departmental enquiry, the highest penalty that could be imposed on himis dismissal. The competent authority may either allow the prosecution to go onin a court of law or subject him to a departmental enquiry or subject him toboth concurrently or consecutively. It is not objectionable to initiatecriminal proceedings against public servant before exhausting the disciplinaryproceedings, and a fortiori, the prosecution of a Judge for criminal misconduct before his removal bu Parliamentfor proved misbehaviour isunobjectionable.
“……….But we know of no law providing protectionfor Judges from criminal prosecution. Article 361(2) confers immunity fromcriminal prosecution only to the President and Governors of States and to noothers. Even that immunity has been limited during their term of office. TheJudges are liable to be dealt with just the same way as any otherperson in respect of criminal offence. It is only in taking ofbribes or with regard to the offence of corruption the sanction forcriminal prosecution is required.
(61) For the reasons which we have endeavored tooutline and subject to the directions issued, we hold that for the purpose ofclause (c) of S. 6(1 of the Act the President of India is the authoritycompetent to give previous sanction for the prosecution of a Judge of theSupreme court and of the High court.
(79) Before parting with the case, we may say aword more. This case has given us much concern. We gave our fullestconsideration to the questions raised. We have examined and re­examined thequestions before reaching the conclusion. We consider that the society's demandfor honesty in a judge is exacting and absolute. The standards ofjudicialbehaviourboth,on and off the bench, are normally extremely high. For a Judge to deviatefrom such standards of honesty and impartiality is to betray thetrust reposed in him. No excuse or no legal relativity can condonesuch betrayal. Fromthe standpoint of justice the size of the bribe or scope of corruption cannotbe the scale for measuring a Judge's dishonour. single dishonest Judgenot only dishonours himself and disgraces his office butjeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system.
(80) A judicial scandal has always been regardedas far more deplorable than a scandal involving either the executive or amember of the legislature. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety inthe court is a cause for great anxiety and alarm. "A legislator or anadministrator may be found guilty of corruption without apparently endangeringthe foundation of the State. But a Judge must keep himself absolutely abovesuspicion" to preserve the impartiality and independence of the judiciaryand to have the public confidence thereof.
Let us take a case where there is a positivefinding recorded in such a proceeding that the Judge was habitually acceptingbribe, and on that ground he is removed from his office. On the argument of MrSibal, the matter will have to be closed with his removal and he will escapethe criminal liability and even the ill-gotten money would not be confiscated.Let us consider another situation where an abettor is found guilty under S.165-A of the Indian Penal Code and is convicted. The main culprit, the Judge,shall escape on the argument of the appellant. In a civilized society the lawcannot be assumed to be leading to such disturbing results.

37. OFFENCE NO. 15 #
HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR HAVEDONE GRAVE INJUSTICE TO ME A 79 YEAR OLD SENIOR CITIZEN WIDOW OF A FREEDOMFIGHTER, BY SAVING MY ACCUSED 4 POLICE OFFICERS – SO THEY SHOULD BE REMOVEDFROM HON HIGH COURT AND PROSECUTED;
What about Senior Citizens Protection Laws in my case ?
What about VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Laws in my case ? Afterthe Nirbhaya Case, today there is JAIL TERM FOR TOUCHING A WOMAN; BUT because Hon.Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar did not InitiateProceedings against my 4 Accused Police Officers – EVEN FOR JAILING A 79 YEARWIDOW WOMAN (!!!) ILLEGALLY and SAVED them, the Guilty Police Officers have gotPROMOTIONS AND MEDALS EVEN AFTER ILLEGALLY ARRESTING AND JAILING A 79 YEARWIDOW, Filing False Affidavits and doing Contempt of Courts, BECAUSE OF HON.JUDGES LIKE Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar !!!
This is, like, Encouraging and Rewarding the Criminals – Todo More Crimes against the Poor and Old Victims like me !!!

IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE HONEST HON. JUSTICE SHRI A.S.OKA JI, WHO WAS ‘DEPUTED’ BY THE ALMIGHTY AS ‘ANGEL OF GOD’ TO HEAR MY CASEAND CATCH THE FORGERY DONE BY POLICE IN THE STATION DIARY ENTRY NO. 26 – ONHIS OWN HONEST JUDICIAL INITIATIVE, WITHOUT ME OR MY THEN NGO ADVOCATE(WHO LATERTOOK A ‘DISCHARGE’ FROM MY CASE) EVEN ASKING FOR OR MENTIONING IT; I DOUBTWHETHER Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, WOULD HAVEEVEN GRANTED ME RS. 3 LACS !!! BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE CLEARLY PRAYED TO Hon.Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, AS PETITIONERS IN-PERSONWITHOUT AN ADVOCATE, BUT THE HON. JUDGES DID NOT INITIATE ANY PROCEEDINGSAGAINST MY 4 ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS, EVEN AFTER THEIR CRIMINAL OFFENCES OFFILING FALSE AFFIDAVITS AND CONTEMPT OF COURTS WERE PROVED BEYOND DOUBTS BYNONE OTHER BUT THIS HON. COURT VIDE THE HONEST HON. JUSTICE SHRI A.S. OKA’S 2ORDERS DATED 20-11-2012 AND 23-11-2012, BUT EVEN THEN HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V.HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SAVED MY 4 GUILTY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS !!!
Your Lordships, it is Pertinent to Note here that I am NotBlaming all the 11 Hon. Judges who heard my case; Rather I am Appreciating the HONESTYof the Hon. Justice A.S. Oka ji who did Justice to me. HE DID HIS JUDICIAL DUTYOF A HONEST HC JUDGE; BUT I AM SEEKING REMOVAL AND PROSECUTION OF ONLYHON.JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR – WHO DID NOT PERFORM THEIRJUDICIAL DUTY AS HON. HC JUDGES, EVEN AFTER SEEING A HELPLESS 79 YEAR OLDSENIOR CITIZEN WIDOW OF A FREEDOM FIGHTER VICTIMIZED BY CORRUPT POLICEOFFICERS, LIKE HONEST HON. JUSTICE SHRI A.S OKA JI SAW AND DID HIS DUTY.

I BLESS HONEST HON. JUSTICE LIKE SHRI A.S OKA JI AND THATHONEST JUDGES LIKE HIM SHOULD BE MADE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HON. BOMBAYHIGH COURTAND JUDGES LIKE HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULABHATKAR SHOULD BE REMOVED – TO DO JUSTICE TO 1000s OF POOR LITIGANTS/VICTIMSLIKE ME.

38. THE 79 YEAR OLD PETITIONER IS NOT DOING ANY CONTEMPTBY FILING A COMPLAINT/CASE AGAINST THE HON. JUDGES – RATHER I AM FULFILLING MY DUTYAS A CITIZEN UNDER ART. 51-A (H)- FAIR CRITICISM OF A JUDICIAL FUNCTIONING ISNOT CONTEMPT.
[(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 841 Indirect Tax Pratitioners Association – Vs- R.K. Jain]
Constitutionof India Arts 19 (1) (a), 51 –A (h), 129 and 215 – Highlighting irregularitiesin wrong orders passed by a Bench and frunctioning of CESTAT – Respondent fulfilledhis duty as a citizen under Art. 51-A (h)- fair Criticism of a judicialfunctioning is not a Contempt –
(2010)3 SCC (Cri) 841

39.THE LAW REGARDING PROSECUTION OF JUDGES ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW:
"However, apart from the absence_ ofjurisdiction the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate released the accused personson bail on the face of verdicts successively given by me Higher colitis. He had a conscience Knowledgeof those orders. This venture of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is certainlyderogatory to well defined         judicial responsibility. It lacks both good faith and bona fide. It iswell intended deliberate and tainted with suspicion also.   Ittends to exhibit utter disregard to the judicial authority of theCourts in high rank. From the narration of   events inthe reference which are not controverted the act of the respondentisexplicitly well calculated   with   a designto  undermine the  authority of the Higher Court. We,therefore, hold the contemnor Shri R.A. Khan guilty of havingcommitted the contempt.
1993 Cri. L.J. 816
(1)     2003 (1) B.Cr.C.268 (Bom (DB)
"Cr.P.C. S.344 on Scrutiny High Court foundthat accused tried to escape on basis of forged dying declaration - High Court issuedshow cause notice to advocate for accused, Special Judicial Magistrate etc.calling explanation as to why they should not be tried summarily for givingfalse evidence or fabricating false evidence ( I.P.C. 466,193, 471, 109)
(2)   AIR 1971 SC 1708
"I.P.C.   167,  465,466 ,471  - first class Magistrate was alleged to have madesome interpolation in the order sheet of a case in after sanction under section197 by the state Govt. a complaint was filed in a competent court of Magistrateagainst the said first class Magistrate. Action is legal".
(4)     LL.R. 1928 (52) Mad 347
"I.P.O. 466 - A Judge fabricating any recordin a pending case commits an offence a under this section.
(5)     Wrong interpretation  of Supreme court's order is contempt of court.
2008 ALL SCR 2320
(6)    Civil    Judge    Sessions   Division acted   in   violation   ofSupreme   Court order   Supreme  Court   issued   severe reprimand - copy of order forwardto disciplinary authority for further action.
AIR 2001 S.C. 197.
(7)   Serious    doubt     if    procedure required under Cr.P.C. was followed by magistrate   while  taking   cognizance - Fradulent act even injudicial proceedingcould  not  be  allowed  to  stand  - Allactions   taken   in   complaint  includingissuance of bailable warrant  was  liable  to declared  void ab initio.
2004 Crimes 33 SC
(8)     Contemnor    not   only     violated Supreme Court’s orderbut also Air Act -Sentence of one  week simple imprisonment and Rs.1  Lac as cost imposed on contemnor.
Sessions Judge acted in violation of Supreme Courtorder -Supreme Court issued Severe Reprimand - Copy of order forwarded todisciplinary committee for further action against said Judge.
AIR 2001 SC 1975
M.C. Mohata - Vs - Union of India
(9)     No complaint form that court is necessary whereit is alleged that the subordinate Judge before whom a suit was proceeding hashimself abated an offence under section 193 - And has also committed offenceunder section 465 and 466"

40. Moreover, the Respondents Guilty PoliceOfficers along with our other Original Accused had filed an SLP No. 6534/2013in Hon. Supreme Court to challenge the said impugned Hon. Bombay High CourtFinal Judgment Order dated 13-6-2013, BUT HON. SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSEDTHEIR SLP ON 23-9-2013 andNOT given them any Relief.Convictionof Guilty Police Officers attained Finality when SC dismissed their SLP andthat has become the Law and no one can deny or change it.

THIS IS A CLEAR PROOF OF SC AGAINST HON.JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, THAT THEY PROTECTED THEGUILTY POLICE WHOM THEY SHOULD HAVE PROSECUTED AS PER OUR CLEAR PRAYERS !!!
Annexedand marked as Exhibit “M is the Copy of theSC Dismissal Order dated 23-9-2013 for Police/State SLP No. 6534/2013.

41. As HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR didNot take Legal Action, hence 2 of the Guilty Police officers were givenPromotions and Medals and all the 4 Guilty Police officers became Bold and didFURTHER Contempt of Bom. HC for Not Paying us the Compensation of Rs. 6 LacAwarded by Hon. Bom. HC, so we had to file Further Application No. 134 0n10-3-2014 in Bom. HC in our Crim. WP No. 1857/2012 for the same and the Hon.Bom. HC vide its order dated 12-6-2014 has Issued Contempt of Court Notice toALL Respondent Guilty Police for Not Paying Rs. 6 Lacs to us for 1 year – EVENAFTER DISMISSAL OF THEIR SLP BY SC and Directed them to Pay the Amount alsoImmediately, which they have paid us now.
WE HAVE SUFFERED ADDITIONAL LITIGATION TROUBLES AND COSTS,MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HARASSMENT, ETC. – BECAUSE HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDASAND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR PROTECTED THE GUILTY POLICE.
Annexedand marked as Exhibit “N is the Copy of theBom. HC order dated 12-6-2014 IssuingContempt of Court Notice to ALL Respondent Guilty Police officers.

