Rajendra Kumar Singh was implicated under 107/16 because seeking justice against land grabbers.


Whether human rights of citizenry are safe in this largest state of vast democracy in the world. Why Jigana Police registered case against Rajendra Kumar Singh?

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Attachments11:37 PM (3 minutes ago)

to registrar-nhrcdg-nhrcsgnhrcpmosbcmupsupremecourthgovupurgent-actioncsupuphrclko
Why Jigana Police registered case against Rajendra Kumar Singh under section 107/16 and how S.D.M. Sadar Kannaujiya accepted the plea of Jigana police?
Victim Rajendra Pratap Singh is being deprived from his fundamental rights/human rights by Muscle men as well as  by public functionaries. Which is sheer illegal ,unjustified and signal of anarchy in the state. Whether there was not fear of breach of peace when on 21- Dec-2014 muscle men grabbed the house and land with grain and fodder and victim’s mother mother along with her elder son  was crying before Jigana police against this atrocity. At least be afraid of God. Think about the high handedness of the police that after the recommendation letter of district president of S.P. Party in order to provide justice to victim Rajendra Pratap Singh , police so angered that it registered a case of 107/16 against the victim in order to teach lesson. The documents are attached with this e-mail representation.
Hon’ble Sir -Rajendra Kumar Singh S/O Mr Vijay Narayan Singh Village-Kothara Kantit, Post office-Shree Nivas Dham District-Mirzapur State-Uttar Pradesh  filled up bond on 06/06/2015 in S.D.M. Sadar court Mirzapur. The fault of aforesaid person is” why is he making complaint against land and house grabbing by muscle men which was purchased by his father Mr. Vijay Narayan Singh 18 years ago and two rooms and mango trees  planted by aggrieved family”. Registered papers and Kharij Dakhil papers concerned with the Land have been made available various accountable public functionaries including district Magistrate and Superintendent of Mirzapur. 
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
Central Government Act
Section 107 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, 1 with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
THE RIGHT TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE: Access to justice refers to the ability of people to seek and obtain a remedy through formal or informal institutions of justice, and in conformity with human rights standards
Access to justice intersects with human rights in a number of ways. First, it is itself a fundamental human right as set out in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that
A fair and efficient system for providing justice is crucial to the proper functioning of society. Not only does it hold individuals, including state officials, accountable for their actions, but it also sets norms of behaviour for other citizens. This system must be available to the most disadvantaged.
Whether the act of Jigana police is justified or act of S.D.M. Sadar who accepted blindly the report of Jigana police is justified. Who will ascertain the accountability?
         
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
                            Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .

2 comments on Rajendra Kumar Singh was implicated under 107/16 because seeking justice against land grabbers.

  1. Victim Rajendra Pratap Singh is being deprived from his fundamental rights/human rights by Muscle men as well as by public functionaries. Which is sheer illegal ,unjustified and signal of anarchy in the state. Whether there was not fear of breach of peace when on 21- Dec-2014 muscle men grabbed the house and land with grain and fodder and victim's mother mother along with her elder son was crying before Jigana police against this atrocity. At least be afraid of God. Think about the high handedness of the police that after the recommendation letter of district president of S.P. Party in order to provide justice to victim Rajendra Pratap Singh , police so angered that it registered a case of 107/16 against the victim in order to teach lesson.

  2. Undoubtedly the act of concerned staff of Government is not fair as they are suppressing the voice of Rajendra Kumar Singh by frightening him through implication in concocted cases. The man who can't speak before a person how will disturb the peace of the area. This is not signal of rule of law.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: