District judge Mirzapur took the written submissions and examined the attached document in his chamber

In the court of Hon’ble District judge, Mirzapur as the physical appearance of the applicant was sought in order to collect evidence in regard to two complaints made in the High court of Judicature at Allahabad, through a communication dated 16/08/2018.
To
                          Hon’ble District and session Judge
                          District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pincode-231001.
Subject-Herein applicant provides evidence in regard to complaints made on 21/04/2014 and 03/06/2013 before the Hon’ble High court of Judicature at Allahabad.
With great respect and reverence, the applicant draws the kind and humble attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following short submissions with brief facts in regard to the biased approach causing stigma on our healthy democracy.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that according to the list of the documents submitted by Mr Ram Sagar Advocate in the year 2007 as the fourth serial number is the application of Yogi M. P. Singh dated-28/08/2006 quite obvious from the annexure 1 and since the date, I am pursuing the case seeking aforementioned documents but concerned are not providing as missing from the paper book. Whether it is not an obligatory duty of a concerned judicial member to ascertain the trace of missing documents from the records of the court? Whether missing of records from court files is usual common incidence not taken seriously by judicial members?
2-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble A.C.J.M. Court passed an order on 12/06/2008 summoning the original copy of enquiry report and letter of nomination of the enquiry officer but DPRO Mirzapur Balkrishn Shukla instead of providing a letter of nomination of the enquiry officer i.e. letter no. 278/पं० /2006-2007 actually provided letter no.134/ल० सि० / शिकायत जांच /2007-2008 which is crystal clear from his own communication addressed A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur received on 26/06/2009 in the office of A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of annexures pages 2,3,4,5,6 and 7.
It is most surprising that then posted A, C.J.M. Mr Sudhakar Ray not only verbally accepted the compliance of court order by the D.P.R.O. Mirzapur but also passed in the written order. Whether it is not a mockery of law of land and contempt of court by the judicial member itself.
3-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Whether the order passed by A.C.J.M. court on 12.06.2008 when Ratnesh Mani Tripathi as A.C.J.M. is a premature-order as quoted by A.C.J.M. Subedar Singh in the open court on 10-April-2014 which compliance should be made at later stage during the argument lasted 30 minutes as A.C.J.M. had no time so he assured that after taking deep study of the case, court proceedings will move forward.
This problem arose because the case is being processed under Cr.P.C. 244 and 245 under which warrant cases instituted other than police report are processed not a summon case and current litigation pending before the A.C.J.M. Court is a summon case.
4-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Whether it is justified that on the each fixed date, Judge may overlook the case of your applicant in the morning session and hear when the entire business of court may be over. Consequently, your applicant has to spend the entire day in the premises of the court. As a formality in order to request of your applicant, the call is made by the court attendant repeatedly but the matter is taken up when no business of court remains. Whether such an arbitrary act of A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur is not violating the human rights of your applicant.
5-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Whether a summon case can be processed under section 244 of Cr.P.C. And plea of the defendant can be overlooked by taking the recourse of aforesaid section under which warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report are processed.
 Whether it is justified that a criminal proceeding may remain pending because according to various ACJMS of district Mirzapur, proceeding had to be carried out under Cr. P.C. 244 and to justify its stand they kept at bay the order court dated-12/06/2008 passed by their colleague Mr Ratnesh Mani Tripathi. One A.C.J.M.  Mr Sudhakar Ray falsely accepted that order of the court has been complied by D.M./DPRO Mirzapur which is tantamount to contempt of court. Hon’ble Sir subsequent judges who proceeded under Cr.P.C. 244 without getting compliance of court orders have committed contempt of court. Most surprising that these judges of the lower court don’t know that aforesaid criminal penal code is applicable in warrant cases not in summon cases.
6-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that when the verbal request made to concerned judges couldn’t reap any fruit, then the applicant submitted written representation on 06-March-2015 originally in six pages along with the annexures. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a perusal of annexures pages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
7-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that on 21/05/2015, A.C.J.M. First court, Mirzapur turned down my plea on the flimsy ground that it is not maintainable before the court as is written on A-4 size paper but in accordance with the law it must be on legal size paper etc and sought my representation on the next date but it was not accepted as it was written in English so I dispatched through registered post ipso facto obvious from postal receipt but unfortunately same communication was not opened by any concerned judge. . Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of annexures pages 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
8-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Supreme Court of India
Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September 2004
Author: S Hegde
Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha, Tarun Chatterjee
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  1253 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Subramanium Sethuraman
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/2004
BENCH:
N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.Sinha & Tarun Chatterjee
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
This appeal is preferred by accused No.4 in Criminal Complaint Case No.2209/S/1997 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Bombay challenging an order made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a revision petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of discharge made by the trial court.
The High Court by its order dated 20th December, 2000 rejected the said petition on the ground that