42. On 19-3-2014, the Petitioner was Forced to file aComplaint against 2 Bom HC HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULABHATKAR (alreadyattached as Exhibit K in this Petition) with Hon. President of India, CJISC, CJ Bom. HC and CBI, because as the 2 Hon. Judges did not Prosecute the 4Guilty Police officers and the Petitioner had to obtain FIR Registration Order againstPolice from JMFC Vashi Court as directed by HC to us; BUT BOM. HC AGAIN GAVESTAY ORDER TO THE GUILTY POLICE IN A FALSE CRIM. WP 427 AND 439 of 2014 WHEREAGAIN FALSE AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN FILED BY GUILTY POLICE AND THE PETITIONER HASTO FIGHT UNWANTED LITIGATIONS AND COSTS, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL TORTURE AND HARASSMENTBY FIGHTING FALSE CASES OF POLICE AND NON REGISTRATION OF FIR AGAINST POLICE –EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN PROVED GUILTY BY THE SAME BOM. HC AND SC !!!
Hon’ble Supreme Court (3-JudgeBench) in Express News-paper Pvt Ltd., -Vs- Union of India 2009 ALL SCR(O.C.C.) 193, laid down that whenever malafides are pleaded then the partyagainst whom such malafides are pleaded has to deny it in clear and specificterms. Otherwise the malafides are held to be proved.

43. DEEMED SANCTION- As per the Law and Ratio laid down Hon SC in the case ofSubramanian Swamyvs Manmohan Singh 2012 (Vol. 1) SCC (Crim.) 1041 if after receipt ofComplaint, Sanction is not granted within 4 months, then it may amount toDeemedSanction.
In present case the Complaint was lodged on 19March 2014 and even after 4 Months no communication regarding Sanction toProsecute the 2 HC Judges was given, therefore it is aDeemed Sanction.Moreover, sanction is required for taking Cognizance and no Question ofSanction for the Investigation.

Annexed and marked asExhibit “O” is the Copyof the Petitioner Mohini Kamwani's NOTICE , without Exhibits), to CBI dated 19-6-2014 - ToRegister my FIR in 48 hours - against 2 Bom. HC Judges Mr. P V Hardas & Ms.Mridula Bhatkar - AS 3 MONTHS SC SANCTION PERIOD IS OVER...SO...IT IS A DEEMEDSANCTION NOW...

Annexed and marked asExhibit “P” is the Copyof the Petitioner Mohini Kamwani's Letter dated 24-7-2014 to theHon President of India /CJI-SC /Law Minister /CBI Directors-Delhi & Mumbaiabout DEEMED SANCTION AFTER 4 MONTHS TO PROSECUTE 2 BOM HC JUDGES HON JUSTICESSHRI P V HARDAS AND SMT MRIDULA BHATKAR AFTER MY COMPLAINT DT 13-3-2014.

44. Apart from this, Hon President’sOffice also Forwarded my Complaint to Dept of Justice as per my Grievances Regtn. No. PRESEC / E / 2014 / 05517 of 21 March 2014 under CPGRAMS Portaland Ministry of Law &Justice, Dept. of Justice also sent a Letter dated 02 June 2014, Ref No – L – 19017 / 14 / 2013 – Jus. to Bom HC Registrar General and Copy to me, for takingaction on my Grievances against 2 Bom. High Court Judges, therefore it is clearthat no question remain for Sanction to Investigate the Case against 2 Bom HCJudges.

Annexed and marked asExhibit “Q” is the Copyof the said Ministry of Law Letter dated 2-6-2014to Registrar General Bom. HC for takingaction on my Grievances against 2 Bom. High Court Judges, Respondents No. 1 and2 HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS.MRIDULA BHATKAR.

45. Since the matter is relating to Serious Criminal Chargesof Misuse of Power by 2 Bom. HC Judges to Save the Accused and Guilty PoliceOfficers (and my Accused Relatives Karanis), therefore all the responsiblepersons including HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR are liable to be dealt under Sections340, 344 of CrPC as per ratio laid down by Division Bench of Hon. Bom. HC inthe case of State vs. Kamlakar N Bhavsar 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 2640.

46. That Respondents No. 1 and 2 HON.JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR did NOT Prosecute the 4Guilty Police even though we produced followingAdditional CLINCHINGPrima Facie Documentary Evidence that Police Arrested the 79 year FreedomFighter’s Widow COMPLAINANT and her son in a False Case - EVEN AFTER 40+ Letterswere sent by Hon. Bom. HC, President, MHA, PM to the Respondent PoliceCommissioner Ahmed Javed and CS-Maharashtra Government, from 2011 to 2012 –Before our Illegal Arrest, in response to Petitioner Mohini Kamwani’sComplaints to them !!!

THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT CRIMINALCONSPIRACY (AS PER SECTION 120B OF IPC) OF THE RESPONDENT JUDGES MR. P.V.HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR WITH 4 RESPONDENT GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS ANDMAHARASHTRA STATE - TO PROTECT THE GUILTY POLICE !!!

Annexed and marked as Exhibit “R-Colly.” are the Copies of the40+ Letters sent by Hon. Bom. HC,President, MHA, PM – Before our Illegal Arrest

47. In a landmarkjudgment in the case of ‘Dr. ‘X’ vs. Hospital ‘Z’ 1991 (1) ALL MR469 (SC)Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that,

“(para43) ………………………
Moreover,where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, … which is her FundamentalRight under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public morality orpublic interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for thereason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay and the Judges are notexpected to sit as mute structures of clay, in the Hall, known as Court Room,but have to be sensitive, “in the sense that they must keep their fingersfirmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day”.
(See : legal Duties ; Allen)


48. HENCE THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT CBI DIRECTOR BE DIRECTED TOTAKE COGNIZANCE AND INITIATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HON. BOM. HC JUSTICESMR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR.

49.GROUNDS FOR MAKING HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULABHATKAR ASRESPONDENTS IN PERSON:-

Thatthe 2 Hon. Bom. HC Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. MridulaBhatkar were the presiding Judges in the petitioner’s CriminalWrit Petition no. 1857/2012 in Bombay High Courtand there areallegations against thyem that they be prosecuted as vide their Final Judgment dated 13-6-2013 they Violated thepetitioner’s Fundamental and Human Rights and Protected the 4 Police officerswho were found Guilty (and my Accused Karanis), who Arrested and Jailed thepetitioner and her son Illegally in a False Case that we were going to commitSuicide, by Not Prosecuting the 4 Guilty Police officers for the Forgery,Perjury, Filing of False Affidavits/Cases, Contempt of all the Courts and NotPunishing the Police for clear Violations of 1997 SC Arrest Guidelines in D K Basu vs. State of Bengal and Not initiating Contempt of SC proceedings as per Para 36 of the said SCGuidelines – Despite Clear Prayers by the Petitioner – Resulting in AdditionalForced Litigations and Costs against Police, Mental and Physical Hardships,Harassment and Torture, as explained in the entire above Paragraphs.

Thepetitioner also claims Interim compensation from the Respondents No.1 and 2,  which has to be paid by them.

Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority –Vs- M.K. GuptaAIR 1994 SC 787 clarified the law that the liability to pay damages is tobe fastened on erring officer. Because if it is paid by the sate the ultimatesufferer is the common man It is the tax payer money which is paid for inactionof those who are entrusted under the law to discharge their duties inaccordance with the law.

Ina contempt proceeding for allowing violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’sdirection the concerned presiding officer was made party in person by Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Re. M.P. Dwivedi AIR 1996 SC 2299.

Hon’bleSupreme Court in the Case of Spencer Ltd (1995) 1 SCC 259 laid down thatHigh Court Judge refusing to follow law, directions of Hon’bleSupreme Court is liable to be punished under contempt of Court’s Act.

