V.N.K. MENON
12 January 2020 at 16:48
Land grabbing is a lucrative source of police corruption as opined by the Apex Court in some cases. Following is an apt case of meticulous ill-design by Police Personnel.
1. In 1997, A dilapidated property was taken on lease by Victim from say “R” for running a School. “R” was made a member of Governing Body. Constructions were carried out from-time-to-time as per the requirement by the Victim with the consent of “R” and who was supposed to reimburse the Victim as per the terms of lease. Instead of reimbursing, “R” wanted to sell on cash the property to Victim.
In 2008 January, “R” agreed to take fragmented payment for the good cause. Final payment was made in April 2008 and there is proof that “R” purchased stamp papers himself and engrossed documents and notarized after signing by all [ in Lal Dora/ agricultural land area registration was not mandatory till 2011]. Unfortunately “R” died in July 2008 at his home.
2. Heirs [who have criminal background] of R trespassed and threatened Victim with the connivance of Police personnel. Although complaints were made to Police from top to bottom, no action was taken which complaints were destroyed as per RTI information whereas FIR was registered on a complaint by R’s heirs and law was set into motion. Thus equality before law was denied to Victim. {It is significant that the Police personnel who initiated FIR was arrested by CBI on bribery charges in a sting operation in another case}.
3. CORRUPT NEXUS/ LOBBYING: I/O in collaboration with ACP- Bank People- Magistrate against whom there is complaint in another case.
The FIR was transferred to EOW alleging land-grabbing at the recommendation of ACP contrary to parameters and operational norms w.r. to limitation of taking up cases of land-grabbing of more than Rs. 2 crores [as per RTI] whereas the subject property is valued at Rs. 15 lakhs as per Circle Rates and location.
Unscrupulous I/O link-in the lobby/nexus started his nefarious acts. He clearly fabricated documents with the connivance of Bank people and there is proof that Complainant tampered with witnesses.
4. False charge of absconding: Since victim did not give bribe on demand, Victim was arrested from her workplace /school [whereas FIR is in the school address]on false charges of absconding that too. I/O could not be trapped as he sent his subordinates for taking bribe.
5. Clear Involvement of ACMM - He sent Victim to Judicial Custody alleging forgery and with following audi alteram partem did not examine the mobile location of I/O and contrary to facts on record, i.e. Report of FSL that they could not fix authorship of questioned signature on Victim on evaluation of written specimens of Victim submitted by I/O. In another recent case, a victim recently reacted violently against the said corrupt ACMM.
6. PRESENT STATUS: charge sheet is filed and is on board trial court. As per Apex Court decisions in Indira Jai Singh case, investigation can be done in on-going cases.
OPINION / COLLECTIVE-WISDOM SOUGHT:
-------------------------------------------------------------
I approached LSA in the Supreme Court, to explore the possibility for CBI investigation. They opined that I should file Petition in High Court u/s 482 and if rejected to approach the Apex Court.
Query is whom all I make Respondent/Opposite Party. Is it necessary to send copy of the petition to O/P. Any other relevant points which would be helpful, please.
V.N.K. MENON
14 October 2019 at 09:07
Dear experts,
Since I have no experience in trial court, I submit herewith a draft of List of Witnesses which may please be examined and valued opinion be given for which I would be much grateful.
In one format of High Court Rules, I have seen the List of Witnesses in fabular form.
(DRAFT)
1. The Complainant CW-1 (address on record)
Facts Sought to be proved by the evidence of the witness:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intentional insult [S-504 IPC] by Accused No. 1 by returning consignment after pilferage and cello-taped by
her which at the time of delivery to her weighed 300 gms evidenced by speedpost receipt and after pilferage
by Accused-1 weighed 68 grams [exhibit CW-1/A]; and whereas Accused No. 2 (Postman) for extraneous
considerations after delivery took back the pilfered consignment after 6 days and in conspiracy with Accused-
1 sent it back after another 10 days marking it as “refused”.
Documents sought to be proved by the evidence of the witness:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliance on attested copy of Delivery Slip: [1] Ex CW-1/A & [2] pilfered consignment weighing 68 gms
marked as Ex CW-1/B submitted vide statement dated: 14/08/2019.
2. Mr. ______ Senior Supdt. of PO/CPIO
Naraina I.E. Head Post Office
New Delhi-110028
Facts Sought to be proved by the evidence of the witness:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The witness has provided attested copy of Delivery Slip, which is in response to RTI application sent to
Accused No. 3 [Post Master] who “intentionally” aided the commission of the crime by Accused No. 2 in
fabricating false evidence for extraneous
considerations. It is judicially noticeable that the signature of actual recipient was camouflaged by stapling a
piece of paper with a forged signature over it and then photocopied and attested [CW-1A].
Documents sought to be proved by the evidence of the witness:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness to give oral evidence & to produce original Delivery Slip fabricated (S-192 IPC) by Accused-2
Postman & Accused-3 wilful abettor of crime (S-107 IPC).
3. Mr. -------
(address)
Father of Accused-1
who took delivery of consignment
Facts Sought to be proved by the evidence of the witness:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witness had initialed* the Delivery Slip (CW-1/A) and handed over the consignment to Accused-1
(addressee) on 13.07.2016 who resorted to intentional insult in collusion with Accused-2 pilfered the consignment
and Accused No.2 took it back after 6 days and sent it back after another 10 days as evident from CW-1/B.
[* admitted/authentic specimen of initial is available].
Documents sought to be proved by the evidence of the witness:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It proves that the consignment was delivered to Accused-1 at her residence.
4. I/O F.I.R. No. ----------
P.S: C.R. Park
New Delhi
5. Any other relevant witnesses as per the outcome.
Witnesses required to give oral evidence and also to produce documents
Filed by COMPLAINANT IN PERSON
Filed on.....................
V.N.K. MENON
20 September 2019 at 15:32
CRUX OF THE CASE: I had sent some clothes (300 grams ) to a person by speed post. The addressee took the article pilfered it took some clothes. After 8 days the postman took it and on it written “refused” with date, whereas I have a tracking record that it was delivered on 13th (sending date being : 12th ). I received the pilfered article / envelope (80 gms) back on 28th with signs of pilferage.
ACTION TAKEN: FIR was filed u/s 379 IPC for theft committed by the addressee, after I approached the court. I filed RTI application for a copy of delivery slip. I received attested copy, where it is Judicially Noticeable that a paper has been stapled to camouflage the real recipient and photocopy had been taken.
PRESENT STATUS: I am asked to file LiST OF WITNESSES. Can experts suggest any guidelines which may be useful; because I am not familiar with trial court proceedings. Thank you.
V.N.K. MENON
11 August 2019 at 17:30
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
V.N.K. MENON
23 October 2018 at 07:43
HISTORY OF THE CASE
----------------------------
A false d/v case was filed by my son’s wife. I, as R-3 (Party in person) submitted several evidences, like Police Control Room Report, telephonic conversation about atrocities committed by her father including bundling her into an asylum – which are incontrovertible and unimpeachable evidences. Evidently the d/v is by indoctrination and conspiracy with her father. She became greedy and filed the d/v complaint.
1) I had submitted an application for dismissal of d/v complaint on the ground of being time-barred, meaning filed after more than 1 ½ years when there was no domestic relationship in existence. Whereas S-468 CrPC and case laws, the complaint should have been filed within 1 years. [ STATUS: PENDING].
2) I submitted an application from exemption from personal appearance due to my age (70 years) and asthmatic problem. [STATUS: LISTED FOR DECEMBER]
QUERY:
----------
if I file application for PERJURY & DEFAMATION before reaching finality, can it stand.
A considered opinion and guidance of experts shall be of much help to decide my next course of action. Opinion of experts had been of much help in the past. I am an advocate, but cannot be a judge in my own case and third party opinion is of much help.
Anonymous
20 September 2018 at 16:52
I am a senior citizen of about 70 years and have been falsely made as one of the respondents (R-3) in a d/v case. The purpose is to harass me and get easy money by Opposite Party.
As far the D/V case is concerned, the d/v case is clearly time-barred as per S-468 CrPC and as per case laws/precedents. So also there are proofs like Police Control Room Report that the complainant lady was kept under captivity by her parents and indoctrinated to launch lucrative “d/v business”. As such I filed a case in the High Court for quashing by the high court the d/v case (pending in the family court). Factually, adjournment-after-adjournment are given. As defined in S-37 Specific Relief Act, I was 'enjoined from the assertion of my right' and peaceful life and I am deliberately being harassed by calling to the court now and then to extract money at this age. I hope I have delivered the goods for the purpose of queries:
QUERY -1:
[With regard to privilege for senior citizens]
---------------------------------------------------------
Will I be able to approach Supreme Court, DIRECTLY INSTEAD OF DIVISION BENCH, by way of SLP against an order of the single judge of the high court which adjourned the said d/v case for a date after 6 months from now.
Incidentally, in yet another civil (employment) matter, BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN, I was successful in getting a direction from the Apex Court asking the High Court to dispose of the said matter within 3 months. Can I apply the same route here.
QUERY-2:
With regard to lower court matter
--------------------------------------------
Usually courts grant injunction NOT beyond 6 months of the lower courts. Whether further injunction is granted on the expiry of the initial 6 months which I do not know.
Hope experts will be kind enough to give their considered guidance to enable me to decide the next course of action.
Justification for posting as anonymous: Because there is a possibility that the Opp.Party may see the source of query.
Thank you in anticipation.
V.N.K. MENON
13 September 2018 at 23:15
I as party-in-person had filed an application in the High Court to bring on record additional documents in a petition already on-board and NDOH is 20th Sept. The dealing assistant remarked as follows:
“CORRECT PROVISION OF LAW BE GIVEN IN THE HEADING OF THE APPLICATION”
I shall be thankful if Ld. experts give the correct provision of law so that I can re-submit the application.
Thank you
V.N.K. MENON
04 September 2018 at 13:53
[In one case I had filed an SLP in the Apex Court. Afterwards I filed an application or bring on record additional document, which was successful].
Status of the case w.r. to query:
------------------------------------------
I filed a petition [in my capacity as Respondent-3] to quash a D/V complaint which is time barred as per various case laws of Apex Court r/w S-468 CrPC.
The petition H/C has been necessitated since the matter had been taken up by trial court despite being time-barred. Opposite Party filed their reply in H/C and I filed my Rejoinder and the case has been listed for middle of September.
QUERY
======
I had already filed Police Control Room Report about the captivity of the Opposite Party by her parents as she complained to the Police.
In the given situation, if an application can be filed for bringing on record additional document in the
H/C. Additional doc is in the form of a recorded mobile /telephonic conversation with Respondent-1 and Complainant, who had filed d/v in trial court, about the atrocities committed by her own parents and indoctrination to file a lucrative "d/v business".
SHALL BE GRATEFUL FOR A CONSIDERED OPINION OF EXPERTS.
V.N.K. MENON
31 August 2018 at 16:45
Is there any parameters, implied or otherwise, in filing civil defamation case and compensation for damages.
Member Strength 9,47,958 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Loan default
I am sending a query raised by a person. Shall appreciate considered opinion of LC. In bracket I have given my feelings. Thank you. Some time back I had been interacting with LC. I am 73 now, so not active.
1. Lenders have an option to proceed with attachment of passports of defaulting borrower.
[ I feel this is in the domain of the government and lenders have no say over it]
2. Whether Lender can write to the employers of defaulting borrowers that the borrower is in default for payment of dues and may be put pressure on the employee for clearance of dues.
[ I feel this is entirely employer’s discretion unless there is a court decree]