 once the Magistrate records the plea of the accused and the accused pleads not guilty then the 

Magistrate is bound to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and 

there is no provision under the Cr.P.C. enabling the Magistrate to recall the process and discharge the 

accused after recording the plea of the accused. 
Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion.
Therefore, legitimately the appellant should raise this issue to be decided at the trial. Be that as it may, we cannot prevent an accused person from taking recourse to a remedy which is available in law.
In the light of this judgment, a summon case is processed under chapter xx of the Cr.P.C. and warrant case under XIX consequently A, C.J.M. First court Mirzapur made the mockery by processing a summon case under XIX by overlooking the plea of the defendant. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of detail judgment copy attached as annexure pages-19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
9-It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that in regard to the second complaint as an evidence copy of the published report of national leading daily and international credible media is attached as annexure pages 24 and 25. Please take a glance at these reports.
                                  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-17-09-2018              Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, 9336252631, 9794103433 Mohalla- Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code-231001.
Annexures as aforementioned are annexed with this representation.
Original application in three pages and entire 28 pages are well signed by the applicant.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

Whether a summon case can be processed under section 244 of Cr.P.C. And plea of the defendant can be overlooked by taking the recourse of aforesaid section under which warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report are processed.
Whether it is justified that a criminal proceeding may remain pending because according to various ACJMS of district Mirzapur, proceeding had to be carried out under Cr. P.C. 244 and to justify its stand they kept at bay the order court dated-12/06/2008 passed by their colleague Mr Ratnesh Mani Tripathi. One A.C.J.M. Mr Sudhakar Ray falsely accepted that order of the court has been complied by D.M./DPRO Mirzapur which is tantamount to contempt of court. Hon'ble Sir subsequent judges who proceeded under Cr.P.C. 244 without getting compliance of court orders have committed contempt of court. Most surprising that these judges of the lower court don't know that aforesaid criminal penal code is applicable in warrant cases not in summon cases.

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

Whether a summon case can be processed under section 244 of Cr.P.C. And plea of the defendant can be overlooked by taking the recourse of aforesaid section under which warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report are processed.
Whether it is justified that a criminal proceeding may remain pending because according to various ACJMS of district Mirzapur, proceeding had to be carried out under Cr. P.C. 244 and to justify its stand they kept at bay the order court dated-12/06/2008 passed by their colleague Mr Ratnesh Mani Tripathi. One A.C.J.M. Mr Sudhakar Ray falsely accepted that order of the court has been complied by D.M./DPRO Mirzapur which is tantamount to contempt of court. Hon'ble Sir subsequent judges who proceeded under Cr.P.C. 244 without getting compliance of court orders have committed contempt of court. Most surprising that these judges of the lower court don't know that aforesaid criminal penal code is applicable in warrant cases not in summon cases.

Preeti Singh
2 years ago

In the light of this judgment, a summon case is processed under chapter xx of the Cr.P.C. and warrant case under XIX consequently A, C.J.M. First court Mirzapur made the mockery by processing a summon case under XIX by overlooking the plea of the defendant. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of detail judgment copy attached as annexure pages-19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.