Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.136 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 90 OF 2016
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with A
Prayer for Quashing of Criminal Proceedings and Enforcement of
Fundamental Rights.
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ….RESPONDENT
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND
ARGUE AS PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO GRANT SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY TO PETITIONER NO.01 TO APPEAR AND
ARGUE THE WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017 ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.02
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR URGENT MENTIONING OF WRIT PETITION
CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF INDIA’S COURT
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR LISTING WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.
OF 2017 BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION BENCH
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR AND ONBEHALF OF THE PETITIONER NO.
01 AND 02 FOR CANCELLATION OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANT
DATED 08.09.2011 PROCESS U/S 83 CR.PC. AND FOR
QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLAINT CASE
NO.5591 OF 2013 U/S 498A PENDING BEFORE SDJM COURT
NO.16 CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI BIHAR
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
VOL-I (PAGE FROM 01 TO 140)
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.136 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 90 OF 2016
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with A
Prayer for Quashing of Criminal Proceedings and Enforcement of
Fundamental Rights.
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR …………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND
ARGUE AS PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO GRANT SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY TO PETITIONER NO.01 TO APPEAR AND
ARGUE THE WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017 ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER NO.02
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR URGENT MENTIONING OF WRIT PETITION
CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF INDIA’S COURT
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR LISTING WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.
OF 2017 BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION BENCH
CR.M.P. NO. OF 2017
APPLICATION FOR AND ONBEHALF OF THE PETITIONER NO.
01 AND 02 FOR CANCELLATION OF NON-BAILABLE WARRANT
DATED 08.09.2011 PROCESS U/S 83 CR.PC. AND FOR
QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLAINT CASE
NO.5591 OF 2013 U/S 498A PENDING BEFORE SDJM COURT
NO.16 CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI BIHAR
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
VOL-II (PAGE FROM 141 TO 276)
PETITIONER IN PERSON
OM PRAKASH

FILING INDEX
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO. OF 2017
WITH
WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL NO.136 OF 2016
WITH
WRIT PETITON CIVIL NO. 90 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ………..PETITIONER
VERSUS
S.N Particulars Copies Court Fees
1. Memo of Appearance 1
2. ID proof-Voter ID for P-1 & P-2 1
3. Listing Performa 1+3
4. Synopsis and list of dates 1+3
5. Notification of defects Order
dated 03.01.2017 by Registrar
Misc. of this Hon’ble Court
1+3
6. W P (Crl) with Affidavit 1+3
7. ANNEXURES P-1 to P-26 1+3
8. Appl. for argue in person 1+3
9. Appl. For Spl. power Attorney 1+3
10. Appl. for Urgent Mentioning 1+3
11. Appl. for Constitution Bench 1+3
12. Appl. For Cancellation of N.B.W 1+3
Petitioner in Person
Filed on: 18.01.2017 Om Prakash
Diary No: 2188 RZF-893, NETAJI SUBUSH
MARG, RAJ NAGAR PART-2
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI-
110077, DWARKA SEC-08
MOB: 9968337815

WITH
WITH
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH & ANR ……..PETITIONER
VERSUS
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sir,
Please enter my appearance Petitioner-in-Person
in the above mentioned matter:
New Delhi
Dated this the day of 2017
Yours faithfully,
(OM PRAKASH )
Petitioner-in-Person

INDEX VOL-I
S.N Particulars Page No.
1. Listing Performa A1-A2
2. Synopsis and list of dates B- P
3. Writ Petition (Criminal) 01-102
along with Affidavit in support.
4. Annexure: P-1 103-105
True Copies of Police complaint
against installation of Public
Toilet without the permission of
petitioner no.02 by Mr. Bihari Lal
Bubna, an elected PRI leader to SP
Katihar by the petitioner dated
03.03.2016
5. Annexure: P-2 106-112
True Copies of photographs of
public toilets with posters having
‘text of public toilet for female’
pasted at the entry gate of the
House of the petitioner no.02 sent
by villagers through Watsup dated
05.03.2016 & 06.03.2016 to the
petitioner no.02
6. Annexure: P-3 113-118
True Copies of translated false
police enquiry report by S.P.
Katihar dated 07.05.2016 to the In
charge, Janta Darbar Cell, Police
Head Quarter Bihar, Patna

7. Annexure: P-4 119-120
A True Copy of online rejoinder
vide online complaint no.
99999-0303160113 against false
police enquiry report of S.P.
17.05.2016
8. Annexure: P-5 121-123
True Copies of the photographs of
the victims viz. above the knee
amputee, Headmaster, father, Late
Shri Deep Narayan Poddar (1939-
2007) and Oxygen dependent,
mother, Widow Asha Rani Devi,
petitioner no.02 herein in this
petition and wife of Late Shri
Deep Narayan Poddar (1946 to till
date) whose house is being turned
into public toilets w.e.f
28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016 by Mr.
Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected
Panchayati Raj Institution (PRI)
leader with the consent of S.P.
Katihar
9. Annexure: P-6 124-133
A True Copy of Letter-Petition
dated 19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India by the
Petitioner.

10. Annexure: P-7 134-140
A True Copy of RTI reply by Ld. CJM
cum PIO Begusarai dated 27.08.2016
to the petitioner

INDEX-VOL-II
S.N Particulars Page No.
11. Annexure: P-8 141-151
A True Copy of application before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
for mentioning of fresh matter
urgently dated 03.10.2016 along
with Affidavit by the petitioner
through R&I as well as through
Registry.
12. Annexure: P-9 152
A True Copy of filing index of
Urgent Mentioning application
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India’s Court through Mentioning
Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the
petitioner through Caveat clearance
Counter without receipt.
A True Copy of order dated
07.10.2016 passed by this Hon’ble
Court in Writ (Crl.) 136 of 2016.
14. Annexure: P-11 154-171
Chief Justice of India by the
petitioner no.02.
15. Annexure: P-12 172-183

A True Copy of application for
constitution bench along with
Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide
diary no. 77878 filed against Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016
16. Annexure: P-13 184-185
A True Copy of certified copy of
office report dated 20.10.2016 by
the Registrar, Section X in Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016.
A True Copy of final Order under
Challenge dated 21.10.2016 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in Writ
18. Annexure: P-15 187-189
A True Copy of email letter of
prayer by the petitioner for
urgent hearing of Second Appeal
vide diary no. 183722 dated
03.11.2016 via Central Information
Commission (CIC) on the ground of
Life or Personal liberty dated
30.11.2016
19. Annexure: P-16 190-191
A True Copy of Order under
Challenge dated 01.12.2016 passed
by this Hon’ble Court in Review

20. Annexure: P-17 192-194
A True Copy of email reply by
DS(CR) CIC turning down the
petitioner’s prayer for urgent
registration of Second Appeal on
the ground of ‘life or personal
liberty’ dated 02.12.2016
21. Annexure: P-18 195-196
A True Copy of online complaint by
the petitioner against Patna High
Court to CIC under the dropdown
box of ‘life or personal liberty’
to make the provision of section
7(1) applicable
22. Annexure: P-19 197-201
A True Copy of email letter to the
Secretary General of Supreme Court
of India for urgent mentioning of
the matter before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India’s court by
the petitioner dated 17.12.2016
Registrar Misc. Section X of this
Hon’ble Court for seeking status
of email dated 17.12.2016 by the
petitioner through email dated
22.12.2016
24. Annexure: P-21 203-204

A True Copy of notification of
defects letter vide diary no.
5356/2016/X dated 03.01.2017
against curative petition
criminal vide diary no. 41026
issued by Registrar Misc. Section
X of this Hon’ble Court.
A True Copy of RTI request vide
JUSTC/R/2017/50023 dated
05.01.2017 in view of section
7(1) of RTI Act 2005 by the
petitioner; physically
transferred by Department of
Justice, Government of India to
the Registrar Admin Supreme Court
of India dated 05.01.2017
A True Copy of reply of
notification of defects letter
against curative petition
criminal vide diary no. 41026 by

the petitioner through email
letter dated 06.01.2017
28. Annexure: P-25 208-213
A True Copy of First Appeal with
Registrar Admin, Supreme Court of
India against online RTI
application vide
JUSTC/R/2017/50023 in view of
section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 by
A True Copy of filing index
against Curative Petition Criminal
vide diary no. 41026 by the
petitioner dated 12.01.2017
30. Application for seeking
permission to appear and argue
the Writ Petition (Criminal) in
person along with supporting
affidavit. 215-220
31. Application for seeking permission
to grant Special Power of
Attorney to Petitioner No.01 to
appear and argue the Writ
Petition (Criminal) No. 136 of
2016 on behalf of Petitioner
No.02 along with Affidavit 221-
227
32. Application for urgent Mentioning

of Writ Petition Criminal No.
of 2017 before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court along
with Affidavit 228-246
33. Application for listing Writ
Petition Criminal No. of 2017
before the Constitution bench
along with Affidavit. 247-263
34. Application for cancellation of
N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s
83 Cr.Pc. and quashing of criminal
proceedings u/s 498A along with
Affidavit 264-276

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The present petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is being filed to
enforce the Rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India with Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 and Writ Petition Civil
90 of 2016; whereby an offence of perjury
has been committed by Ld. CJM division
Begusarai Court Bihar and Praveen
Kumar(IDAS) CMD of Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd, New Delhi; Mentioning
officer and Registrar Misc. of Supreme Court
of India has violated the rules as laid down
in the Handbook of Supreme Court of India,
stopped the petitioner to mention the matter
before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s
court, closed the door of Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s court, suppressed the
record of application dated 03.10.2016 for
urgent mentioning before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court in its office
report, circulated an application for
Constitution bench unregistered; spoiled the
ground of Constitution bench and pushed the
petitioner into curative stage
intentionally; on the other hand two judges
bench of this Hon’ble Court has evaded the
Rule of Law under Order XXXVIII of Supreme
Court Rule 2013 by dismissing the Writ

petition 136 of 2016 with liberty while the
petition raised substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution
required and to be decided by a division
court of not less than five judges; closed
the door of this Hon’ble Court for the
petitioner forever; protected and shielded
the bad elements of State Apparatus; and
harassed, offended and victimized the
petitioner no.01 and 02 which would have
far reaching consequences against the
interest of public at large and against
the right of Senior Citizen Woman in
particular and would shake the public
confidence by reason of the association
or closeness of judge with the subject
matter of dispute; establish wrong
precedent of procedural Judicial system,
encourage malfunctioning of the State
Apparatus; weaken the basic fabric of the
institutions; ignore constitutional
priority; which has caused gross
injustice, violated the principle of
natural justice, ignored the principle of
ex debito justitiae and resulted in gross
miscarriage of justice.
The Petitioner is filing the Criminal Writ
petition under the Article 32 of

Constitution of India for quashing of
criminal proceedings and enforcement of his
Rights under Article 21 of the constitution
of India.
23.07.2013 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced
Judgment in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 in
favor of petitioner on the ground of
certified copy of Begusarai Court in
case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act and after three SLP(C)
no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013,
SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 before this
Hon’ble Court.
28.02.2016 House of the petitioner no.02 has been
turned into public Toilet with the
posters having text ‘public toilets
for female’ pasted at the entry gate
of the house w.e.f 28.02.2016 to
05.03.2016 by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an
elected PRI leader with the consent of
S.P. of Katihar without the permission
of the petitioner no.02 which has been
placed on record with Writ (C) 90 of
2016 through interlocutory application
and Annexure P-1 to P-5 with this
petition before this Hon’ble Court.

03.03.2016 Police complaint against installation
of Public Toilet without the
permission of petitioner no.02 by Mr.
Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI
leader to SP Katihar by the petitioner
dated 03.03.2016
05.03.2016 The photographs of public toilet with
posters having ‘text of public toilet
for female’ pasted at the entry gate
of the House of the petitioner no.02
has been sent by the villagers through
Watsup dated 05.03.2016 & 06.03.2016
to the petitioner no.02.
07.05.2016 False police enquiry report submitted
by S.P. Katihar dated 7.05.2016 to the
In-charge, Janta Darbar Cell, Police
Head Quarter Bihar, Patna denying the
very fact of the incident.
17.05.2016 Online rejoinder vide online complaint
no. 99999-0303160113 against false
police enquiry report of S.P. Katihar
is being submitted by the petitioner
on 17.05.2016.
19.08.2016 Letter-Petition against Ld. CJM Court
Begusarai affecting the administration

of Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary
no. 35529 has been rejected by this
Hon’ble Court as it did not cover
under the guideline of PIL; although
the matter in the larger public
interest.
27.08.2016 Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public
Information Officer District Court
Begusarai Bihar has furnished false
and frivolous RTI reply dated
27.08.2016 received on 01.09.2016.
30.08.2016 That aggrieved by the false RTI reply
dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld.
CJM Begusarai, petitioner filed Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 on
30.08.2016 before this Hon’ble Court
for quashing of frivolous criminal
proceedings 498A pending before Ld.
CJM division Begusarai since
07.02.2011 without the knowledge of
petitioner and after the settlement of
the same matter by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in 2013.
03.10.2016 Application before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for mentioning of
fresh matter urgent listing earlier

than the scheduled date and urgent
relief is sought against Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 has been
submitted through R&I department of
this Hon’ble Court after huge hue and
cry as initially R&I refused to take
this Dak and subsequently filed
through filing counter of Party in
Person as well on the same date.
06.10.2016 That the petitioner applied for
urgent mentioning of the matter
India’s court through Mentioning
officer of this Hon’ble Court on
06.10.2016 without routing through
the registry through Caveat
clearance counter. However,
mentioning officer of this Hon’ble
Court has intentionally listed my
urgent mentioning application
before Court No.06 instead of
Hon’ble the chief Justice of
India’s Court in the evening of
06.10.2016 despite of my strong
protest in Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016.
07.10.2016 petitioner submitted before the

Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the
mentioning officer has cheated the
petitioner and intentionally listed
the matter for mentioning before this
Hon’ble court. Hence, order dated
Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136
of 2016.
08.10.2016 Aggrieved by the intentional act of
mentioning officer the petitioner
no.02 has submitted Letter-Petition
dated 08.10.2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India through email
against rampant atrocities on Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two
states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi
since 12 years.
13.10.2016 petitioner no.02 has again submitted
Letter-Petition dated 13.10.2016
India through speed post and by hand
against rampant atrocities on Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two
states viz. Bihar as well as in Delhi
since 12 years.

17.10.2016 Petitioner being called on 17.10.2016
by the mentioning officer for fresh
application for urgent mentioning in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016; however petitioner being
harassed whole day from PRO to
mentioning officer and directly
refused by the mentioning officer as
his role is over now.
18.10.2016 Upon direct refusal by mentioning
officer to allow the petitioner to
mention the matter before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India as per the
provisions laid down in the handbook
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
the schedule listing of the matter
fixed by the registry on 21.10.2016;
the petitioner left with no option and
filed an application for listing this
matter before the constitution bench
of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878
dated 18.10.2016 in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016.
20.10.2016 Office-report against Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been

supplied by Registrar, Section X nor
been uploaded at the website of
Hon’ble Apex Court. Petitioner has
applied for the certified copy of the
same on 28.10.2016 with an application
registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide
diary no. PC-732 and received on
08.11.2016.
21.10.2016 Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 is
being dismissed with liberty to
approach Patna High Court. During the
course of hearing on 21.10.2016,
petitioner being directed by the
Hon’ble bench to engage Advocate
although the petitioner has clarified
in writing the strong reason for not
engaging any Advocate or legal Aid in
the petition as well as during the
interaction interview with the
Registrar. Petitioner has not being
heard properly by the Hon’ble bench
and order has been passed with an
error apparent on the face of the
record against the petitioner
violating the principles of Natural
Justice which has resulted in gross

09.11.2016 Aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016,
Petitioner preferred to file review
Petition criminal 825 of 2016 on
09.11.2016.
30.11.2016 As per the direction by this Hon’ble
Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016, Petitioner tried to approach
Patna High Court through Second Appeal
vide diary no. 183722 dated 03.11.2016
via Central Information Commission
(CIC) on the ground of Life or
Personal liberty with a prayer for
urgent registration on 30.11.2016 but
failed to approach Patna High Court.
01.12.2016 Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 is
also being dismissed upholding its
final order by this Hon’ble Court on
01.12.2016.
02.12.2016 DS, Central Registry, CIC has turned
the request of Petitioner down on the
ground of “no ground of life or
personal liberty at any stage i.e. RTI
application, 1st
Appeal or even in 2nd
Appeal has been made out or claimed by

the petitioner”. However, the content
of the second appeal is self-
explanatory at page no.02 and para no.
6, which reads as “another N.B.W dated
08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has
been issued by the same CJM division
against applicant and his Senior
Citizen ailing mother in another
frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of
2013 u/s 498A after the closure of
case no. 9P of 2010 and kept it secret
since then without the knowledge of
applicant to usurp his property in
Bihar”. Moreover, the second appeal
does not have any defined format where
applicant can mention the exact word
of life or personal liberty to make
the provision of section 7(1)
applicable as per the RTI Act 2005.
Nevertheless, Online CIC complaint
format contains this dropdown box of
‘life or personal liberty’ to make the
provision of section 7(1) applicable.
Petitioner has also filed complaint
against Patna High Court to CIC under
the dropdown box of ‘life or personal
liberty’ to make the provision of
section 7(1) applicable.

09.12.2016 petitioner filed Curative Petition
Criminal vide diary no.41026 dated
09.12.2016 before this Hon’ble Court
without a Certificate by Sr. Advocate
WITH the valid reason clarified under
para 15 of the same petition.
17.12.2016 Petitioner approached the Secretary
General of this Hon’ble Court for
urgent mentioning of the matter before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s
court through email dated 17.12.2016.
22.12.2016 Petitioner approached Registrar Misc.
Section X of this Hon’ble Court
through email dated 22.12.2016 for
“seeking status of email letter dated
17.12.2016 addressed to Secretary
General of SCI and subsequently
received by your office dated
19.12.2016 and how long diary no.
41026 dated 09.12.2016 will remain
under scrutiny stage-reg”.
31.12.2016 petitioner again approached to Secretary
General of this Hon’ble Court for urgent
mentioning of the matter before Hon’ble
the Chief Justice of India’s court
through email dated 31.12.2016.

