Aggrieved Dinesh Pratap Singh sought information from S.S.P. Lucknow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Booked At
Booked On
Destination Pincode
Tariff
Article Type
Delivery Location
Delivery Confirmed On
Mirzapur RMS POS Counter
26/09/2019 16:50:28
226001
41.30
Speed Post
Lucknow GPO
30/09/2019 17:42:57

 

Event Details For : EU787009565IN

 

Current Status : Item Delivery Confirmed

 

Date
Time
Office
Event
30/09/2019
17:42:57
Aminabad Park SO
Item Delivery Confirmed
30/09/2019
12:04:18
Aminabad Park SO
Out for Delivery
30/09/2019
11:29:08
Aminabad Park SO
Item Received
29/09/2019
23:14:06
MA Lucknow RMS
Item Dispatched
28/09/2019
13:54:28
Lucknow NSH
Item Bagged
28/09/2019
10:08:12
Lucknow NSH
Item Received
27/09/2019
06:09:12
MA Mirzapur TMO
Item Dispatched
27/09/2019
05:57:01
MA Mirzapur TMO
Received at TMO
27/09/2019
04:17:21
Mirzapur ICH
Item Dispatched
27/09/2019
03:48:58
Mirzapur ICH
Item Bagged
26/09/2019
20:51:13
Mirzapur ICH
Item Received
26/09/2019
20:35:45
Mirzapur RMS POS Counter
Item Dispatched
26/09/2019
20:21:36
Mirzapur RMS POS Counter
Item Bagged
26/09/2019
16:50:28
Mirzapur RMS POS Counter
Item Booked

 

 

 

Yogi M.
P. Singh is the authorized representative of the applicant to pursue the matter
before the competent authorities.

 

The
matter is urgent so pay due care to the R.T.I. Communique.
 

An
application under subsection 1 of section 6 of the Right to Information Act
2005 seeking information from
public information officer of the following public
authority.                
 

To                                     

                                          Public information officer

 

                      Senior Superintendent of
Police

 

       District-Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh PIN
Code-226001

 

Subject-You
are invited to provide the following pointwise information within time as
stipulated under subsection 1 of section 7 of Right to Information Act 2005.

 

Most revered Sir –Your applicant invites the kind attention
of Hon’ble Sir with due respect to the following submissions as follows.

 

Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take the perusal of the report
dated-25-Sept-2019 submitted by circle officer Cant, Santosh Kumar Singh, on
the Jansunwai portal of the Government of Uttar Pradesh attached with this
communiqué as page 1.

 

The second and third page of the annexure is the submissions
of the aggrieved applicant in order to clarify the matter.

 

CPIO may be directed to provide the following information
pointwise as sought.

 

1-Please provide access to information regarding the public
documents manipulated by the aggrieved applicant Dinesh Pratap Singh as charge
sheet submitted under serious sections 448,406,420,467,468,471,394 of India
Penal Code in the courts of law by the police.

 

2-Please, provide access to information regarding the public
documents manipulated by the aggrieved applicant’s wife Kesar Singh and
daughter Abha Singh as charge sheet submitted under serious sections
448,406,420,467,468,471,394 of India Penal Code in the courts of law by the
police.

 

3-Please provide the detail of the competent authority who
declared, the agreement paper and power of attorney, provided before the
registrar of Lucknow, by Babu Singh to Dinesh Pratap Singh, illegal.

 

4- According
to report of Manoj Kumar Sub-inspector Police station Ashiyana, District
Lucknow dated 07 June 2019, Babu Singh Son of R. P. Singh died on 11 May 2019
at Dehradun in Uttarakhand but circle officer Cant Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh
making claims differently. According to the report submitted by the
aforementioned circle officer dated 04 Sept 2019, Babu Singh Son Of R. P. Singh
died on 12 April 2019 at Dehradun in Uttarakhand.

