On the complaint filed before C.J.M. Mirzapur by Atul Singh, order of investigation issued.

Your applicant wants justice from judiciary of this country .

29 June 2020

15:30

Subject

Your applicant wants justice from judiciary of this country .

From

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

To

pmosb; presidentofindia@rb.nic.in; supremecourt; urgent-action; hgovup@up.nic.in; cmup; csup@up.nic.in; uphrclko

Sent

18 September 2016 15:50

Attachments

Atul Singh submitted grievance before concerned court to get reprieve against injustice.pdf

An application under subsection 2 of section 155 in the code of criminal procedure 1973.

In the court of C.J.M./A.C.J.M.  Sadar, District Court Mirzapur .

To

                         Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate /A.C.J.M. Sadar

                                                                   Through

                                              Hon’ble District Judge Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh

In the matter of N.C.R. No.75/2015 lodged under police station Vindhyachal Kotwali ,Tahsil-Sadar ,District-Mirzapur .

Complainant-Atul Singh

S/O Shree Krishna Kumar Singh

Village & Post- Babura

Police station- Vindhyachal Kotwali

District-Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh India

Versus

Station Officer

Police station- Vindhyachal Kotwali

District-Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh India

Prayer-Respondent may be directed to ascertain the investigation in time bound manner by adhering to set up norms.

Locus standi-

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 14284 of 2009

Petitioner :- Ram Narayan & Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another

Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Dubey

Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

********************

Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

Whether permission under section 155 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) to investigate the case

can be granted by the magistrate on the basis of the application

of complainant or other aggrieved person?

7. Sub section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Sub section (3) of Section 155 Cr.P.C.provides that any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the

power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. Sub section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. does not envisage that permission to the police officer to investigate a non-cognizable case can be granted on the basis of the report of police officer only. In my opinion, such permission can be granted by the Magistrate on the basis of the application moved by the complainant or any other aggrieved person. In this context reliance can be placed on Kunwar Singh

vs. State of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC 331, in which it is held by this

Court that complainant/ third party also can move application before the magistrate for order to direct investigation in NCR case. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Kunwar Singh vs. State (supra), the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the learned magistrate concerned as well as the impugned order dated 03.06.2009 passed by learned lower revisional court do not require any interference by this Court, as there is no

illegality in both these orders.

8. Consequently, the application under section 482

Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

vk. updh.

Dtd: 04.09.2009.

Honble Sir entire judgement is attached with this representation as annexure in five pages i.e. from page 1 to 5.

With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.

1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of grievance submitted by the mother of your complainant just after the tragic incidence Status as on 16 Sep 2016

Registration Number : GOVUP/E/2015/01669 ,Name Of Complainant : Sagun Singh

Date of Receipt : 06 Jun 2015 Received by : Government of Uttar Pradesh

Officer name : Shri Jawahar Lal ,Officer Designation : Deputy Secretary ,Contact Address : Chief Minister Secretariat

U.P. Secretariat,  Lucknow226001. Its detail is attached with this representation as annexure i.e. page 6.

2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of non cognizable report registered by Vndhyachal police attached with this representation as annexure i.e. page 7 on the next date of tragic incidence. Whether there is relevancy in the submitted grievance and N.C.R. TAKEN by the police from your applicant. Ipsofacto obvious that from the beginning ,police remained indulged in diluting the case and finally made it infructuous consequently deprived your applicant from right to justice. Most surprising is that neither medical report nor gravity of offence supports the N.C.R. AND YOUR complainant was impotent enough to accept the tyranny of police. Mother of your applicant itself was victim but she was neither accepted as complainant nor given place in the N.C.R.

3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please TAKE a glance of page 8 and 9 of attached annexure with this representation i.e. request of Vindhyachal police for medical report and medical report of doctor concerned in regard to your applicant .  Whether such serious injuries made by offenders to your applicant in the night by trespassing the house is non cognizable offence. 