03.01.2017 Registrar Misc. Section X has notified
defects vide diary no.5356/2016/X dated
03.01.2017 against Curative Petition
Criminal vide diary no. 41026.
05.01.2017 Aggrieved by the notification of defects
letter issued by the Registrar Misc.
Section X, the petitioner filed an
online RTI request vide
JUSTC/R/2017/50023 dated 05.01.2017 in
view of section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005
against this Hon’ble Court; and it has
been physically transferred by,
Department of Justice, Government of
India to the Registrar Admin Supreme
Court of India dated 05.01.2017.
06.01.2017 Petitioner replied back the notification
of defects letter “either to register or
to unregister the curative petition
criminal as the petitioner declines to
file a Certificate by Sr. Advocate
against curative petition criminal” to
the Registrar Misc. through email dated
06.01.2017.
09.01.2017 Registrar Admin, Supreme Court of India
not supplied the requested information

sought in view of section 7(1) of RTI
Act 2005 within 48 hours therefore
petitioner filed a First Appeal with
Registrar Admin & FAA, Supreme Court of
India against online RTI application
vide JUSTC/R/2017/50023 through email
dated 09.01.2017
12.01.2017 Registrar Misc. of this Hon’ble Court
has permitted the petitioner to cure the
defects under para 02 and 03 in response
to the reply email letter dated
06.01.2017 of the petitioner.
Eventually, petitioner has filed two
more paper books of Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 and Review petition
Criminal 825 of 2016 vide diary no.4184
dated 12.01.2017 against the defects
raised under para 02 of the defects
notification letter vide diary
no.5256/2016/X dated 03.01.2017 issued
by the Registrar Misc. of this Hon’ble
Court. However, the Registrar Misc. of
this Hon’ble Court has neither
registered nor unregistered the Curative
Petition Criminal vide diary no. 41026
but kept the same under scrutiny stage
even after several reminders by the
petitioner.
18.01.2017 Hence this Writ Petition Criminal

WITH
WITH
BETWEEN
1. Om Prakash ………PETITIONER NO.01
S/O Late Sh Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Sbhash Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2,
Palam Colony
New Delhi-110077
2. Widow Asha Devi ……PETITIONER NO.02
W/o Late Sh. Deep Narayan Poddar
R/O ASHA DEEP NIWAS
Vill-Kantiya Panchayat,
Shukkar Haat Sonaili,
In front of Durga Mandir
P.S. Kadwa, Distt-Katihar
Bihar-855114
VERSUES
1. Union of India ….RESPONDENT No.01
Through the Cabinet Secretary

Cabinet Secretariat
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi-110004
2. The Registrar (Misc) ….RESPONDENT No.02
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
3. State of Bihar ….RESPONDENT No.03
Through Chief Secretary,
Old Secretariat, Patna-800015
4. The Hon’ble Patna ….RESPONDENT No.04
High Court,
Through
Hon’ble Registrar General,
Patna High Court
Patna-800028
5. Ld. CJM Court ….RESPONDENT No.05
Through Ld. CJM
Begusarai, Bihar
Civil Court, Ld. CJM Division
at Begusarai, Bihar
6. The Secretary ….RESPONDENT No.06
Cum-Legal Remembrancer
Law Department, Government of Bihar
Main Secretariat Patna-800015

7. Shri Praveen Kumar(IDAS) ….RESPONDENT No.07
Chairman and Managing Director (C&MD),
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
H.O. Scope Complex, Core-6, 1st
Floor
7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR
PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF
INDIA.
To
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His
Lordship's Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India. The Humble
petition of the Petitioner abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. FACTS OF THE CASSE
The facts leading to the filing of the
present Writ petition criminal are as
under:-

i. The present petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India is being filed
to enforce the Rights under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India with Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 and Writ Petition Civil
90 of 2016; whereby an offence of perjury
has been committed by Ld. CJM division
Begusarai Court Bihar and Praveen
Kumar(IDAS) CMD of Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd, New Delhi; Mentioning
officer and Registrar Misc. of Supreme Court
of India has violated the rules as laid down
in the Handbook of Supreme Court of India,
stopped the petitioner to mention the matter
court, closed the door of Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s court, suppressed the
record of application dated 03.10.2016 for
urgent mentioning before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s Court in its office
report, circulated an application for
Constitution bench unregistered; spoiled the
ground of Constitution bench and pushed the
petitioner into curative stage
intentionally; on the other hand two judges’
bench of this Hon’ble Court has evaded the
Rule of Law under Order XXXVIII of Supreme
Court Rule 2013 by dismissing the Writ

petition 136 of 2016 with liberty while the
petition raised substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution
required and to be decided by a division
court of not less than five judges; closed
the door of this Hon’ble Court for the
petitioner forever; protected and shielded
the bad elements of State Apparatus; and
harassed, offended and victimized the
petitioner no.01 and 02 which would have
far reaching consequences against the
interest of public at large and against
the right of Senior Citizen Woman in
particular and would shake the public
confidence by reason of the association
or closeness of judge with the subject
matter of dispute; establish wrong
precedent of procedural Judicial system,
encourage malfunctioning of the State
Apparatus; weaken the basic fabric of the
institutions; ignore constitutional
priority; which has caused gross
injustice, violated the principle of
natural justice, ignored the principle of
ex debito justitiae and resulted in gross
ii. That the present petition is also
being filed to cancel the N.B.W dated

08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. and to quash
the criminal proceedings in case No.5591 of
2013 u/s 498A pending before the Ld. SDJM Court
No.16, Ld. CJM Division at Begusarai under the
judicature of Hon’ble Patna High Court which
has directly infringed the Fundamental Rights
of the petitioner under Article 21 of the
constitution of India whereby and where the Ld.
CJM cum PIO has furnished the false RTI reply
against the same question of law laid down in
the Writ petition Criminal 136 of 2016 and has
erred in holding the frivolous criminal
proceedings for the same cause of action which
has been settled by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013,
which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The petitioner is seeking Writ in the nature of
Mandamus, prohibition and certiorari.
iii. Article 21 of Constitution of
India says, “No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law”.
WHY THIS WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL?
It is submitted that the present Writ
petition is urged for the following reasons:

a.It is humbly submitted that the
Registrar Misc. of this Hon’ble Court
has neither registered nor unregistered
the Curative Petition Criminal vide
diary no. 41026 without Certificate by
Sr. Advocate but kept the same under
scrutiny stage even after several
reminders by the petitioner.
b.It is further submitted that there has
been illegal confinement of Petitioner
no.01 and 02 since 12 years.
c.It is humbly submitted that the
petitioner is a victim of JUDICIAL
MALFUNCTIONING. The petitioner has
become a dead man whose all families
have been encircled to death in front of
his own eyes and he could not do
anything.
d.It is humbly submitted that the
petitioner no.01 and 02 have been
subjected to silent Death by the NEXUS
OF RTD. JUSTICE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT
AND PRAVEEN KUMAR (IDAS), RESPONDENT
NO.07, EVADING THE RULE OF LAW OF THE
LAND to usurp the life time acquired
property of Petitioner no. 02 in Bihar.

e.It is humbly submitted that an Offence
of PERJURY; abuse of court process; 12
years long criminal conspiracy;
backstabbing; evasion of rule of law by
the Advocates and Judges from lower
court to High Court to Supreme Court of
India since 12 years; NO ACTUAL PARTY
ONLY PROXY WAR THROUGH JUDGES IN TWO
STATES SINCE 12 YEARS from Lower Court
to High Court to Supreme Court of India
and Eight Cases have reached up to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India till date
are the main features of this whole
petition.
f. It is humbly submitted that the
matter involves substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of
Constitution is required. Two states
jurisdictions are involved for the same
cause of action and for the same relief
after the settlement of the same matter
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, way
back in 2013.
g. It is humbly submitted that the
Curative Petition Criminal vide diary
no. 41026 dated 09.12.2016 has been
filed by the petitioner before this

Hon’ble Court without a certificate by
Sr. Advocate violating the Rules laid
down for filing a curative petition
because the Registry of this Hon’ble
Court has violated the rules for urgent
mentioning of the Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India’s court as per the
grounds laid down in the handbook of the
Supreme Court of India and has
intentionally pushed the petitioner into
the curative stage to close the door of
this Hon’ble Court for the petitioner
no.01 and 02.
h. It is humbly submitted that on the
one hand Registry of this Hon’ble
Court has completely violated the
practice, procedure and rules as laid
down in the Handbook of this Hon’ble
Court and closed the door of Hon’ble
the Chief Justice of India’s Court
and on the other hand two judges’
bench of this Hon’ble Court has
evaded the Rule of Law under Order
XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013;
spoiled the ground of Constitution
bench and pushed the petitioner into
Curative stage intentionally to close

the door of this Hon’ble Court for
the petitioner no.01 and 02 forever.
i. It is humbly submitted that
online RTI vide JUSTC/R/2017/50023
dated 05.01.2017 in view of u/s 7(1)
of RTI Act 2005 has been filed
against this act of this Hon’ble
Court and it has been physically
transferred by the Department of
Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice,
Government of India to the Registrar
Admin, Supreme Court of India on
05.01.2017.
j. It is humbly submitted that
there is “no actual party; only proxy
war through Judges in two states
since 2010 from lower Court to High
Court to Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India and eight cases have reached up
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
till date”.
k. It is humbly submitted that an
offence of perjury has been committed
by respondent no. 05, 06 and 07;
backstabbing; 12 years long criminal
conspiracy; evasion of Rule of Law

from lower court to High Court to
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the
Advocates and Judges; NEXUS OF RTD
JUSTICE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND
SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR(IDAS), respondent
no.07 are the main features of this
12 years long matter therefore Apex
Institutions are shielding,
protecting the bad elements of state
apparatus and harassing, victimizing,
offending the petitioner no.01 and
02.
l. It is humbly submitted that the
petitioner no.01 and 02 have been
left with only two options now viz.
either to shoot themselves or to
become underground leaving their life
time acquired property in Bihar.
m. It is further submitted that
the NEXUS OF RTD JUSTICE OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT AND SHRI PRAVEEN
KUMAR(IDAS), respondent no.07
involved into this 12 years long
criminal conspiracy to kill
petitioner no.01 and 02 in the
defense area of Palam Colony, New
Delhi and to usurp their property in