In 2009 ALL SCR (o.c.c.) 193 it has been laid downthat when malafides are pleaded then it is necessary for the opposite party tocome forward with an answer denying such allegations. If allegations ofmalafides remain unrebutted and unanswered then court will be constrained toaccept the same.

It is also settled law that no one except Respondents No. 1and 2 can represent their case.AIR 1964 SC 72.

The Hon’ble High Court in the case of 2008 ALL MR (Cri)3377 laid down the ratio that the person against whom petitioner havegrievance has to be made party or petitioner will not be justified inentertaining any claim.
Therefore Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms.Mridula Bhatkar are made parties in person asRespondent No. 1 and 2.

50.ROLE OF RESPONDENT NO. 7 :- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH GOVT. PLEADER:-
Thatthe prosecution of offender is the obligation of State. The victim of the Crimeshould have satisfaction that ultimately the majesty of law has prevailed.
Whena Judge Protects the Accused Guilty Police who have done Forgery, Perjury,filed False Affidavits and Cases against the Victim and interpolates the courtrecords then in such a condition it is the duty of Govt. Pleader to proceedfurther and complete all the technical formalities including initiation ofprosecution against said Judges by obtaining necessary Sanction if any reqd. Ithas been done in AIR 1971 SC 1708.

In present case theGovt. pleader did not act. Therefore he is liable to answer the reasons for hisomission to perform his duty.

51. PRAYERS:It is therefore Humbly Prayed that Hon’ble National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)may pleased to;
i)                   Direct Respondent No. 3, RegistrarGeneral of Bombay High Court to initiate Criminal Prosecution under Sec. 167,466,193,191 etc of I.P.C. against Respondents No. 1 and 2, HON. BOM. HC JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDASAND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, and also - as per the Letterof Ministry of Law and Justice sent to Hon. Bom. HC Registrar General dated 02 June 2014, Ref No – L – 19017 / 14 / 2013 – Jus. on Hon. President’s Office forwarding myComplaint to Dept of Justice as per myGrievancesRegtn. No. PRESEC / E / 2014 / 05517 of 21 March 2014 under CPGRAMS Portal.
ii)                 Grant Interim Compensation of Rs. 2Crore as per Section 18(3) of Human Rights Act to Petitioner as compensation ofdamages caused due to unlawful acts by Respondents No. 1 and 2, HON. BOM. HC JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDASAND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR.
iii)                As per Section 18(2) of Human RightsProtection Act, the petitioner Prays to Hon. NHRC to file writ petition toHon’ble Supreme Court or Division Bench of Bombay High Court against Hon. ShriJustice P V Hardas And Smt. Justice Mridula Bhatkar for serious Violations ofour Human Rights by passing a Biased and Partial Final Judgment Order dated 13-6-2013by only awarding us Rs. 6 lac Compensation and Protecting 4 Guilty Policeofficers by NOT taking Legal Action against them as per our Clear Prayers andalso for Violation of 1997 D. K. Basu SC Arrest Directives and Contempt of Hon.Supreme Court and Forgery and Perjury committed by Guilty Police which was Caughtby another Bench of Hon. Bom. HC vide 2 HC Orders dated 20-11-2012 and23-11-2012 in our Crim. WP no. 1857/2012 and causing serious prejudice to us.
iv)              Grant any other relief in theinterest of justice.
v)                CBI Director be directed to registerF.I.R. against Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms. Mridula Bhatkar u/s.217, 218, 201, 191, 192, 193, 200, 465, 466, 471, 474, r/w. Sec. 120-B ofIndian Penal Code.
vi)         Direct Respondent No. 4 Hon’bleChief Justice Bombay High Court to transfer Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. HardasAnd Ms. Mridula Bhatkar [Respondents no. 1 and 2] out of Maharashtara Statetill the enquiry/investigation of the matter in order to ensure free and fairenquiry as per law down in 2014Cr.L.J.9 (SC).
vii)        Sincethemisbehavior, Criminal offences, incapacity, illegality, malafides and biasnessof Respondents No. 1 and 2 Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms. MridulaBhatkar are ex-facially proved therefore, they be directed to resign fromtheir posts in view of law laid down by 5-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of K. Veerswami –vs- Union of India 1991 (3) S.C.C. 655.
viii)       IfRespondents No. 1 and 2 Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms. Mridula Bhatkarfail to resign within 7 days then appropriate direction be issued for theforwarding reference for impeachment proceeding against Hon. Justices Mr.P.V. Hardas And Ms. Mridula Bhatkar for their proved misbehavour,incapacity to act as High Court Judge and  biased treatment to 79year old senior citizen widow of freedom fighter petitioner and alsoviolating the mandate of article 14 of the constitution about equality beforelaw and equal protection of the law.
ix)         Hon. Bom. HC Registrar Generalbe directed to seize the records of the case.
x)          The C.B.I. be directed tocollect the mobile phone details of all the accused involved in the conspiracy.
xi)         Take Suo MotoAppropriate Action against Respondent No. 7 State of Maharashtra throughGovernment Pleader for his omission to perform his duty as stated in the Para49.
Mumbai                                                                  
Date:-1-8-2014              
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONERWILL ALWAYS REMAIN GRATEFUL.