4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please TAKE a glance of page 10 and 11 of attached annexure with this representation i.e. request of Vindhyachal police for medical report and medical report of doctor concerned in regard to your applicant’s younger brother .  Whether such serious injuries made by offenders to your applicant’s younger brother in the night by trespassing the house is non cognizable offence.  Hon’ble Sir from page 24 to 30 of documents showing that how the articles belonging to your applicant’s family were badly damaged by the outlawed.

5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that

If the investigation on N.C.R. is the prerogative of Station Officer of local police station ,then how right to justice is safe in this arbitrariness and tyranny. Whether our human rights are safe in this anarchy.

According to station officer ,Vindhyachal police Kotwali aggrieved may seek the court order under subsection 2 of section 155 of criminal procedure code for the investigation of lodged non cognizable report . Despite it he has objection ,why aggrieved lady is crying for justice by knocking the door of various accountable public functionaries instead making the matter subjudice by taking shelter in the court.

6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance following explanation/ interpretation passed by single bench of the High court of judicature at Allahabad. According to station officer of Vindhyachal police Kotwali –No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Here this question arises that why is he not taking permission to investigate the case in order to provide justice to the aggrieved? Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of annexure 12,13,14,15,16 i.e. page 12,13,14,15,16 of attached annexure with this representation. 

Allahabad High Court

Kunwar Singh S/O Sri Ram Naresh vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 22 November, 2006

Equivalent citations: 2007 CriLJ 1364

Author: V Prasad

Bench: V Prasad

JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

2. The revisionist complainant Kunwar Singh is aggrieved by an order dated 30.10.2006 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Etwah in Criminal Case No. 106 of 2006, Kunwar Singh v. Ram Sewak and Ors., under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

3. In short, the allegations of the revisionist Kunwar Singh were that on 5.6.2006 opposite party Ram Sewak his son Arvind, his brother Ram Das and Bhoop Singh brother of Arvind belaboured his father Ram Naresh at 4.00 P.M. on his roof. Medical examination of Ram Naresh was got done on 5.6.2006 at 6.55 P.M., and his medical report indicated two lacerated wounds, which were sustained by the injured. The X-ray report dated 6.6.2006 of the injured indicated that there was a fracture of his right parietal bone of skull. The F.I.R. a lodged by the revisionist complainant on 5.6.2006 at 5.05 P.M. at police station Ekdil regarding the said incident was registered as NCR. Since the F.I.R. was registered as a N.C.R. and there was a grievous injury sustained by the injured, therefore, the revisionist filed an application under Section 155(2)Cr.P.C. in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Etawah seeking a direction from him a to the police to investigate the offence. The trial court has rejected his said application by passing the impugned order. Hence, this revision.

4. The prayer of the revisionist was rejected by the Magistrate on the basis of judgment of this Court reported in 1995 ACC page 254Naveen Chandra Panday v. State. In the aforesaid judgment it has been held by this Court that under Section 155(2) only the police has got the power to apply for making an investigation into a non-cognizable offence and the victim does not have any a such in power. The contention of learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the said ruling is against the mandate of law and the statutory provision and does not have a binding effect and should be declared per-incurrium. He relied up the judgment of this Court report in 2006 (55) ACC page 864 Brij Lal Bhar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Lucknow and Ors.. In the aforesaid judgment of Brij Lal Bhar (supra) this Court has taken view that anybody can apply to the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for seeking his direction for investigation by the police of his N.C.R.

5. Learned A.G.A. could not justify the impugned order passed by the Magistrate as well.

6. I have heard both the respective counsels representing the rival sides. For the sake of claritySection 155 Cr.P.C. is quoted below:

155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases- (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non cognizable offences, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

(2)No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

(3)Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

7. From the perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision it is absolutely clear, without any ambiguity, that no non-cognizable offence can be investigated by the police without an order passed by a Magistrate. It is nowhere provided under the said section as to who will apply for making an investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. of a non-cognizable offence. The Court cannot add or substract anything in the statutory section. The court is empowered only to interpret the statute as is enacted by the legislature. The power to amend any statutory provision is the province of the legislature and not of the courts.