Bihar has been apprised to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
through seven cases; Secretary
General of Supreme Court of India
through email dated 17.12.2016 and
31.12.2016; Hon’ble Prime Minister of
India through PMOPG/E/2016/0599866
dated 22.12.2016; Controller General
Defense Accounts (CGDA), Government
of India through email dated
28.12.2016; Hon’ble President of
India through PRSEC/E/2016/16154
dated 30.12.2016; Hon’ble Lok Sabha
Speaker through email dated
06.01.2017; Cabinet Secretary
Government of India through email
dated 07.01.2017; Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India through email dated
07.01.2017 to take appropriate action
against Rtd. Justice and Praveen
Kumar (IDAS).
n. It is humbly submitted that the
matter is full of bloodshed since 12
years. Above the knee amputee father
of the petitioner no.01 and husband
of petitioner no. 02 who was passing
urine and stool through catheter has

been encircled to death untimely in
2007 by the nexus of bad elements of
Mafia and state apparatus. The oxygen
dependent mother, petitioner no.02,
who is dependent on unemployed &
ailing petitioner no.01 only and
residing on rented accommodation in
Delhi, has been encircled in the same
manner and has been put on risk of
rampant misuse of 498A by the abuse
of court process, likely to be
subjected to death. The flame of the
funeral of the petitioner’s father has
not extinguished till date and still
flaming in the mind of the petitioner
no.01 and it will be added by the flame
of the funeral of the petitioner’s
mother now. The house of the petitioner
no.02 has been turned into Public
toilets with Posters by the elected PRI
leader with the consent of SP Katihar
w.e.f 28.02.2016 to 05.03.2016 without
the permission of the petitioner no.02
violating the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
o. That in view of the two judges’
bench order in Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 by this Hon’ble Court, it

seems, the matter will remain in
bloodshed after the passage of 12
years and will end in bloodshed.
Eventually, the natural question
arises herein in the mind of every
common citizen and the petitioner in
particular, as to why then, people
should resort to courts and not to
arms? Nevertheless, the principle of
Natural Justice mandates that every
order of a court should be speaking
order and there is an obligation on
all courts to give reasons for their
conclusion. However, in this case two
judges’ bench order in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 does not give any
reasons and justification on what
ground petitioner should approach
Patna High Court with liberty after
the settlement of the same matter by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on
23.07.2013 in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012
which has resulted in oppressive to
judicial conscience and has shocked
judicial conscience by its failure to
give reasons for its conclusion.
p. It is submitted that N.B.W dated
08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has

been issued and kept it secret and
disclosed it through RTI reply dated
27.08.2016 by the Ld. CJM cum PIO,
Civil Court, Begusarai, Bihar
against petitioner no.02, a Senior
Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated
rural, OBC woman, dependent upon
petitioner no.01; after the
settlement of the same matter by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which has
been totally ignored by the bias
judgment of two judges’ bench of this
Hon’ble Court and has been put on
risk of rampant abuse of court
process infringing the principles of
Natural Justice, resulting in
suspension of life or personal
liberty.
q. It is submitted that petitioner
no.01 and 02 cannot remain live or
sustain their life in any state of India
if the Hon’ble Apex Court does not
invoke its inherent power under Article
32 of the Constitution of India to
enforce fundamental rights of the
petitioner under Article 21 of
Constitution of India.

r. It is submitted that the bad
elements of State Apparatus on the one
hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. and kept it secret since 2011 to
usurp the property of petitioner no.02
in Bihar and on the other hand kept the
petitioner no.01 and 02 under house
arrest illegally in Delhi to kill them
silently.
s. It is submitted that the
petitioner has not been heard properly
in the open court and the two judges’
bench order in Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 suffers from ‘likelihood of
bias’, adversely affecting the life or
personal liberty of the petitioner which
contains material and apparent errors in
passing directions to the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court after the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in 2013.
t. It is humbly submitted that the
decision of this Hon’ble Court in Om
Prakash & Anr Vs State of Bihar & Ors in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 dated
21.10.2016 and Review Petition Criminal
825 of 2016 dated 01.12.2016 has

resulted in grave injustice and
violation of the fundamental rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India for a common citizen and a Senior
Citizen Woman in particular, it affects
the public confidence in this Court to
protect and defend the Constitutional
Rights of Citizen and perpetuates an
irremediable injustice. It is submitted
that this is an exceptional case which
warrants the exercise of inherent powers
by this Hon’ble Court. Millions of
people across the country who happened
to be victim of rampant atrocities of
malfunctioning of State Apparatus and
victim of rampant misuse of 498A; and
their families have been denied access
to Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and right to life with dignity or
personal liberty even after the
settlement of the matter by one High
Court.
u. That the two judges’ bench order
in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016
has completely violated the third
principles of Natural Justice by way
of not giving reasons for its
conclusions against the contentions

raised regarding violation of Article
21 of the Constitution by the bad
elements of State Apparatus those
have been given license to preserve,
protect and adhere the Rule of Law;
after the settlement of the same
matter by the Delhi High Court, way
back in 2013.
v. That it is respectfully submitted
that the two judges’ bench order in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 of this
Hon’ble Court dated 21.10.2016 which
this Hon’ble Court declined to review
vide order dated 01.12.2016,
criminalizes a significant segment of
legal institutions and judicial
institutions in India by sanctioning
them as the natural guardian of the
Constitution and preservation of the
Rule of Law and spoiling the ground for
constitution bench and refusing to refer
the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016
of the petitioner to the constitution
bench which had raised substantial
question of Law as interpretation of
constitution involved in this petition
and to be decided by not less than five
judges as per the Part III of ORDER

XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013
which was framed in exercise of the
powers conferred by Article 145 of the
Constitution; implying closed door of
this Hon’ble court for the petitioner
no. 02 to mention the matter before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on
the six grounds viz. Senior Citizen
woman, harassment of OBC woman,
prevention of corruption, issuance of
N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. without the knowledge of
petitioner and after the settlement
of the same matter by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013 in
MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of
demolition of property, interlinkages
of matter with old matter of this
Hon’ble Court and short matter, as
per the rules laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court and
pushing the petitioner-in person at the
stage of curative petition
intentionally, which requires a tedious
procedure to follow as per the rules
laid down in the handbook of this
Hon’ble Court to get the Certificate by
a Sr. Advocate to file curative
petition. Moreover, this court refused

to rectify its mistake through defects
notification letter vide diary no.
5356/2016/X dated 03.01.2017 against
Curative Petition Criminal vide diary
no. 41026 dated 09.12.2016 which has
resulted in grievous case of injustice
and denial of Fundamental Rights under
Article 21.
w. It is submitted that the Order
dated 21.10.2016 of this Hon’ble Court
violated the ORDER XXXVIII of Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 which was framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by
Article 145 of the Constitution.
Provision of the Order XXXVIII of
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 says, “1.(1)
Every petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution shall be in writing and
shall be heard by a Division Court of
not less than five Judges provided that
a petition which does not raise a
substantial question of Law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution may
be heard and decided by a Division Court
of less than five Judges, and, during
vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting
singly. (2) All interlocutory and
miscellaneous applications connected

with a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution, may be heard and decided
by a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly,
notwithstanding that in the petition a
interpretation of Constitution is
raised.”
x. It is submitted that the dismissal
of the matter pertaining to
interpretation of constitution by two
judge bench of this Hon’ble Court is
inherently flawed as it contradicts the
explicit opinion expressed for deciding
allegations of “bias” by a Constitution
bench in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR
1987 SC, 454). While settling out the
fundamental principles for adjudicating
cases involving allegations of “bias”. A
Constitution bench of this Hon’ble Court
in Yadav vs State of Haryana (AIR 1987
SC, 454) has categorically stated, “the
question is not whether the judge is
actually biased or in fact, decides
partially, but whether there is a real
likelihood of “bias”. Because the
Constitution bench of this Hon’ble Court

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

not the function of the courts alone; it
is also the duty of all those who are
expected to decide fairly between
contending parties. The strict standard
applied to authorities exercising
judicial power are being increasingly
applied to administrative bodies, for it
is vital to the maintenance of the rule
of Law in a welfare state where the
jurisdiction of administrative bodies in
increasing at a rapid pace that the
instrumentalities of the State should
discharge their functions in fair and
just manner.”
y. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 stood in breach of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
to say in other words, this Right was
not protected by this Hon’ble Court.
Article 32 confers a guaranteed
fundamental remedy but Article 226
confers no such guaranteed rights. This
state of affairs makes Article 32 a
dominant and specific provision whereas
Article 136 or Article 226 are, in the
context of the enforcement of the
fundamental rights, clearly general and

additional. Petitioner no.01 and 02
cannot remain live or sustain their life
in any state of India if the Hon’ble
Apex Court does not invoke its inherent
power under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India to enforce
fundamental rights of the petitioner
under Article 21 of Constitution of
India.
z. It is submitted that as a point of
our Constitutional law that if there is
breach or non-protection by any organ of
the state, which includes Judiciary
also, remedy under Article 32 is to be
granted as a matter of course; and to
examine the petitioner’s contentions to
appreciate if the Case presented
deserves the grant of such a Remedy on
its merits.
aa. It is submitted that the
petitioner who approached this Hon’ble
Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for enforcement of
his guaranteed Fundamental Right being
subjected to gross violation of Human
Rights; and gross violation of
provisions, procedure and practice of

this Hon’ble Court as laid down in the
handbook of this Hon’ble Court by the
Quasi-Judicial Officer of this Hon’ble
Court.
bb. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016 of
this Hon’ble Court implies a closed door
of this Hon’ble Court for the petitioner
and depicts that the same stands in
violation of natural justice adversely
and seriously affecting the rights of
the petitioner or the same depicts
manifest injustice rendering the order a
mockery of justice which causes
insurmountable difficulty and immense
public injury.
cc. It is submitted that the present
Writ petition Criminal is being filed as
the petitioner failed to file a
certificate by Sr. Advocate against his
Curative Petition Criminal for which
Registrar Misc. of this Hon’ble Court is
solely responsible for it and to avoid
grave miscarriage of justice to millions
of Senior Citizen Women in- Laws who
have been victimized and aggrieved by

the order dated 21.10.2016 of this
Hon’ble Court and have been put on risk
of rampant atrocities by the
malfunctioning of State Apparatus after
the closure of the matter by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, upon rampant misuse
of 498A across India.
dd. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 has totally
overlooked the abuse of process by the
Women Protection Officers across India
which has derailed the basic objective
of feminist movement in India from women
empowerment to women criminalization.
ee. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 has totally
overlooked the contentions of the
petitioner that the abuse of court
process has been rampantly used as a
weapon by the bad elements of State
Apparatus across India for their own
vested interest in weakening the
institution of marriage and encouraging
the morale of those who are indulged in
the commercialization of marriage for

the lust of property and financial
gains.
ff. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 suffers from error
apparent on the face of record.
gg. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 disregard past
precedent and the nature of the role of
this Hon’ble Court in safeguarding and
upholding Constitutional Principles and
Fundamental Rights.
hh. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 does not give
reasons for its conclusions on several
important Question of laws laid down in
this petition.
ii. It is submitted that the two
Criminal 136 of 2016 of this Hon’ble
court go against the established
precedent of this Hon’ble Court which
has inevitably expanded the meaning of
the Fundamental Rights.

FACTS OF ABUSE OF PROCESS & GROSS MISCARRIAGE
OF JUSTICE
iv. That the Constitution of India
assigned a pivotal role on to the Supreme Court
providing therein the supremacy of law with the
rationale being justice is above all. The
exercise of inherent power of this Court also
stands recognized by Order LV Rule 6 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which reads as
below:
“Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to
limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers
of the Court to make such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court."
v. That Hon’ble court has denied reviewing the
R.P. Crl. 825 of 2016 by its order dated
01.12.2016 without taking into account the face
of records that the matter has already been
settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on
23.07.2013 in MAT.APPL. NO. 7 of 2012 in favor
of petitioner on the ground of certified copy
of Begusarai Court in case no.9P of 2010 u/s 12
of domestic violence Act and after three SLP(C)
no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no.
19073/2013 before this Hon’ble Court.
vi. That the petitioner has NOT approached this

Hon’ble Court for dispute settlement but for
STRONG PUNITIVE ACTION against the bad elements
of the State Apparatus in two states who are
indulged in affecting the administration of
Justice; which has resulted in miscarriage of
Justice. Petitioner has elicited data at the
cost of his whole life and placed on record
before this Hon’ble Apex Court for necessary
stern legal action.
vii. That the petitioner has filed interlocutory
application for Constitution bench on
18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878 against the
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016. Petitioner
did raise ‘substantial question of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution and this
Hon’ble Court was not required to decide any
‘interlocutory and miscellaneous application’
‘connected with the petition’. The petitioner’s
written submissions also contain these
averments in Writ Petition criminal 136 of 2016
page 18, (para g, h) page 19 (para i) and page
26(para I, J and K).
viii. That the petitioner has placed on record the
bad elements of Legal Aid Institutions in India
and urged to take punitive action against them
to strengthen the institutions.

ix. That the matter is full of bloodshed which has
been caused by the bad element of state
apparatus those have been given license to
preserve, protect and adhere the Rule of law.
The petitioner’s written submissions contain
these averments in page 27(para L); subsequent
clarification by Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at
page 53 (Ans. of defects of para 08, Ground L);
page 27(para N); subsequent clarification by
Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at page 54 (Ans. of
defects of para 08, Ground N) in Writ Petition
x. That handicapped father of the petitioner was
encircled to death by the nexus of Mafia and
state Apparatus in 2007 untimely. The flame of
the funeral of the petitioner’s father has not
extinguished till date and still flaming in the
mind of the petitioner. Voluminous evidences
have been adduced in all the three SLPs filed
before this court in 2012 and 2013.
xi. That petitioner has approached this Hon’ble
Court to plead to take strong punitive action
against them who want to establish the hegemony
of bad elements of state apparatus and want to
govern the mind and body of the vulnerable
common mass.
xii. That the criminal proceeding has taken place in

the state of Bihar because of dismissal of all
SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no. 9483/2013,
SLP(C) no. 19073/2013 of the petitioner by this
Hon’ble Court which has encouraged the morale
of bad elements of State Apparatus in Bihar as
well as in Delhi. 498A is the outcome of this
encouragement.
xiii. That Petitioner is a victim of malfunctioning
of two State Apparatus viz. Delhi as well as
Bihar.
xiv. That the two states jurisdiction “ground K” has
been taken at page no. 26 in the Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 and the clarification has
been sought by the Registrar dated 07.09.2016
at page no. 50 to 57 in the same petition.
xv. That the cause of action is the same and the
jurisdictions of two states are involved in it.
The first cause of action arose in the south
west district of Delhi and has been settled by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013
on the ground of certified copy of Ld. District
Court, Begusarai Bihar, in MAT. APPL. No. 7 of
2012. Trial for the same cause of action
cannot be conducted in the two states by two
Hon’ble High Courts at different point of time
after the settlement by one Hon’ble High Court.

xvi. That the criminal case u/s 498A is not
maintainable in the state of Bihar and is
maintainable in the South West District of
Delhi and F.I.R is to be lodged at Palam
Village Police Station, south west district at
New Delhi wherein the client of Respondent
No.06 has last resided till 15.04.2005.
However, in this matter the client of
Respondent No.06 has filed a criminal case
complaint u/s 498A in the state of Bihar after
a gap of 6 years on 07.02.2011 without an F.I.R
and without police diary and without the
intimation to the petitioner no.01 and 02 as on
date and after the closure of frivolous Case
No.9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence Act
which was instituted on 30.03.2010 before the
same Ld. CJM division Begusarai.
xvii. That the criminal case complaint (P) no. 397C
of 2011 new CIS generated No. 5591 of 2013 has
been filed on 07.02.2011 and the client of
Respondent no.06 has appeared before Ld. Trial
Court at New Delhi on 09.02.2011 in case no.
HMA-700 of 2010 and supplied the copy of case
no. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence with
N.B.W issued dated 25.08.2010 and did not
supply the copy of criminal case complaint (P)
no. 397C of 2011 new CIS generated No. 5591 of

2013 u/s 498A to the Ld. Trial Court at New
Delhi with criminal intention and managed to
get issued second N.B.W dated 08.09.2011,
Process u/s 83 Cr.P.C. (this information
disclosed through RTI reply by Ld. CJM cum PIO
dated 27.08.2016) and continued to take dates
up till now without the Notice/Summon to the
petitioner with criminal intention.
xviii. That the petitioner has already filed an
application for cancellation of N.B.W dated
25.08.2010 and replication of complaint no.9P
of 2010 u/s 43 (12) of protection of women from
domestic violence Act, 2005 for setting aside
order u/s 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 through his Ld.
Advocate Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Reg. No.6255 of
1995 on 03.03.2011. It is evident from the
record of all the three SLPs filed before this
Hon’ble Court. However, this record has been
erased by the Ld. CJM division Begusarai which
has been admitted by Ld. CJM through RTI reply
dated 27.08.2016.
xix. That India is an independent Country and not
left with any Princely State which will be
governed by its own State’s Law. Indian states
are quasi-federal and the matter falls within
the complete jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India who is competent to look into
the matter of two states jurisdiction. Hence,

Writ Petition is maintainable for quashing the
frivolous criminal proceedings pending before
the Ld. CJM division Begusarai.
xx. That fraud, corrupt, criminal and crook
respondent can institute frivolous criminal
litigations under the judicature of all High
Courts in India for the same cause of action
and for the same relief and keep it secret on
the file of the court record against the
petitioner no.01 & 02 to affect the
administration of Justice. Hence, petitioner
will be directed to approach all High Courts
with liberty by this Hon’ble Apex Court.
xxi. That respondent has made a court as a personal
property; records have been manipulated,
distorted and erased from the court records of
district court Begusarai which has been
admitted by Ld. CJM Begusarai through RTI reply
dated 27.08.2016.
xxii. That Ld. CJM has admitted through his RTI reply
dated 27.08.2016 that complaint case no. 9P of
2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence Act is not
pending before the Ld. CJM division Begusarai.
How 498A can be instituted after the closure of
domestic violence under the same Ld. CJM
division?

xxiii. That RTI reply by Ld. CJM
Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 which has enabled
the Hon’ble Court to take stern punitive action
against the malfunctioning of State Apparatus
down the line to act as a deterrence to
strengthen the legal & Judicial institutions in
India.
xxiv. That voluminous evidences adduced
in all the three SLPs and Writ filed before
this Hon’ble Court that the petitioner no. 01 &
02 cannot sustain their life either in Delhi or
in Bihar without the Hon’ble Apex Court’s
intervention and strong punitive action against
the bad elements of the State Apparatus which
has caused irreparable damage and loss to the
petitioner no.01 & 02 over the period of 12
years.
xxv. That the matter involves an incompatible
mixture of Hon’ble Judges & Advocates on the
one hand and a vulnerable common man petitioner
in person on the other hand. This incompatible
mixture cannot board in the same compartment
and travel along with. Hon’ble Judges and
Advocates are almighty, learned person and
equivalent to GOD on this earth while a common
man is a creeping helpless and vulnerable
animal. Hence, the fight between two are
incompatible mixture. However, the Constitution

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

sought by the Registrar dated 07.09.2016 at
page no. 50 to 57 in Writ Criminal 136 of 2016.
xxvii. That the case has reached up to this stage
after 12 years through RTI against Ld.
Principal Judge Deepa Sharma of Trial Court at
New Delhi for stopping the whole court
proceedings on 30.05.2011 and generating the
wrong order sheet, alleging the petitioner for
requesting for adjournment of the court
proceedings while the date was fixed for WS
filing by the respondent, and subsequent RTI
reply dated 30.08.2011; RTI against Hon'ble
Justice Ms Veena Birbal of Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi for adjourning the court proceeding
while the Legal Aid Advocate Jai Bansal was
absent without the intimation to the petitioner
and the petitioner in person was present and
subsequent RTI reply dated 27.08.2012; CIC
decision order dated 25.09.2014 under the title
Om Prakash Poddar Vs Department of Legal
Affairs against Delhi State Legal Services
Authority for not taking any action against
Legal Aid Advocates; Department of Justice
Government of India letter to NALSA dated
13.04.2015; NALSA letter to Supreme Court Legal
Service Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA
letter to Delhi High Court Legal Service
Committee dated 13.05.2015; NALSA letter to

