LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Fir matter present order title is different from previous.

(Querist) 11 August 2019 This query is : Resolved 
Dear experts, may I use collective wisdom.

I am giving below the present order which is not compatible with the previous proceedings before another Magistrate.

From the date and events I feel I have given a correct picture of the matter.

In the circumstances, I made a proposal. Experts may kindly guide me to the best way suitable. Next Date of hearing is 14th.


( PRESENT ORDER)

HON. HARUN PRATAP, MM-04 COURT NO ., ____COURT, NEW DELHI
CASE NO. 4077/18

DT .13,05.2019

IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE
VS.
UNTRACE
Heard. Perused.
(ORDER)

Adjournment to sought PSE by the complainant.


Be put up for entire PSE on 14.08.2019 as last opportunity
to the complainant
(order ends)
===============================================================================

[ORIGINAL TITLE DETAILS = CC NO. 99/1/16 BY PREDECESSOR MM HON. SUNIL GARG WHEREAS THE TITLE GIVEN ABOVE IS QUITE DIFFERENT]



A .... COMPLAINANT
(address given)

V/s
(1) B

(2) C …. ACCUSED /
RESPONDENTS
================================================================================
================================================================================
[PROPOSED DRAFT]

APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
AS HE LOST FAITH IN THIS COURT

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
----------------------------------------

The Complainant very humbly submit as follows:

Sequence of dates & events is stated as follows:
------------------
03/08/2016
----------------
Complaint was filed in C.R. Park, P.S. for having committed pilferage and theft of articles [i.e. valuable clothes meant for our grand son for his birthday brought from abroad].
Cause of action arose when after unreasonable delay the packet was returned marked “refused” after theft and weighed less and that too with some old material after some rituals. Subsequently, I inspected delivery slip at the Post Office and it was promptly delivered to the addressee.
------------------
17.09.2016
------------------
I approached the court u/s 156(3) CrPC as Police refused to file FIR.
Hon’ble MM Garg after hearing the Complainant was pleased to make Accused No. 2 as accused No. 1 and called for ATR from SHO, C.R. Park.
------------------
03/10/2016
------------------
ATR filed by SI alongwith FIR bearing No. ___/ 16.

======================
RTI Reply with Delivery Slip
=======================
---------------
14.10.2017
----------------
RTI application was sent by me to Post Master to give an authentic copy of Delivery Record.
----------------
30.10.2017
-----------------
Received a certified copy of Delivery Record from Postal Supdt. On scrutiny it is clearly visible that a paper with forged signature of another person was stapled and taken a photocopy which was attested by the concerned and sent to the Complainant to save the Postman and Accused No.1 from prosecution obviously for extraneous considerations. Judicially noticeable facts need not be proved S-56/57 Evidence Act.
-----------------
12.11.2017
------------------
Copy of the same was passed on to the Police alongwith details. Obviously investigation was supposed to be carried out.
===================================================================
In view of above, Application filed u/s 319 CrPC to arraign Accused No. 3: not given in FIR
= ==================================================================
------------------
01.10.2018 –
-----------------
D.O.H. in t his court. I received a Notice dt. 10.07.2018 from this court through the said I/O.
On this day I filed an application u/s 319 CrPC r/w 192 & 193 IPC for arraigning Post Master as Accused No. 3 as he was not named in FIR 257/2016. It is judicially noticeable fact that document had been forged by stapling a paper as elaborated in the application. No summons were issued to Accused-3 u/s 91 CrPC to produce original Delivery Record in his possession.
-------------------------------------
11.12.2018 & 12. 02.2018 –
----------------------------------
Adjournments, but no final report u/s 173 was filed.
----------------
13.05.2019
-----------------
(GIVEN ABOVE)
An order was passed by this Ld. Court by grossly changing the title made by Predecessor MM as stated above from: “V.N.K. Menon vs. Greeshma” to “State vs. Untrace”. Postal employees cannot be untraceable and moreso, “refused” has been remarked by the Postman against addressee.

STATUS OF THE CASE (given below) : gives a false picture in view of the above facts.

In the facts and circumstances, there is reason to believe that I will not get justice.
(end of draft)
=================================================================================
=================================================================================
  ====================
CASE STATUS REPORT
====================
Metropolitan Magistrate, ___________
Case Details
Case Type CR CASES - CRIMINAL CASE
Filing Number 20877/2018 Filing Date 07-07-2018

Registration Number 4077/2018 Registration Date 09-07-2018

CNR Number DLSE020208892018 (Note the CNR number for future reference) View QR Code / Cause Title


Case Status

First Hearing Date 09th July 2018
Next Hearing Date 14th August 2019
Stage of Case Pre Summoning Evidence
Court Number and Judge 84-Metropolitan Magistrate


Petitioner and Advocate
1) STATE


Respondent and Advocate
1) FINAL REPORT


Acts
Under Act(s) Under Section(s)
IPC 379,34

FIR Details
Police Station C. Park
FIR Number-------
Year 2016

History of Case Hearing
Judge Business On Date Hearing Date Purpose of hearing
Metropolitan Magistrate 09-07-2018 01-10-2018 Misc./ Appearance
Metropolitan Magistrate 01-10-2018 01-12-2018 Misc./ Appearance
Metropolitan Magistrate 01-12-2018 12-02-2019 Misc./ Appearance
Metropolitan Magistrate 12-02-2019 13-05-2019 Pre Summoning Evidence
Metropolitan Magistrate 13-05-2019 14-08-2019 Pre Summoning Evidence


Interim Orders

Order Number Order Date Order Details
1 01-12-2018 COPY OF ORDER

2 13-05-2019 COPY OF ORDER

Isaac Gabriel (Expert) 12 August 2019
If you are aggrieved from the orders, you need to go on appeal.
KISHAN DUTT RETD JUDGE (Expert) 12 August 2019
Dear Sir,
You may share all the details in person with your local lawyer.


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query