8. In this view of the matter, when we look at Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. we find that there is nothing in the aforesaid Section as to disentitle the complainant to approach the Court with the prayer seeking his direction to direct the police to make an investigation of his N.C.R.     Section 155(2)    Cr.P.C. does not provide that but for the Police Officer no other person can approach the Magistrate for seeking his direction under the aforesaid Section.

9. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the law laid down in 1995 ACC page 254Naveen Chandra Panday v. State is not a good law. On the contrary the said judgment is against the statutory provision. The law laid down by this Court in 2006 (55) ACC page 864BrijLal Bhar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Lucknow and Ors. lays down the correct proposition of law.

10. In view of what I have said above, this revision is allowed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order dated 3.10.2006 passed by Ist A.C.J.M. Etawah in Criminal Case No. 106/2006 Kunwar Singh v. Ram Sewak and Ors., under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court of the Magistrate to reconsider the application of the revisionist under the aforesaid Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and pass a reasoned order thereon.

11. With the aforesaid direction, this revision is allowed at the admission stage itself.

7-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that ipsofacto obvious from the following submitted grievance and medical reports as done by concerned doctor with Vindhyachal Kotwali reveals that matter is of serious nature and cognizable therefore aggrieved lady is seeking conversion of N.C.R. Into F.I.R. As fate of N.C.R. Is decided by prerogative of concerned station officer of local police station so there is no ray of hope to get justice through lodged N.C.R. Registered By Vindhyachal police arbitrarily and overlooking the substance provided by the aggrieved. Please take a glance of subsection 3 of section 154 of criminal procedure code.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

आवेदन काविवरण

शिकायतसंख्या

40019916000409

आवेदककर्ता कानाम:

Sagun Singh

विषय:

Whether station officer Vindhyachal police station is omniscient as he knew that a criminal incidence was going to take place so he already lodged a case 107/16 and later case lodged by victim was not investigated.  Whether 10716 or NCR was lodged latter If NCR ,then how in-charge of Vindhyachal Kotwali can take recourse of earlier proceedings in order to provide justice to victims Whether lacunae on the part of police can be concealed through such illegal retrospection which is sheer misleading Matter is concerned with the human rights violations of women and her children who were assaulted by trespassing in the house at night by the criminal elements but Vindhyachal police is procrastinating and misleading to concerned and senior rank officers as well in order to protect criminal elements 30 April 2016 10:56 With due respect your applicant petitioner wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Central Government Act Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code 452 House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrong­ful restraint—Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful re­straint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip­tion for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine 2-It is submitted before the Honble Sir that Central Government Act Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code 448 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 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Central Government Act Section 451 in The Indian Penal Code 451 House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years 4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Central Government Act Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code 457 Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment—Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprison­ment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years 5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Vindhyachal police instead of taking complaint from your applicant middle aged lady Sagun Singh took the complaint from minor elder son Atul Singh SO Shree Krishna Kumar Singh while the your applicant/lady was crying before the station officer in this regard but no one paid heed to my grievances When the Guardian your applicant remained present at police station ,then why Vindhyachal police preferred to take complaint from her minor son Most surprising that your applicant was itself sufferer of tragic incidence Hon’ble Sir be pleased to take the perusal of attached documents with this

नियततिथि:

12 – Jun – 2016

शिकायतकीस्थिति:

निस्तारित

अग्रसारित विवरण

क्र..

सन्दर्भ

काप्रकार

आदेश देनेवाले

अधिकारी

आदेशदिनांक

अधिकारी को प्रेषित

आदेश

आख्या

दिनांक

आख्या

नियत

दिनांक

स्थिति

1

अंतरित

ऑनलाइनसन्दर्भ

28 – May – 2016

पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक

 मण्डल मिर्ज़ापुर,पुलिस

10 – Jul – 2016

महोदय,जांच

आख्यासंलग्न

एवंसादरप्रषित

 है।

निस्तारित

2

आख्या

पुलिस उपमहा

निरीक्षक(पुलिस )