Delhi State Legal Service Authority dated
13.05.2015 and RTI against Ld. Shri Chandra
Mohan Jha, CJM, Civil Court Begusarai Bihar of
Ld. CJM Divivsion District Court Begusarai
Bihar and subsequent RTI reply dated
27.08.2016.
xxviii. That no civilized & reasonable person would
tolerate and appreciate this kind of brutality
inflicted by the bad elements of State
Apparatus ignoring the Rule of Law.
FACTS OF APPREHENSION OF LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS
It is submitted that the Writ petition Criminal
contains genuine apprehension of likelihood of
bias:
xxix. That the State Apparatus of two
States are involved in criminal conspiracy
against petitioner no.01 and 02 to kill the
petitioner no.01 and 02 to usurp their property
in Bihar and the controller of the State
Apparatus, a central Government employee, Shri
Praveen Kumar, respondent no.07 herein this
petition and a Rtd. Justice of this Hon’ble
Court against whom evidence has been adduced as
annexure P-6 page 93 to 95 in Writ Petition
Civil 90 of 2016 reside at New Delhi and all

directions go from Delhi to Bihar. All events
have taken place in Bihar & Delhi against the
petitioner during 2004 to 2016 at the behest of
direction from Delhi. Hence, approaching to
Hon’ble Patna High Court is meaningless and
inefficacious. Records have been placed with
all the three SLPs and two Writs before this
Hon’ble Court. Registry has notified defects
against the original draft of the petitioner in
the Writ (Civil) 90 of 2016 because the name of
Rtd Justice of this Hon’ble Court was
mentioned. Hence, petitioner redrafted it.
However, it is evident from the Letter-Petition
dated 08.10.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice
of India. Another Letter-Petition dated
13.10.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India is annexed herein with this petition.
xxx. That Mr. Praveen Kumar from Indian Defense
Account Service presently as C&MD on deputation
basis with Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, as
respondent no.07 in this petition has
encircled us in Bihar as well as in Delhi and
kept us captive illegally in house arrest
virtually. Writ Petition (Civil) 90 of 2016 has
been filed against him for illegal termination
of service before this Hon’ble Court. He tapped
the petitioner and kept him without work at

Head Office of IDPL and dismissed him without
payment of single penny within one month.
Moreover, he has committed an offence of
perjury before the Patiala House Court at New
Delhi.
xxxi. That the bad elements of State Apparatus on the
one hand has issued N.B.W process u/s 83 Cr.Pc.
and kept it secret since 2011 to usurp the
property of petitioner no.02 in Bihar and on
the other hand Mr. Praveen Kumar has kept
petitioner no. 01 and 02 under the house arrest
illegally in Delhi to kill them silently.
xxxii. How State Apparatus and Mafia are involved in
criminal conspiracy against a vulnerable common
man and senior citizen oxygen dependent
voiceless widow OBC woman in two states viz.
Delhi & Bihar since 2004 has been apprised
before this Hon’ble Court from time to time
through SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C) no.
9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013, Writ (C) 90
of 2016, Writ Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016,
Review Petition Criminal 825 of 2016 and
Curative Petition Criminal vide diary no.
41026?

xxxiii. That since 2004 to 2009, criminal conspiracy
through local leaders and Mafia and since 2010
to till date, through Indian Courts.
xxxiv. That everything has finished. 12 years long
criminal conspiracy has taken away the life of
my above the knee amputee father untimely in
2007 and we (herein petitioner no.01 and 02)
have been kept captive and house arrest
virtually.
xxxv. That the criminal trespass has been committed
by Mr. Bihari Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader
with the consent of S.P. of Katihar. House of
the petitioner no.02 has been turned into
public Toilet with the posters w.e.f 28.02.2016
to 05.03.2016 without the permission of the
petitioner no.02 which has been placed on
record with Writ (C) 90 of 2016 before this
Hon’ble Court through interlocutory application
and with this petition as Annexure P-1 to P-5.
False police enquiry report dated 07.05.2016
has been uploaded online by the S.P. Katihar to
the Police Head Quarter, Bihar through Chief
Minister Secretariat denying the very fact of
the incident. However, the villagers have sent
us the photographs of public toilet through

Watsup which has been declined by the police
enquiry report.
True Copies of Police complaint
against installation of Public
Toilet without the permission of
petitioner no.02 by Mr. Bihari
Lal Bubna, an elected PRI leader
to SP Katihar by the petitioner
dated 03.03.2016 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure
P-1 (Page from 103 to 105)
True Copies of photographs of
public toilet with posters having
‘text of public toilet for
female’ pasted at the entry gate
of the House of the petitioner
no.02 sent by villagers through
Watsup dated 05.03.2016 &
06.03.2016 to the petitioner
no.02 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-2 (Page from
106 to 112)
True Copies of translated false
police enquiry report by S.P.
Katihar dated 07.05.2016 to the
In-charge, Janta Darbar Cell,
Police Head Quarter Bihar, Patna

is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-3 (Page from to )
A True Copy of online rejoinder
vide online complaint no.
99999-0303160113 against false
police enquiry report of S.P.
17.05.2016 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P-4 (Page
from 119 to 120)
True Copies of the photographs of
the victims viz. above the knee
amputee, Headmaster, father Late
Shri Deep Narayan Poddar (1939-
2007) and Oxygen dependent, mother
Widow Asha Rani Devi, petitioner
no.02 herein in this petition and
wife of Late Shri Deep Narayan
Poddar (1946 to till date) whose
house is being turned into public
toilets w.e.f 28.02.2016 to
05.03.2016 by Mr. Bihari Lal
Bubna, an elected Panchayati Raj
Institution (PRI) leader with the
consent of S.P. Katihar is
annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-5 (Page from 121 to
123)

xxxvi. That Peculiar fact of this matter is that the
Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a role
of respondents throughout the case from Trial
Court to High Court either in Delhi or in
Bihar. Actual party has not even filed a single
piece of paper before the Ld. Trial court at
New Delhi. However, actual party has appeared
once on 09.02.2011 and has filed Vakalatnama
before Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi.
xxxvii. Had the Hon’ble Judges not played a role of
Respondent the matter would have been disposed
of on 30.05.2011 itself? It is evident from the
records of Ld. Trial Court at New Delhi,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and SCR of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. Bad elements of State
Apparatus have turned the settled matter into
complex matter intentionally for their own
vested interest and have contracted the matter
till date to finish the vulnerable petitioner
by way of trapping him into the courts without
harming themselves. Matter is ex parte and
Hon’ble Judges have played a role of
respondent.
xxxviii. That a Letter-Petition against Ld.
CJM Begusarai affecting the administration of
Justice dated 19.08.2016 vide diary no. 35529

has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court as it
did not cover under the guideline of PIL;
although the matter in the larger public
interest. The bugs would have been stopped and
killed; had this Hon’ble court would have taken
an appropriate action against the Letter-
Petition dated 19.08.2016.
A True Copy of Letter-Petition dated
19.08.2016 to Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India is annexed herewith
from 124 to 133)
FACTS OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE
It is submitted that the Writ Petition contains
sheer violation of principles of natural
justice:
xxxix. That Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Public
Information Officer District Court Begusarai
Bihar has furnished false and frivolous RTI
reply on 27.08.2016. He has committed an
offence of perjury.
A True Copy of false RTI reply by Ld.
CJM Begusarai dated 27.08.2016 to the
petitioner is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-7 (Page from 134
to 140)
xl. That the RTI reply of Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate Cum Public Information Officer
District Court Begusarai Bihar under QUESTION
NO.07 in Case No. 9P of 2010 u/s 12 of domestic
violence Act, "the application for cancellation
of NBW was never pressed before court, so no
order was passed upon it and neither the
petitioner nor his advocate had appeared before
the court" has been falsified by the record of
certified copy of Order dated 4.4.2011 issued
by the same Begusarai Court and the same has
been placed on record at Ld. Trail Court at New
Delhi in Case No. HMA-700 of 2010 and on the
ground of which Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
pronounced the Judgement in Case No. MAT. APPL.
7 of 2012 on 23.07.2013 in favor of the
petitioner.
xli. That aggrieved by the false RTI
reply dated 27.08.2016 furnished by the Ld. CJM
Begusarai, petitioner has filed Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 on 30.08.2016 before this
Hon’ble Court for quashing of frivolous
criminal proceedings.
xlii. Application dated 03.10.2016 in

Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for
mentioning of fresh matter for urgent listing
earlier than the scheduled date and urgent
relief is sought against Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 has been sent through R&I
department of this Hon’ble Court after a huge
hue and cry as initially R&I refused to take
this Dak and subsequently being filed through
filing counter of Party in Person as well on
the same date.
A True Copy of application before the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for
mentioning of fresh matter urgently
dated 03.10.2016 by the petitioner is
Annexure P-8 (Page from 141 to 151)
xliii. That the petitioner applied for
urgent mentioning of the matter in Writ
Criminal 136 of 2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India through Mentioning
officer of this Hon’ble Court on 06.10.2016
without routing through the registry
through caveat clearance counter on the
following grounds viz. Senior Citizen
woman, harassment of OBC woman, prevention
of corruption, issuance of N.B.W dated