MohiniNaraindas Kamwani – 79 YEAR OLD PETITIONER

Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"



Defamatory Comments

NO SANCTION required

http://www.ijtr.nic.in/webjournal/11.htm

(V. Good Link)



Mahatma Gandhi said, "IF YOU DON'T ASK, YOU DON'T GET"
Atur Chatur says, "WHAT YOU WILL ASK, THAT YOU WILL GET"



KUSUM SHARMA VS MAHINDER SHARMA

PERJURY & ETHICS BY JUDGE

(V. Good Link)





Hope this will help you guys....................all the best
Issued in Public Interest by ATUR CHATUR COUNSELLING *


शादी से पहले और शादी के बाद 
ATUR CHATUR  को रखना याद

Email:- aturchatur@yahoo.com






DISCLAIMER & TERMS & CONDITIONS

*Disclaimer:- Atur Chatur is my pen name. I am Delhi University Ex-Lecturer. I am NOT a lawyer. I am a PIP (Party-in-Person). I filed Perjury (fraud on court) on lies of my wife with proofs. I filed court case against Police/CAW. I filed complaint against Judge Family Court (JFC) due to unethical practices/ gender discrimination which resulted in JFC Recusal. I also became a RTI Activist. I acquired all other knowledge/info after false 498a/DVC/Divorce/ CAW cases were filed against me & entire family & my income greatly affected so I have chosen this profession to support my family & also to support my one man fight against gender discrimination in India. Counselling Fees = 2,000 only for approx one hour talking to you & suggesting you few methods like RTI or other methods which is based on my knowledge which I acquired while fighting false cases. Fees is subject to change due to urgency & other factors so please confirm. I do not provide legal opinion/ legal advise or anything like that. All written by me & my suggestions etc is my personal views. You yourself will be responsible for acting on any of my counseling/ advises / consult / guidance etc. Fees for the RTI & any other writing work is to be paid separately & does not come under counselling fees. Pls ask the fees before getting any work done. Fees once paid (even if paid in excess) are not refundable under any circumstances. I do not provide legal opinion/ legal advise or anything like that. All written by me & views/ writings/ RTI/ suggestions/ counselling guidance etc are my personal views. You yourself will be responsible for acting on any of my counselling/ advises / consult / guidance etc. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees. There has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website. The user wishes to gain more information about us for his/her own information and use. The information about us is provided to the user only his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at the user's volition and any transmission, receipt or use of this site would not create any lawyer-client relationship. The information provided under this website is solely available at your request for information purposed only, should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on legal material/information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal dowry consultation issues, he/she in all cases must seek independent legal advice from  his own reliable sources & contacts. Disputes if any shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction only. General Disclaimer applies.





documents misplaced by court

PLEASE FIRST READ DISCLAIMER AT BOTTOM* NOTE:- Advise available for all countries  laws  vis-a-vis adultery & divorce so if you w...