01 – Jun – 2016

वरिष्ठ /पुलिस अधीक्षक

मिर्ज़ापुर,पुलिस

आवश्यककार्यवाहीकरने

 काकष्ट करेंएवं आख्या

प्रेषितकरेंमहोदय,जांचआख्या

संलग्न एवंसादरप्रषित है 

17 – Jun – 2016

जाँचआख्या

संलग्नहै।

निस्तारित

3

आख्या

वरिष्ठ /पुलिस

अधीक्षक(पुलिस )

02 – Jun – 2016

थानाध्‍यक्ष/प्रभारी नि‍रीक्षक

विन्ध्याचल,जनपदमिर्ज़ापुर

,पुलिस

आवश्यककार्यवाहीकरने 

काकष्ट करेंएवं आख्या

प्रेषितकरेंजाँचआख्या

संलग्न है।

09 – Jun – 2016

जाँचआख्या

संलग्नहै।

निस्तारित

Pasted from <http://www.jansunwai.up.nic.in/TrackGraviancePopup.aspx?complainno=40019916000409&MOBNO=7237849131&IsOldNew=N> Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of attached documents with this representation annexure 17,18,19,20,21,22,23.

 8-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether non cognizable report is registered by police not to take any action and mislead the victims. Whether in this way government of Uttar Pradesh will lower the cases/crimes of atrocity against women. Whether courts will remain mute spectators of such tyranny culminating into anarchy.

9-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that it is most surprising ,  half a dozen letters of chief minister office caused troubles only to victims and your applicant and reaped no result in order to provide justice to victims. Whether to take action on the submitted complaint is subjected to police or court. Whether proceedings in regard to investigation  on the complaint in accordance with the law comes under the purview of police or judiciary. Undoubtedly judiciary interferes under subsection 3 of section 156 of Cr.P.C. in specific cases in which police is failed to lodge F.I.R.

10-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of attached documents containing the reply of station officer showing he is acting like an arbitrator instead of being instrumental in providing justice to the aggrieved. What is meaning to lodge N.C.R. Which are never investigated by the police? Whether human rights of citizenry are safe in this country.

11-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Whether 107/16 or N.C.R. was lodged latter . If N.C.R. ,then how in-charge of Vindhyachal Kotwali can take recourse of earlier proceedings in order to provide justice to victims. Whether lacunae on the part of police can be concealed through such illegal retrospection which is sheer misleading. 

Matter is concerned with the human rights violations of women and her children who were assaulted by trespassing in the house at night by the criminal elements but Vindhyachal police is procrastinating and misleading to concerned and senior rank officers as well in order to protect criminal elements.

12-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Whether human rights of women and children are safe in the government of Uttar Pra desh . According to Uttar Pradesh police ,it waits direction of competent court under section Cr.P.C. 155 (2) after registering the non cognizable report and most surprising that this direction is sought by the victim (and police has no such power) seeking against atrocity of gangsters . These gems were explained by the office of circle officer ,District -Mirzapur as summoned by the aforesaid officer in the case number-5097 (63) /2316—2017/REP dated-29/06/16 for witness testimony. Please take a glance of page 21 of attached documents..

Cr.P.C. 155 (2) is for police not victim and according to High court of judicature at Allahabad if victim want to seek direction of court under Cr.P.C. 155 (2) ,then it can submit its plea before the competent magistrate but it is not mandatory provision for victim in order to seek justice.

13-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Hon’ble member of Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission Justice U.K. Dhaon  passed an order dated 27/06/2016 as follows –

I have gone through the allegations made in the complaint.

Let a copy of the complaint be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur who shall make necessary inquiry into the mailer and submit the report before the Commission within four weeks.

List this petition after four weeks.

                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                  ( Justice UK. Dhaon)

                                                                              Member

                                                                            27/06/16”

For detail please take a glance of attachment with this representation.

14-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether I.P.C. 323, 504 and 506 can be substituted by Cr.P.C. 107/16 as done by Station officer Vindhyachal Kotwali police and accepted by senior rank officers in the District. Most surprising that case under aforesaid I.P.C. Registered in the first week of June-2015 while case under Cr.P.C. 107/16 was lodged 3-months earlieri.e.in the month of Mach of the same year.