08.09.2011 process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. without
the knowledge of petitioner and after the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 23.07.2013
in MAT. APPL. 7 of 2012, apprehension of
demolition of property, interlinkages of
matter with old matter of this Hon’ble
Court and short matter, as has been laid
down in the handbook of this Hon’ble Court.
A True Copy of filing index of
Urgent Mentioning application
India’s Court through Mentioning
Officer dated 06.10.2016 by the
petitioner through Caveat clearance
Counter without receipt is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-9
(Page from 152 to 152)
xliv. That the Mentioning officer of
this Hon’ble Court has intentionally listed
my urgent mentioning application in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 before Court
No.06 instead of Hon’ble the Chief Justice
of India’s Court in the evening of
06.10.2016 despite of my strong protest to
directly allow me for mentioning before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India as per

the provisions laid down in the handbook of
this Hon’ble Court.
xlv. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by
the intentional act of Mentioning officer for
listing the matter before the Court No.06 as
the same Hon’ble bench of this Court No.06 has
dismissed the Writ (C) 90 of 2016, although the
petitioner had apprised the Hon’ble Court
through interlocutory applications that 498A
has been instituted in the state of Bihar even
after the settlement of the same matter by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
xlvi. That the petitioner submitted before
the Hon’ble bench of Court no.06 that the
mentioning officer has cheated the petitioner
and intentionally listed the matter for
mentioning before this court. Petitioner has
humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court No.06
to grant him liberty to mention the matter
Court. Hence, order dated 07.10.2016 has been
passed by the Hon’ble Court No. 06 in Writ
(Crl.) 136 of 2016.
A True Copy of order dated
07.10.2016 in Writ Petition
Criminal 136 of 2016 passed by this

Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith
from 153 to 153)
xlvii. That aggrieved by the intentional act
of Mentioning officer, the petitioner no.02 has
submitted Letter-Petition dated 08.10.2016 and
13.10.2016 before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India through email; speed post; and by hand
respectively against rampant atrocities on
Senior Citizen, Oxygen dependent, uneducated,
OBC, voiceless, rural woman in two states viz.
Bihar as well as in Delhi since 12 years.
Chief Justice of India is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-
11 (Page from 154 to 171)
xlviii. After an Order dated 07.10.2016 in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 passed by
this Hon’ble Court and upon the request made by
the petitioner, petitioner being called on
17.10.2016 by the mentioning officer for fresh
application for urgent mentioning before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’s Court,
however petitioner being harassed whole day
from PRO to mentioning officer and directly

refused by the mentioning officer as his role
is over now.
xlix. Upon direct refusal by mentioning
officer to allow the petitioner to mention the
matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India as per the provisions laid down in the
handbook of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and
the schedule listing of the matter fixed by the
registry on 21.10.2016; the petitioner left
with no option and filed an application for
listing this matter before the constitution
bench of seven Judges vide diary no. 77878
dated 18.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136
of 2016.
A True Copy of application for
constitution bench along with
Affidavit dated 18.10.2016 vide
diary no. 77878 filed against Writ
Petition (Criminal) 136 of 2016 is
183)
l. Office report dated 20.10.2016 against Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016 has neither been
supplied nor been uploaded at the website of
this Hon’ble Court by the Registrar, Section X.

Petitioner has applied for the certified copy
of the same on 28.10.2016 with an application
registration no. A1-32350/2016 vide diary no.
PC-732 and received the certified copy of
Office-Report on 08.11.2016. Office-Report
dated 20.10.2016 does not contain the
application dated 03.10.2016 before Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India for mentioning of fresh
matter urgent listing earlier than the
scheduled date and urgent relief is sought
against Writ Petition Criminal 136 of 2016. The
record has not been placed on record and has
been intentionally erased from the office
report. Office-Report dated 20.10.2016 further
wrongly records the date of filing of
application for listing the writ petition
before a constitution bench on 18th
January
2016 while the petitioner has filed the same on
18th
October 2016. Moreover, it is circulated
‘unregistered’. Criminal Misc petition no. has
not been allotted against application dated
18.10.2016 intentionally by the Registrar.
A True Copy of certified copy of
office report dated 20.10.2016
by the Registrar, Section X in
Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-13 (Page
from 184 to 185)

li. That this Hon’ble Court has
dismissed the Writ petition Criminal 136 of
2016 with liberty on 21.10.2016 and directed
the petitioner to approach Patna High Court.
A True Copy of final Order dated
Court in Writ Petition (Criminal)
136 of 2016 is annexed herewith
from 186 to 186)
lii. As per the direction by this
Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016, Petitioner tried to approach Patna High
Court through Second Appeal vide diary no.
183722 dated 03.11.2016 via Central Information
Commission (CIC) on the ground of ‘Life or
Personal liberty’ with a prayer for urgent
hearing on 30.11.2016 but failed to approach
Patna High Court.
A True Copy of email letter of
prayer by the petitioner for
urgent hearing of Second Appeal
vide diary no. 183722 dated
03.11.2016 via Central Information
Commission (CIC) on the ground of
‘Life or Personal liberty’ dated
30.11.2016 is annexed herewith and

187 to 187)
liii. That this Hon’ble Court has also
dismissed the Review Petition Criminal 825 of
2016 on 01.12.2016, upholding its final order
dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136
of 2016.
A True Copy of Order dated
Court in Review Petition
(Criminal) 825 of 2016 is annexed
liv. DS, Central Registry, CIC has
turned the request of Petitioner down on the
ground of “no ground of ‘life or personal
liberty’ at any stage i.e. RTI application, 1st
Appeal or even in 2nd
Appeal has been made out
or claimed by the petitioner”. Although, the
content of the second appeal is self-
explanatory at page no.02 and para no. 6, which
reads as “another N.B.W dated 08.09.2011
process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been issued by the
same CJM division against applicant and his
Senior Citizen ailing mother in another
frivolous criminal case no. 5591 of 2013 u/s
498A after the closure of case no. 9P of 2010

and kept it secret since then without the
knowledge of applicant to usurp his property in
Bihar”. Moreover, CIC has invoked section 7(1)
of RTI Act 2005 in N.N. Kalia Vs University of
Delhi case and recorded its observation “the
life and liberty provision can be applied only
in cases where there is an imminent danger to
the life and liberty of a person and the non-
supply of the information may either lead to
death or grievous injury to the concerned
person. Liberty of a person is threatened if
she or he is going to be incarcerated or has
already been incarcerated and the disclosure of
the information may change that situation. If
the disclosure of the information would obviate
the danger then it may be considered under the
provision of section 7(1). The imminent danger
has to be demonstrably proven”. In this case
imminent danger has been demonstrably proven
through photographs of the above the knee
amputee father of the petitioner who has been
encircled to death untimely by the nexus of bad
elements of State Apparatus and Mafia in 2007
and through the photographs of oxygen dependent
71 year old mother, as petitioner no.02 in this
petition, who is residing on rented
accommodation at New Delhi and dependent upon
unemployed & ailing petitioner no.01 only; and
her life has been threatened by the issuance of

frivolous N.B.W dated 08.09.2011 process u/s 83
Cr.Pc. after the settlement of the same matter
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; and is
going to be incarcerated which may either lead
to her death or grievous injury to the
petitioner no.02 and the petitioner no.01.
Hence, this was a fit case to invoke section
7(1) of RTI Act 2005 by CIC. Ironically, the
second appeal does not have any defined format
where applicant can mention the exact word of
provision of section 7(1) applicable as per the
RTI Act 2005. Nevertheless, Online CIC
complaint format contains this dropdown box of
Petitioner has also filed complaint against
Patna High Court to CIC under the dropdown box
of ‘life or personal liberty’ to make the
A True Copy of email reply by
DS(CR) CIC turning down the
petitioner’s prayer for urgent
registration of Second Appeal on
the ground of ‘life or personal
liberty’ dated 02.12.2016 is
194)

A True Copy of online complaint by
the petitioner against Patna High
Court to CIC under the dropdown
box of ‘life or personal liberty’
to make the provision of section
7(1) applicable is annexed
lv. That the petitioner has filed
Curative Petition Criminal vide diary no.41026
dated 09.12.2016 before this Hon’ble Court
without a Certificate by Sr. Advocate WITH the
valid reason under para 15 of the same
petition.
lvi. That the petitioner has approached
the Secretary General of this Hon’ble Court for
urgent mentioning of the matter before Hon’ble
the Chief Justice of India’s court through
email dated 17.12.2016.
the petitioner dated 17.12.2016 is

201)
lvii. That the petitioner has approached
Registrar Misc. Section X of this Hon’ble Court
through email dated 22.12.2016 for “seeking
status of email letter dated 17.12.2016
addressed to Secretary General of SCI and
subsequently received by your office dated
19.12.2016 and how long diary no. 41026 dated
09.12.2016 will remain under scrutiny stage-
reg”.
Hon’ble Court for seeking status
of email dated 17.12.2016 by the
petitioner through email dated
202 to 202)
lviii. That the petitioner has again
approached the Secretary General of this
Hon’ble Court for urgent mentioning of the
matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
India’s court through email dated 31.12.2016.