 

Please provide the documents proving/supporting
confliction/contrary claims in the dates of death of Babu Singh. Communication
of former circle officer Tanu Upadhyay is also supporting the claim of Manoj
Kumar Sub-inspector, Police station, Ashiyana. Whether Babu Singh’s mysterious
death really took place on the aforementioned dates?

 

5-Please provide the
detail of witness testimony of Babu Singh ever given by him before the Lucknow
police in the matter concerned as his witness if ever examined by the police is
the core of the entire controversy.

 

6-Please provide the
detail of name and designation of the police officer who carried out the
investigation in the matter concerned and the senior rank officer who approved
the investigation blindly as false fabricated charges imposed not only
applicant but also wife and daughter in order to hatch a conspiracy to expel
from the house purchased by the applicant through appropriate process in
accordance with the law.

 

     Please provide the aforementioned sought
information pointwise as sought by the information seeker. For this applicant
shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.

 

 

Date-26/09/2019
Yours sincerely

 

 

                                          Dinesh Pratap Singh S/O Angad Prasad
Singh

 

C/O Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla- Surekapuram,
Jabalpur Road, Lakshmi Narayan Baikunth Mahadev Mandir District-Mirzapur, Uttar
Pradesh, Pin code-231001.

 

 

Note-Indian postal orders of Rs.20 as R.T.I.
Fee i.e. Rs.10 bearing serial number-51F 033040 and second Indian postal order
of Rs.10 bearing serial number-51F 033039.

 

 

 

1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
IPC 467: Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code

 

Forgery of valuable security, will,
etc.

 

Whoever
forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an
authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to
make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest
or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or
valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt
acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with 1
*imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

2-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir
 that IPC
468: Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code

 

Forgery for purpose of cheating

 

Whoever
commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the
purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

3-It
is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir
 that Section 469 in The Indian Penal Code

 

469. Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.—Whoever commits forgery,
1[intending that the document or electronic record forged] shall harm the repu­tation
of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 

4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code

 

471. Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record].—Whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic
record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or
electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged
such 1[document or electronic record].

 

5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code.

 

Section 448 of the
Indian Penal Code
. Punishment for
house-trespass. Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

 

6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Section 420,406 in The Indian Penal Code

 

IPC
409
is
basically a special case of the same crime of criminal breach of trust
under IPC 406/405, basically enhancing the punishment. IPC 420 also deals with
similar issues of dishonestly cheating someone else of property/security, so
all of them together can be very much possible.

 

7-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code

 

Section
394 in The Indian Penal Code. 394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing
robbery.—If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, volun­tarily
causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing
or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for
life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years,

 

             This is a humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that
how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote
anarchy, lawlessness and chaos in an arbitrary manner by making the mockery of
law of land? This is need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer
in order to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic
values for healthy and prosperous democracy. For this, your applicant shall
ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.

 


 Yours sincerely

 

Date-26-09-2019                  Dinesh Pratap Singh, Mobile
number-9838919619, Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur,
Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.

 

 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arun Pratap Singh
1 year ago

Please provide the documents proving/supporting confliction/contrary claims in the dates of death of Babu Singh. Communication of former circle officer Tanu Upadhyay is also supporting the claim of Manoj Kumar Sub-inspector, Police station, Ashiyana. Whether Babu Singh’s mysterious death really took place on the aforementioned dates?
Please provide the detail of witness testimony of Babu Singh ever given by him before the Lucknow police in the matter concerned as his witness if ever examined by the police is the core of the entire controversy.

Beerbhadra Singh
1 year ago

Aggrieved applicant has sought information under Right to Information act 2005 and if the concerned public functionaries are honest why are they not providing sought information to the information seeker that is aggrieved applicant by pursuing the subsection 1 of section 7 of Right to Information act 2005 according to which an Information seeker must be provided access to information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application under RTI act. Undoubtedly the sought information is concerned with the serious irregularities had been committed by the staffs of the police so they must provide information in the interest of Justice but it seems that they are procrastinating in the matter which is showing that they are protecting the subordinate staff.