LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Vishwa (translator)     08 July 2009

Remedy against biased/partisan probably corrupt SDM

 

I have a breach of case pending against me since the last eight months. The case was the result of a violent domestic scene provoked by my wife.

I have attended the SDM court several times and it has become very obvious to me that my wife is receiving a special treatment. For example, she never attends dates but meets the SDM in his chambers at her own convenience. No summons are served on her even though she passes in front of the police checkpost (that serves the summons) several times  every day.

No action is taken on my written complaints to the police and the SDM whereas on her frivolous complaints, the police calls me up and harasses me. Investigations are conducted by the police and facts in my favous are systematically supressed.

Now I am very well aware of the root cause of this situation. My wife and her paramour, a prominent politicians belonging to the ruling party have mounted a consipiracy to grab my property worth maybe forty lakhs. It is shameful the way the local administration is bending backwards to deprive me of my property earned through hard and painful labour.

 

I would be grateful for all suggestions that can help me break this deadlock;

 

Thanks in advance

Vishwa

For more background check my profile and other msgs posted by me



Learning

 3 Replies

aatma   10 July 2009

Vishwa,

I hope somehow this may help you :

Justice Dhingra Revealed Metro Magistrate's Corrupted Face

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Date of Reserve: 2.9.2008
Date of Order: 8.9.2008

CCP (Ref) No. 9/2008

Court On Its Own Motion ... Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Seth and Ors. ... Respondents

1. This reference for contempt has been placed before me for consideration. The
reference was sent by MM Patiala House through District Judge wherein he has prayed
that this Court, if deems fit, should take cognizance of criminal contempt against the
respondents Shri Sunil Seth, Smt. Kanchan Seth, Shri Surender Seth, Smt. Bindu Khanna
and their Counsel Shri Rubinder Ghumman and Ms. Anu Mehta. The cause for sending
reference to this Court was pendency of a criminal complaint filed by Ms. Rashmi Seth
w/o Shri Sunil Seth before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against all her in-laws
against whom the Court has prayed for taking cognizance of contempt of Court.

2. During pendency of the case, the trial Court passed an order of bail of the inlaws.
While he directed the other in-laws to be released on executing personal bond and
surety bond of Rs.20,000/- each, in respect of husband he passed an order for his release
on executing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.50,000/- with the result he had to
remain in jail for sometime as surety for this heavy amount could not be arranged. There
were other circumstances, by which the husband and his family were aggrieved and they
made an application of transfer of the criminal case from the Court of this MM to some
other MM. In the transfer application allegations of bias were made against the learned
MM quoting certain orders of the learned MM. The learned MM was informed about the
moving of this transfer application by the respondents. The learned MM after considering
the application made by the accused persons for transfer has made this reference.

3. The learned MM seems to have spent a lot of time in framing this reference
petition which runs into 37 pages and annexures to the reference run into another more
than 100 pages. After perusal of the entire reference I find the reference is not worth the
paper wasted by the learned MM on it. I find no imputation had been made against the
learned MMs Court but of bias which was inferred from the orders passed by him. It is
surprising that the learned MM should have sent this reference of contempt only on the
allegations of bias made against him. However, on perusal of this reference, I feel that the
learned MM definitely seems to be biased in favour of the wife and against the husband
and other in-laws. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to get provoked for sending
this reference, so that the family members of the husband are called by this Court in
criminal contempt, despite the fact that no person insinuation was made against him.

4. I consider it is a right of every litigant, who is facing proceeding in a Court, that
justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done and if a litigant feels that
what he was seeing was not justice but injustice, he has a right to move transfer
application and if bias is inferred from the orders passed by the Court, the Court has no
reason to send a reference for criminal contempt. This reference is rejected. There is no
ground to summon the respondents. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge,
Delhi. A copy of this order be also sent to the Inspecting Judge of the learned MM and to
Honble the Chief Justice.

Sd./-
September 8, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

aatma   10 July 2009

Vishwa,

I hope somehow this may help you:

 

Justice Dhingra Revealed Metro Magistrate's Corrupted Face

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE



Date of Reserve: 2.9.2008


Date of Order: 8.9.2008



CCP (Ref) No. 9/2008



Court On Its Own Motion ... Petitioner


Versus


Sunil Seth and Ors. ... Respondents



1. This reference for contempt has been placed before me for consideration. The


reference was sent by MM Patiala House through District Judge wherein he has prayed


that this Court, if deems fit, should take cognizance of criminal contempt against the


respondents Shri Sunil Seth, Smt. Kanchan Seth, Shri Surender Seth, Smt. Bindu Khanna


and their Counsel Shri Rubinder Ghumman and Ms. Anu Mehta. The cause for sending


reference to this Court was pendency of a criminal complaint filed by Ms. Rashmi Seth


w/o Shri Sunil Seth before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against all her in-laws


against whom the Court has prayed for taking cognizance of contempt of Court.



2. During pendency of the case, the trial Court passed an order of bail of the inlaws.


While he directed the other in-laws to be released on executing personal bond and


surety bond of Rs.20,000/- each, in respect of husband he passed an order for his release


on executing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.50,000/- with the result he had to


remain in jail for sometime as surety for this heavy amount could not be arranged. There


were other circumstances, by which the husband and his family were aggrieved and they


made an application of transfer of the criminal case from the Court of this MM to some


other MM. In the transfer application allegations of bias were made against the learned


MM quoting certain orders of the learned MM. The learned MM was informed about the


moving of this transfer application by the respondents. The learned MM after considering


the application made by the accused persons for transfer has made this reference.



3. The learned MM seems to have spent a lot of time in framing this reference


petition which runs into 37 pages and annexures to the reference run into another more


than 100 pages. After perusal of the entire reference I find the reference is not worth the


paper wasted by the learned MM on it. I find no imputation had been made against the


learned MMs Court but of bias which was inferred from the orders passed by him. It is


surprising that the learned MM should have sent this reference of contempt only on the


allegations of bias made against him. However, on perusal of this reference, I feel that the


learned MM definitely seems to be biased in favour of the wife and against the husband


and other in-laws. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to get provoked for sending


this reference, so that the family members of the husband are called by this Court in


criminal contempt, despite the fact that no person insinuation was made against him.



4. I consider it is a right of every litigant, who is facing proceeding in a Court, that


justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done and if a litigant feels that


what he was seeing was not justice but injustice, he has a right to move transfer


application and if bias is inferred from the orders passed by the Court, the Court has no


reason to send a reference for criminal contempt. This reference is rejected. There is no


ground to summon the respondents. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge,


Delhi. A copy of this order be also sent to the Inspecting Judge of the learned MM and to


Honble the Chief Justice.



Sd./-


September 8, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

aatma   10 July 2009

Vishwa,

Hope somehow this may help you:

Corrupted Delhi MM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Date of Reserve: 2.9.2008
Date of Order: 8.9.2008

CCP (Ref) No. 9/2008

Court On Its Own Motion ... Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Seth and Ors. ... Respondents

1. This reference for contempt has been placed before me for consideration. The
reference was sent by MM Patiala House through District Judge wherein he has prayed
that this Court, if deems fit, should take cognizance of criminal contempt against the
respondents Shri Sunil Seth, Smt. Kanchan Seth, Shri Surender Seth, Smt. Bindu Khanna
and their Counsel Shri Rubinder Ghumman and Ms. Anu Mehta. The cause for sending
reference to this Court was pendency of a criminal complaint filed by Ms. Rashmi Seth
w/o Shri Sunil Seth before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against all her in-laws
against whom the Court has prayed for taking cognizance of contempt of Court.

2. During pendency of the case, the trial Court passed an order of bail of the inlaws.
While he directed the other in-laws to be released on executing personal bond and
surety bond of Rs.20,000/- each, in respect of husband he passed an order for his release
on executing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.50,000/- with the result he had to
remain in jail for sometime as surety for this heavy amount could not be arranged. There
were other circumstances, by which the husband and his family were aggrieved and they
made an application of transfer of the criminal case from the Court of this MM to some
other MM. In the transfer application allegations of bias were made against the learned
MM quoting certain orders of the learned MM. The learned MM was informed about the
moving of this transfer application by the respondents. The learned MM after considering
the application made by the accused persons for transfer has made this reference.

3. The learned MM seems to have spent a lot of time in framing this reference
petition which runs into 37 pages and annexures to the reference run into another more
than 100 pages. After perusal of the entire reference I find the reference is not worth the
paper wasted by the learned MM on it. I find no imputation had been made against the
learned MMs Court but of bias which was inferred from the orders passed by him. It is
surprising that the learned MM should have sent this reference of contempt only on the
allegations of bias made against him. However, on perusal of this reference, I feel that the
learned MM definitely seems to be biased in favour of the wife and against the husband
and other in-laws. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to get provoked for sending
this reference, so that the family members of the husband are called by this Court in
criminal contempt, despite the fact that no person insinuation was made against him.

4. I consider it is a right of every litigant, who is facing proceeding in a Court, that
justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done and if a litigant feels that
what he was seeing was not justice but injustice, he has a right to move transfer
application and if bias is inferred from the orders passed by the Court, the Court has no
reason to send a reference for criminal contempt. This reference is rejected. There is no
ground to summon the respondents. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge,
Delhi. A copy of this order be also sent to the Inspecting Judge of the learned MM and to
Honble the Chief Justice.

Sd./-
September 8, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register