204)
lix. That the Registrar Misc. Section X
has notified defects vide diary no.5356/2016/X
dated 03.01.2017 against Curative Petition
Criminal vide diary no. 41026.
A True Copy of notification of
defects letter vide diary no.
5356/2016/X dated 03.01.2017
against curative petition criminal
vide diary no. 41026 issued by
Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith
from 205 to 205)
lx. That aggrieved by the notification
of defects letter issued by the Registrar Misc.
Section X, the petitioner has filed online RTI
request in view of section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005
vide JUSTC/R/2017/50023 dated 05.01.2017
against this Hon’ble Court; and it has been
physically transferred by Department of

Justice, Government of India to the Registrar
Admin, Supreme Court of India dated 05.01.2017
A True Copy of RTI request vide
JUSTC/R/2017/50023 dated
05.01.2017 in view of section 7(1)
of RTI Act 2005 by the petitioner
physically transferred by,
Department of Justice, Government
of India to the Registrar Admin,
Supreme Court of India dated
206 to 206)
lxi. That the petitioner has replied
back the notification of defects letter issued
by Registrar Misc. against curative petition
criminal on 06.01.2017 through email.
A True Copy of reply of
notification of defects letter
against curative petition criminal
petitioner through email letter
dated 06.01.2017 is annexed

lxii. That Registrar Admin, Supreme
Court of India neither supplied the requested
information sought in view of section 7(1) of
RTI Act 2005 within 48 hours nor forwarded to
the Public Authority under section 6(3)(i)(ii)
of RTI Act, 2005 to which the subject matter is
more closely connected with. Hence, petitioner
filed a First Appeal with Registrar Admin,
Supreme Court of India against online RTI
application vide JUSTC/R/2017/50023 through
email dated 09.01.2017 and requested him to
pass an order to supply the Information or
supply the same as per the rules under RTI Act-
2005 in view of Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005.
A True Copy of First Appeal with
Registrar Admin, Supreme Court of
India against online RTI
application vide
JUSTC/R/2017/50023 in view of
section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 by
213)
lxiii. Registrar Misc. of this Hon’ble
Court has permitted the petitioner to cure the
defects under para 02 and 03 in response to the

reply email letter dated 06.01.2017 of the
petitioner. Eventually, petitioner has filed
two more paper books of Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 and Review petition Criminal 825 of
2016 vide diary no.4184 dated 12.01.2017
against the defects raised under para 02 of the
defects notification letter vide diary
no.5256/2016/X dated 03.01.2017 issued by the
Registrar Misc. of this Hon’ble Court. However,
the Registrar Misc. of this Hon’ble Court has
neither registered nor unregistered the
Curative Petition Criminal vide diary no. 41026
but kept the same under scrutiny stage even
after several reminders by the petitioner.
A True Copy of filing index
against Curative Petition Criminal
petitioner dated 12.01.2017 is
214)
lxiv. That petitioner no.01 and 02
cannot remain live or sustain their life in any
state of India if the Hon’ble Apex Court does
not invoke its inherent power under Article 32
of the Constitution of India to enforce
guaranteed fundamental rights of the petitioner

under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
FACTS AND CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER WITH RESPECT
TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION; RIGHT OF
DIGNITY, LIBERTY AND AUTONOMY
It is submitted that factual contention of the
petitioner in respect to Article 21 of
Constitution of India:
a) For that Article 21 of the
Constitution protects an individual’s right
to autonomy, liberty, basing this submission
on the jurisprudence of this Hon’ble Court.
The petitioner’s written submissions contain
these averments in pages 15 to 17(para xxvii
to xxix); page 27, (para L, M, N); Page 31,
(para W, X); page 32, (para Y) and page 34
(para BB) and Pages 50 to 57 where
clarification has been sought by the
registrar dated 07.09.2016 in Writ Petition
FACTS OF THE LEGALITY OF ARTICLE 145 (1).
That the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 was framed in
exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of
the Constitution. ORDER XXXVIII of the said Rules,
2013 runs as under:

“1.(1) Every petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution shall be in writing and shall be heard
by a Division Court of not less than five Judges
provided that a petition which does not raise a
interpretation of the Constitution may be heard and
decided by a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly.
(2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard and
decided by a Division Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the vacation Judge
sitting singly, notwithstanding that in the
petition a substantial question of Law as to the
interpretation of Constitution is raised.”
The effect of the aforesaid Order is:
(a) That Writ petition involves
questions pertaining to the interpretation
of the Constitution, the Writ Petition must
be heard by a bench of not less than five
Judges;

(b) That if Writ Petition ‘does not
raise a substantial question of Law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution’ it
‘may be heard and decided by a Division
Bench of the Court of less than five
Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly’;
(c) That all ‘interlocutory and
miscellaneous applications’ connected with
a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution, may be heard and decided by a
Division Court of less than five
Judges,……’; and
(d) That all that can be decided in
matters mentioned at interlocutory and
miscellaneous application’, leaving the
actual Writ Petition intact before the
Court to be disposed of as per the law and
the Constitution.
That the Writ raises ‘substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution is
required.
FACTS OF EVASION OF RULE OF LAW

It is submitted that the Rule of Law has been
evaded by this Hon’ble Court:
a. That the Order dated 21.10.2016 of
this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition Criminal
136 of 2016 has evaded the rule of law under
ORDER XXXVIII of Supreme Court Rules, 2013
which was framed in exercise of the powers
conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution.
Provision of the Order XXXVIII of Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 says, “1.(1) Every petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution shall be in
writing and shall be heard by a Division Court
of not less than five Judges provided that a
petition which does not raise a substantial
question of Law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution may be heard and decided by a
Division Court of less than five Judges, and,
during vacation, by the vacation Judge sitting
singly. (2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous
applications connected with a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard
and decided by a Division Court of less than
five Judges, and, during vacation, by the
vacation Judge sitting singly, notwithstanding
that in the petition a substantial question of
Law as to the interpretation of Constitution is
raised.”

b. That the Writ petition raises
‘substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution is required.
The humble Petitioner had submitted this in his
Writ Petition, pleadings/arguments and through
written submission followed by interlocutory
application for constitution bench on
18.10.2016 vide diary no. 77878 in Writ
Petition Criminal 136 of 2016.
c. That During the course of hearing
on 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016, the petitioner not being heard properly
rather directed to engage Advocate although the
Petitioner had clarified the strong reason for
not engaging any Advocate against this matter
in writing in the Writ Petition Criminal 136 of
2016 as well as with the Registrar during the
interaction interview dated 03.10.2016 that
“Hon’ble Judges and Advocates have played a
role of Respondent throughout the case from
Trial Court to High Court”.
d. That the Order of this Hon’ble
Court incorrectly directs the petitioner to
approach Patna High Court, which has resulted
in gross miscarriage of justice.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:
That the main questions of Law to be decided in
this petition are:-
a) Whether after the settlement of the matter
by High Court of Delhi; petitioner has to
approach Patna High Court for the same cause
of action and for the same relief wherein
the respondent has already appeared into the
matter and contested the matter indirectly?
b)Whether the matter involves two states
jurisdictions for the same cause of action;
Hon’ble Apex Court must not invoke its
inherent power under Article 32 to enforce
and guarantee the fundamental rights of the
citizen under Article 21?
c)Whether the Writ petition involves questions
pertaining to the interpretation of the
Constitution; the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed by a bench of less than five
Judges?
d)Whether the petitioner approached to this
Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 32 against
rampant atrocities by the state apparatus in
two states and for enforcement of his

fundamental rights under Article 21 to be
subjected to violation of principle of
Natural Justice by this Hon’ble Court?
e)Whether the Writ petition which requires
interpretation of Constitution to be
dismissed with liberty and to be directed
the petitioner to approach to Patna High
Court by the two Judges Bench of this
Hon’ble Court; does not evade Order XXXVIII
of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which was
framed in exercise of the powers conferred
by Article 145 of the Constitution? And
whether Article 226 confers guaranteed
fundamental rights to the petitioner for
enforcement of Article 21?
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS TO
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS
INVOLVED
I. Article 32 confers a guaranteed
fundamental remedy but Article 226 confers no
such guaranteed rights. This state of affairs
makes Article 32 a dominant and specific
provision whereas Article 136 or Article 226
are, in the context of the enforcement of the
fundamental rights, clearly general and
additional.

II. Dr. Ambedkar described Article 32
of the Constitution as “the very soul and the
very heart of the Constitution”. Article 136, a
discretionary remedy, cannot be elevated to
become the very soul of the Constitution.
III. In a given case where certain
Fundamental Rights are violated or non-
protected, a remedy under Article 32 must be
granted as a matter of course;
IV. Remedy under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is a matter of course
whenever on account of state action a
Fundamental Right granted as per provisions of
the Part III of the Constitution are breached,
or ignored.
V. That, as such, the Remedy under
Article 32 of the Constitution is ex propio
Vigore available to protect a citizen’s
Fundamental Right which he believes to have
been breached or non-protected by a judicial
order of the Superior Judiciary;

VI. That there is breach of Article 21
of the Constitution of India, to say in other
words, this Right was not protected by this
Hon’ble Court.
VII. As a point of our Constitutional
law that if there is breach or non-protection
by any organ of the state, which includes
Judiciary also, remedy under Article 32 is to
be granted as a matter of course; and
VIII. To examine the petitioner’s
contentions to appreciate if the Case presented
deserves the grant of such a Remedy on its
merits.
3. GROUNDS
That being aggrieved by order dated
26.08.2016 passed by Ld. SDJM Court No.16,
CJM division Begusarai Bihar; subsequent
Order dated 21.10.2016 passed by this
Hon’ble Court and further order dated
03.01.2017 issued by the Registrar Misc. of
this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner is
challenging the same on the following
amongst other grounds: -

A. BECAUSE an N.B.W dated 08.09.2011
process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. in case no. 5591
of 2013 u/s 498A has been issued against
petitioner no.01 and 02, kept it secret
and disclosed it through RTI reply dated
27.08.2016 by the Ld. CJM cum PIO Civil
Court, Begusarai, Bihar through vide
letter no.115 dated 22.08.2016 under the
reply of question no.02 against case
no.5591 of 2013 furnished by Shri Nitin
Kaushik, S.D.J.M, Court Begusarai (True
copy of RTI reply by Ld. CJM Begusarai
dated 27.08.2016 annexed herein with
this Writ petition criminal as Annexure
P-7) after the settlement of the same
matter by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi on 23.07.2013 in MAT.APPL. NO. 7
of 2012 in favor of petitioner on the
ground of certified copy of the same CJM
division Begusarai against case no.9P of
2010 u/s 12 of domestic violence Act and
after three SLP(C) no. 9854/2012, SLP(C)
no. 9483/2013, SLP(C) no. 19073/2013
before this Hon’ble Court.
B. BECAUSE an offence of perjury has
been committed by respondent no. 05, 06
and 07.

Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017

Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (17)

Ähnlich wie Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017

Ähnlich wie Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017 (20)

Mehr von Om Prakash Poddar

Mehr von Om Prakash Poddar (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (13)

Writ Petition Criminal D.NO. 2188 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017