 15-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that case under section 107/16 of criminal procedure code is triable by Sub district magistrate or city magistrate but case under  Section 323, 504 and 506 of India penal code is triable by judicial magistrate of the first class.

 16-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether human rights of weaker and downtrodden section is safe in this anarchy because in non cognizable cases police can’t take any action under section 155(2) of criminal procedure code and victim does not remain in position to seek justice from the court. Whether so called legal aids provided by the government can be available to a member of weaker section deprived from two square meal and corruption is rampant in the system. If the justice is so cheaper ,then why do people sell their ancestral properties in the name of seeking justice.

 17-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that

The core rights for victims of crime include:

The right to be treated with fairness, dignity, sensitivity, and respect;

The right to attend and be present at criminal justice proceedings;

The right to be heard in the criminal justice process, including the right to confer with the prosecutor and submit a victim impact statement at sentencing, parole, and other similar proceedings;

The right to be informed of proceedings and events in the criminal justice process, including the release or escape of the offender, legal rights and remedies, and available benefits and services, and access to records, referrals, and other information;

The right to protection from intimidation and harassment;

The right to restitution from the offender;

The right to privacy;

The right to apply for crime victim compensation;

The right to restitution from the offender;

The right to the expeditious return of personal property seized as evidence whenever possible;

The right to a speedy trial and other proceedings free from unreasonable delay;

The right to enforcement of these rights and access to other available remedies.

 18-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that if cognizable and non cognizable are merely classification of legal system of India ,then why non cognizable cases are not reaching to competent court on flimsy ground because of rampant anarchy.

Cognizable offence and non-cognizable offence are classifications of crime used in the legal system of India

Cognizable offence means a police officer has the authority to make an arrest without a warrant.

The police is also allowed to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court.

The police can file a First Information Report (FIR) only in cases of cognizable offences.

Serious offences are defined as cognizable and usually carry a sentence of 3 years or more.

The Supreme Court of India said it is mandatory for the police to register an First Information Report for all complaints in which cognisable offence has been discovered.

 19-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Legal Aid

Article 39A of the Constitution of India provides for free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society and ensures justice for all. Article 14 and 22(1) of the constitution also make it obligatory for the State to ensure equality before law and a legal system which promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity to all, When free legal aid will be provided ,answer is quite simple- if matter will be triable by the competent court but how it will reach to competent court?

 20-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that taken up matter is concerned with middle aged woman and her two adolescent children but where is justice for them in this anarchy?

Eligible persons for getting free legal services include: Women and children; Members of SC/ST; Industrial workmen; Victims of mass disaster; violence, flood, drought, earthquake, industrial disaster; Disabled persons; Persons in custody; Persons whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- Victims of Trafficking in Human beings.

                This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.

                           ‘                                                       Yours  sincerely

                                                              Atul Singh S/O Shree Krishna Kumar Singh

                                                                                  Village & Post- Babura

                                                                       Police station- Vindhyachal Kotwali

                                                              District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

Original application in 12 pages and attached documents in 30 pages.

2 comments on On the complaint filed before C.J.M. Mirzapur by Atul Singh, order of investigation issued.

  1. Kunwar Singh
    vs. State of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC 331, in which it is held by this
    Court that complainant/ third party also can move application before the magistrate for order to direct investigation in NCR case. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Kunwar Singh vs. State (supra), the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the learned magistrate concerned as well as the impugned order dated 03.06.2009 passed by learned lower revisional court do not require any interference by this Court, as there is no
    illegality in both these orders

  2. Hon'ble Sir please take a glance of non cognizable report registered by Vndhyachal police attached with this representation as annexure i.e. page 7 on the next date of tragic incidence. Whether there is relevancy in the submitted grievance and N.C.R. TAKEN by the police from your applicant. Ipsofacto obvious that from the beginning ,police remained indulged in diluting the case and finally made it infructuous consequently deprived your applicant from right to justice. Most surprising is that neither medical report nor gravity of offence supports the N.C.R. AND YOUR complainant was impotent enough to accept the tyranny of police. Mother of your applicant itself was victim but she was neither accepted as complainant nor given place in the N.C.R.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: