All Experts , Kindly seriously go through with these content . I need legal aid, Any regerence of good advocates who can fight this case in Supreme Court of India.
This is a cases of great public importance;
This is a special case, reasons for which are to be recorded in writing, considered otherwise deserving of legal aid or advice.
1. The case filed against me by the complainant is without following the procedure. The honourable courts overlook the mandatory compliance of Cr.p.c 200, 202,204(2) which is evident from the certified copy of the case. I challenge the summoning order in High Court and High court stay the proceeding.
2. 1. The complainant himself accepted in written while filing the Counter affidavit (para 9) in Honorable High Court Lucknow that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Cr.pc. 200.
3. 2. The learned magistrate without application of mind has been pleased to pass the summoning order dated 27.07.2013 on cyclostyle Performa order that too under Sec 130 NI Act which is not permissible under Law.
3. 3. There is no compliance of Cr.p.c 204(2) & violation of Cr.p.c Sec 204(2) that no summons and warrants shell be issued under subsection (1) until the list of prosecution witness has been filed. However the violation has been done in this case and summons has been issued without the compliance of Cr.p.c 204(2).
4. The compliance of Sec 138(B) is overlooked by the honorable courts.
On Dec 23rd Aug 2001 a Five Judge constitutional bench decided DADI JAGGANATHAM VS JAMMULU RAMULU AND OTHERS (2001), 7,SCC 71, Laying down the Law on the question the Five Judge bench there , amongst other said the following – The court could not add words to the statue or reads words in to which are not there ,especially when literal reading produces an Intelligible result.
I THINK - THERE IS NO EXPERT EXPLANATION ON THE PLAIN READING OF Cr.p.c. 200 ,202,204(2),138 B to be given after going through the above judgement as the plain reading is crystal clear that the provisions are mandatory.
5. There is no specific mandatory averment in the complaint case and absence of documentary and other evidence. The absence of detail of the date and place where the Loan was advanced, the absence of date and place where the chq was given, and absence of any documentary proof to show that such loan transaction has indeed taken place.
6. THe stay granted by the Honourable High court is vacated by the other bench High Court (after filing the counter and rejoinder affidavit) at final stage without giving any relief by overlooking the violation of all mandatory Cr.p.c provision and Supreme court Judgements.
8. This is a case of great public importance and larger public interest involve in it. There is a clear abuse and violation of mandatory provision of Law. Procedures has not been followed by the honourable courts and the Established Law and Judgements of Supreme Court of India which is mentioned in writ petition and annexed there in is overlooked by the Honourable Trial Court, Lucknow and Honourable High Court, Lucknow.
I have a reasonably good chance of succeeding in my case if I Get a good advocate SO WHERE SHOULD I GO I AM PLANNING TO APPROCH SCLAC BUT I DONOT WHAT WILL BE THE FATE AGAIN ?
Every ground mentioned above is supported by the established Law , Proved fact and Judgement given by the Supreme Court Of India and Documentary proof. There are 100% chances to get Success. BUT WHERE TO GO ?
|
Sr.no |
Cr.p.c |
Supporting Document and Judgement in my writ which I SUBMITTED in High Court. |
|
1. |
Cr.p.c 200 |
Law itself supported by Certified copy of case and The Honourable SC Judgement Crl 950 of 2006 Sabitha Rammurthy & Anr Vs. Channabasvaradhya |
|
2. |
Cr.p.c 202 |
Law Itself ( with effect from 23.06.2006 by central Act 25/2005) supported by Certified Copy of case and The Honourable SC Judgement Crl. Appeal No. 984 of 2009 K.T.Joseph Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. |
|
3. |
Cr.p.c 204(2) |
Plain Reading of Cr.p.c 204(2) Itself, supported by Certified copy of the case , The Judgement of Constitutional Bench DADI JAGGANATHAM VS JAMMULU RAMULU AND OTHERS (2001), 7,SCC 71 |
|
4. |
138 B |
The Honourable SC Judgement Crl. Appeal No. 711 of 2009 Arising out of SLP(Crl) no. 7828 of 2007 |
|
5. |
Averment |
Certified Case Copy and The Honourable SC Judgement Vijay Vs. Laxman 2013(2) CCSC 706 (SC) Crl Appeal No 261 of 2013 Decided on Feb 7,2013 |
|
6. |
No source of Income to Grant such a huge amount of Loan , the person claiming he has given me a cash Loan of 80,000 but not showing fro where he has arranged what was the transaction & Unaccounted Cash |
Information Received Under RTI Act of the opposite party of his ITR (No income of person claiming giving Debt, himself was an student ) stating not filing ITR till date , therefore no reason he has shown this loan in his ITR, NO book of accounts, no deed executed , nothing. he has gone on tree broken the INR and given to me. & The Honourable SC Judgement- Crl. Appeal No. 518 of 2006 Krishan Janardan Bhatt Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde. |
|
7. |
Age of Signature and other particular on the Chq and Ink of signature and other particular on the chqs are different, which can be noticed from the bare eyes. He himself filled all particulars. the chq was lost around 10 year back . so the signature on the chq is 10 year old. the writing expert can prove that. |
This point is supported by The Honourable SC Judgement- C antony vs. K.G.Raghavan nair Crl 1748 of 1996 Judgement dated 1-11-2012. |
|
8. |
Sec 139- Presumption in regard of existence of debt |
K.JOHN vs. Tom Vargese and Anr. JT 2007 (13) SC 222 and Supporting Document received from RTI is a proof that the party has no capacity to grant such huge amount of Loan. The opposite party get the opportunity while filing the case in lower court and filing affidavit in high court , he may produce any such evidence of the said disputed transaction but they did not do it as there was no such transaction. |
|
9. |
Law of Limitation Act Sec 19 |
Several Judgements Mentioned in writ itself. |
Apart from the above there is clear written submission by the Opposite party which proved his wrong intentions.
1. The opposite party no 2 is made written submission in his counter affidavit (esp. Para 28) before the honourable Lucknow High Court, stating - that access of justice must be given as licence to file misconceived and frivolous petition and all the Cr.p.c. and all the Judgement given by the Honourable Supreme Court of India & High court of India is wrong.
2. The opposite party file wrong and misleading fact on affidavit in regard to dispatch of Notice and not ready to show delivery report for record to fill the compliance of Sec 138 B, making false allegation regarding reply of notice and not filed the same- neither in trial court nor in high court.
3. The opp party has submitted in his counter affidavit (High Court) there is no need of compliance of Cr.p.c 204(2) and the same time in written he has submitted in Trial court that they forget to make the compliance of the same and tried to do it by misleading the court by making false written application that the stay order is not extended by the Honourable High court though the stay was in force till that time & the opp. Party is well aware.
On 2-12-2014 they were praying from the court to vacate the stay. When the fact ( Misrepresentation & false written submission which is proving the malafied intention was brought in the knowledge of honourable high court Lucknow, It was also overlooked.- Supporting Doc Enclosed- Proved fact. ON 2-12-2014 THE STAY WAS VACATED .
4. Many more fact documentary evidence with Certified copy.
If the case will be allowed without following the mandatory provisions a wrong practice will be established and the common public will suffer and loose the faith in established Law , Right of fair Justice and Judiciary. There are large no of cases which is getting followed by this wrong practice which may be avoided if through legal aid any such direction is to be issued by the honorable Supreme Court.
Please Help Me. I do not have money to fight this case in Supreme Court of India. Date of TRIAL is fixed as on 17-12-2014. I can never get the justice in the court of Lucknow as the other party having great influence which is evident from the above facts.
Please Help I need Free Legal Aid ( Not asking money) asking help of a advocate to fight this case in SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE MY ADVOCATE ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS or ANY OF YOUR ADVOCATE FRIEND CAN FIGHT.
Can you e file the case on my behalf ON SC website and guide me I will appear petitioner in person or can you please draft the case ? I have all the above citation.
I AM SAD AFRAID ....
IS THEIR REALLY ANY LAW AND PROCEDURE, IS ASKING FOR JUSTICE IS IT THE SUBJECT OF ONE'S MOOD.
Regards,
VISHALPRIYADARSHI@OUTLOOK.COM
