Wrongdoers can’t be punished but innocents must not be subjected to physical and mental torture

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Wrongdoers
can’t be punished but innocents must not be subjected to physical and
mental torture through blatant abuse of process of courts by keeping
eyes and ears closed.

1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:19 AM

To:
pmosb <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, supremecourt
<supremecourt@nic.in>, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, urgent-action
<urgent-action@ohchr.org>, cmup <cmup@up.nic.in>,
“hgovup@up.nic.in” <hgovup@up.nic.in>, csup
<csup@up.nic.in>, uphrclko <uphrclko@yahoo.co.in>

Submissions
sent to A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur Court by your applicant was received on
14/09/2015 as obvious from the following track of the registered letter post,
filed with paper book in the court’s file but envelop still not opened  whether it is not surprising . This is
reflection of sheer tyranny in the democracy.
25 March
2016
21:37
Plaintiff sought Rs.500000.00 as compensation from
your applicant  but now he was found
indulged in siphoning of huge public fund as enquiry report submitted by joint
team of Deputy commissioner MGNREGA and project director to D.M. Mirzapur but
sympathisers don’t want to take action against him .It is OK ,you Hon’ble Sirs
don’t take action against wrongdoers but it can never be fair to be remained
mute spectators of illegal prosecution of an innocent whistle blower.   The full form is ‘Strategic Lawsuits against
Public Participation’. It means a planned, legal assault on the freedom of
speech. A ‘shut-up-or-else’ threat that hits those who annoy or expose. Big
brother versus the small guy. With strange, draconian laws to quell disruption.
Our Constitution allows free speech. Within limits, of course. The rub is that
we lack good losers. We have a surfeit of very thin-skinned brethren who
magnify every statement a million-fold; then either distort, or embellish, with
manufactured venom; and all inconvenient truths are painted black. With
predetermined results. Take this case
RU201299860IN  
Booked
at    Booked on    Destination    Tariff   
Article Type    Delivered at    Delivered on
MIRZAPUR    11/09/2015    MIRZAPUR   
27.00    RL    MIRZAPUR   
14/09/2015
Detailed
Track Events for :  RU201299860IN 
Date    Time   
Office    Event
14/09/2015    17:24:08   
MIRZAPUR    Article Delivered
12/09/2015    09:16:24   
MIRZAPUR    Article Undelivered :
[DOOR LOCKED / FIRST INTIMATION]
11/09/2015    13:01:57   
MIRZAPUR    Article Booked
Missing documents are never searched by the court and
no one made accountable as its staffs are always deemed innocent. Dates are
manipulated ,but no action is taken by judge and aggrieved are advised to seek
justice in appropriate court.
With due respect your appellant 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 whether
any action was taken by Hon’ble Sir on the following representation dated
11/09/2015 –
Whether it is justified that A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur
may deny to accept the papers of plea merely on the ground that it is written
in English. Whether knowledge of English is bane in seeking justice in the
subordinate courts of High court of judicature at Allahabad.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh
<yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
9/11/15
to supremecourt,
pmosb, urgent-action, bcc: hgovup, bcc: cmup, bcc: csup
To
                        
Chief Justice of India /Companion Judges
                        
Supreme court of India ,New Delhi
Prayer-Today
A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur denied to accept the papers of plea “
In the compliance
of order of Hon’ble court passed on
24/08/2015” for processing merely on the ground that it is written in
English while he couldn’t show provision which prohibit aggrieved party in
court proceedings  to submit representation in English. Please direct the
A.C.J.M. First Mirzapur  to accept the aforesaid papers of  plea sent
by your applicant through post when he denied accept. Scanned copy of plea is
annexed with this representation.
(iv) Form
No.VI should be kept in English. Form No.XI be kept in the regional
language
unless the presiding Magistrate prefers that it should be kept in English.
18. (1)
Subject to the statutory alternatives in the matter of recording evidence as
contained
in Section 275 and 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as far as
possible,
the Sessions Judges and Judicial Magistrates should record memorandum of
evidence in English
in all cases and proceedings.
(6) Attention of the
Magistrate is invited to Section 354 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that open
court hearing means as
open court
n. the conduct of
judicial proceedings (trials, hearings and routine matters such as trial
settings) in which the public may be present. Some hearings and discussions are
held in the judge’s chambers (“in camera”) or with the courtroom
cleared of non-participants and/or the jury such as adoptions, sanity hearings,
juvenile criminal charges, and arguments over evidence and motions which might
prejudice the jury. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, later applied to
the states under the 14th Amendment, guarantees criminal defendants a
“public trial,” so all criminal proceedings are held in “open
court.” This does not apply to pre-trial negotiations and procedural and
motion discussions with the judge which are usually held in chambers.
But here judicial members don’t
open registered post sent by defendant .
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether
any action was taken by Hon’ble Sir on the following representation-
Whether the order passed by A.C.J.M. court on 12.06.2008 when
Ratnesh Mani Tripathi as A.C.J.M. is 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 latter 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. 
http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-district-judge-mirzapur-refused-to.html
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 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 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 order have committed contempt of court. Most surprising
that these judges of lower court don’t know that aforesaid criminal penal code
is applicable in warrant cases not in summon cases.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether
any action was taken by Hon’ble Sir on the following representation-
Whether a
summon case can be processed under section 244 of Cr.P.C..pdf
Yogi M. P. Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Fri,
Mar 6, 2015 at 2:58 AM
Whether
a summon case can be processed under section 244 of Cr.P.C. And plea of
defendant can be overlooked by taking the recourse of aforesaid section under
which warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report are
processed.
05
March 2015
17:52
To
                     
Hon’ble Chief justice of India, Hon’ble Chief
                         Justice
of High court of judicature at
Allahabad                                                               
&                     
Hon’ble ACJM(First) through District
                               Judge
Mirzapur ,Uttar Pradesh
Matter
is concerned with the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 
{A.C.J.M. (First)} Court District-Mirzapur .
Criminal
Complaint NO.   -2315/07
Complainant-
Santish Dhar Dubey
                      S/O
-Mr. Shiva Nath Dubey
                       
Vill+P.O.-Nibee Gaharwar
                          Police
station-Vindhyachal
                         Dist-Mirzapur
,Uttar Pradesh
Defendant 
– Yogi M. P. Singh
                     S/O 
-Shree Rajendra Pratap Singh
                       Moh-Surekapuram
,Jabalpur Road
                         Police
station-Katra Kotwali
                       Dist-Mirzapur
,Uttar Pradesh
Prayer-Hon’ble Sir A.C.J.M. (First) Mirzapur may be
directed to correct the error and instead of processing the case under
section 244 of Cr.P.C. ,may be processed under chapter xx of Cr.P.C.
i.e. 
Section 251 to 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Complainant’s counsel (pleader) may
not be allowed to joke me that your applicant keeps at bay Cr.P.C. During the
argument. My hobby is to read law books.
This is humble request of your
appellant 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 appellant shall ever pray you
Hon’ble Sir.
       
               
            
 ‘Yours  sincerely
       
                    Yogi M.
P. Singh Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur
Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .


2 attachments
One Lakh bungled but no recovery even after enquiry report..pdf
1011K
In the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.pdf
1495K

1 comment on Wrongdoers can’t be punished but innocents must not be subjected to physical and mental torture

  1. It is submitted before the Hon'ble Sir that 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 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 order have committed contempt of court. Most surprising that these judges of lower court don't know that aforesaid criminal penal code is applicable in warrant cases not in summon cases.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: