You can file a Complaint, popularly known as Private Complaint.

You can approach the police instead. 

Be happy, Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted.

Your chances are quite bright.

The court is aware of the fradulent act after cross.

Expect justice from court.

Your lawyer is to lead the case in your favor.

May-21-2018 Mon, 01:37 PM

FILE A PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION OF OFFENCES AFFECTING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AGAINST FALSE AFFIDAVIT(S) AND PERJURY BY RESPONDENT AND FOR SANCTIONS VIDE CRPC §§ 195, 204, 340-345 AND  R/W CPC § 151 BY REGISTERING A APPLICATION  / COMPLAINT REGARDING IPC OFFENCES, INTER ALI

Mention the brief facts, as propounded by the PETITIONER, by averred thus —

1. XXX … Narrate the facts as mentioned in the Forum … XXX
2.  
3. THAT, this present application and petition has been to filed requesting this Hon’ble Court to prosecute the Respondent and Others who have assisted in drafting, reviewing, validating, verifying filing, and comitting egregious acts of PERJURY, FALSE AFFIDAVITS, Forgery et seq., by invokign the relevant provisions of law, REGARDING OFFENCES AFFECTING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AGAINST FALSE AFFIDAVIT(S) AND PERJURY BY RESPONDENT AND FOR SANCTIONS VIDE CrPC §§ 195, 204, 340-345 and  R/W CPC § 151 by registering a Application  / Complaint regarding IPC Offences, inter alia, Related to

Abetment — IPC §§ 107-109

Criminal Conspiracy —IPC §§ 120A-B

Chapter X (Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority) —  IPC §§ 181, 182 (inter alia)

Chapter XI (Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice) — IPC §§ 191-196, 199, 200   (inter alia)

DE FACTO & DE NOVO ISSUES & GROUNDS

RESPONDENT’S CONDUCT FULFILLS ALL PRE AND POST CONDITIONS FOR HOLDING A PERSON LIABLE FOR REGARDING OFFENCES AFFECTING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AGAINST FALSE AFFIDAVIT(S) AND PERJURY BY RESPONDENT AND FOR SANCTIONS, inter alia — APPLICATION SHOULD THEREFORE BE ALLOWED

FOR THAT, inter alia, RESPONDENT AND OTHERS willfully and contumaciously INDULGED IN OFFENCES THAT ATTRACT penal provisions of IPC, inter alia, —

1. IPC SECTION § 107. ABETMENT OF A THING.
2. IPC SECTION § 108. ABETTOR.
3. IPC SECTION §1 20A. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
4. IPC SECTION § 1 20B. PUNISHMENT OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
5. IPC SECTION §181. FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO PUBLIC SERVANT OR PERSON AUTHORISED TO ADMINISTER AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION.
6. IPC SECTION § 182. FALSE INFORMATION, WITH INTENT TO CAUSE PUBLIC SERVANT TO USE HIS LAWFUL POWER TO THE INJURY OF ANOTHER PERSON.
7. IPC SECTION § 191. GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE
8. IPC SECTION §192. FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE.
9. IPC SECTION § 193. PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE EVIDENCE.
10. IPC SECTION § 194. GIVING OR FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE WITH INTENT TO PROCURE CONVICTION OF CAPITAL OFFENCE.
11. IPC SECTION § 195. GIVING OR FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE WITH INTENT TO PROCURE CONVICTION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE OR IMPRISONMENT
12. IPC SECTION § 196. USING EVIDENCE KNOWN TO BE FALSE.
13. IPC SECTION § 197. ISSUING OR SIGNING FALSE CERTIFICATE.
14. IPC SECTION § 198. USING AS TRUE A CERTIFICATE KNOWN TO BE FALSE.
15. IPC SECTION § 199. FALSE STATEMENT MADE IN DECLARATION WHICH IS BY LAW RECEIVA¬BLE AS EVIDENCE.
16. IPC SECTION § 200. USING AS TRUE SUCH DECLARATION KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE.
17. IPC SECTION §201. CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE OF OFFENCE, OR GIVING FALSE INFORMATION TO SCREEN OFFENDER.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – LEGAL PROVISIONS

STATUTES

1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
2. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002
3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
4. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
5. SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
6. CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971

Case LAW

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.,  2005 (3) JT (SC) 195.................................................... 10, 20

Kishorebhai Gandubhai Pethani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2014 (13) SCC 539.............................................................. 18

Mrs. Sarah Mathew v. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director – Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 62     11

Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 (5) SCC 536............................................................................................................. 18

Samson Arthur v. Quinn Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2015 0 SUPREME(AP) 438....................................................... 16

Sheela Bai v. The State of A.P. & Anr., 2014 (4) ALT 22........................................................................................................ 20

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2003 (8) SCC 648........................................................................... 12

T.Bhopal Reddy v. K.R.Lakshmi Bai, 1998 (1) ALT 292........................................................................................................... 14

~~~~~~~~~~

Anil @ Satyagraha.com

P: +91 7095 776633

P: +91 8019 291111

DISCLAIMER NOTICE: This Message and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This message or any part of it is not construed to be Legal Advice. For legal help, kindly contact a lawyer that specializes in the area of your concern.

If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply Message and destroy all copies of the original message.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message or any action taken in reliance on this Message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

May-21-2018 Mon, 01:39 PM

1. Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.,  2005 (3) JT (SC) 195
2. Kishorebhai Gandubhai Pethani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2014 (13) SCC 539
3. Mrs. Sarah Mathew v. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director – Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 62
4. Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 (5) SCC 536
5. Samson Arthur v. Quinn Logistic India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2015 0 SUPREME(AP) 438
6. Sheela Bai v. The State of A.P. & Anr., 2014 (4) ALT 22
7. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2003 (8) SCC 648
8. T.Bhopal Reddy v. K.R.Lakshmi Bai, 1998 (1) ALT 292

Anil @ Satyagraha.com

P: +91 7095 776633

P: +91 8019 291111

DISCLAIMER NOTICE: This Message and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This message or any part of it is not construed to be Legal Advice. For legal help, kindly contact a lawyer that specializes in the area of your concern. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply Message and destroy all copies of the original message.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message or any action taken in reliance on this Message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Shri Anil Satyagraha

Dear Sir

I appreciate you.     You applied your mind so deeply.        You're quite right.

The easiest option before the Questioner is, however, to prosecute the person under FORGERY which requires neither government sanction nor complaint by court.

And Sec 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is not relevant.

Though subordinate criminal courts don't, in theory, have discretionary powers, they're exercised in practice. 

I believe, the next step for you is to file the relevannt petition in the same Court, where forgery and perjury have taken place. 

Anil @ Satyagraha.com
P: +91 7095 776633
P: +91 8019 291111

Disclaimer Notice: This Message and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This message or any part of it is not construed to be Legal Advice. For legal help, kindly contact a lawyer that specializes in the area of your concern.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply Message and destroy all copies of the original message.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message or any action taken in reliance on this Message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Mr. Anil Satyagraha,

The illustrations, citations always help others and self as well.

There shall be no dearth of persons wanting to discuss and approach when you share whole-heartedly.

Hello Sir, What an answer you gave!!! much appreciabale !! 

Here I would like to clear my simple doubt. I am the victim of s*xual assaults / molestation by group of 6 in public . I  am still surviving and participating in process to get me justice . the opposite lawyer cross examined me  but my pp is not even objecting him so can I ask myself ask him the cross question or ask question? if yes plz give me some source so that i can show my pp or to prove the victim right 

No, you can't.    Yours is a police case.

Even if it's a private complaint, one can't cross examine unless the counsel is abandoned.

Thanks for the reply But waiting for the one whom i asked the question :) 

But then how come my points will be proven they asked selective question with yes or no and thats goes on record . what about my actual incident narrations? Police had not written my 6 pages hand written story in FIR .FIR is under 154crpc maximun is missing in FIR and he crossed me that ye nhi likha wo nhi likha FIR me . i am notresponsible what is written in FIR even if mt SIGN is there on it . I have given my own hand written complaint which police did not took action for 16 months . plz guide 

May-21-2018 Mon, 09:14 PM

@Sonam Kaur et al.,

THANKS for your kind words. From your reply, it is recommended that you open a new query that is more focused on the allegations that you make. This is a separate cause of action.

1. FROM THE GIVEN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, it may be fruitful to advert to a hall mark judgement as culled out from SUNIL KUMAR PAL V. PHOTA SHEIKH AND ORS., 1984 (4) SCC 533[1], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking through P.N. BHAGWATI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ., deliberatee uupon - Perfunctory investigation - Trial appallingly unfair and heavily leaded against the accused - Public prosecutor appearing as if representing for the accused  - Material witnesses not examined - Witnesses intimidated - No protection given to them - Trial vitiated - Retrial ordered. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9), it was held that —

“(Paras ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7 & 9) — Public Prosecutor should not appear to defend the accused”

1. ADDITIONALLY, one may wish to take shelter under CrPC §§ 301(2) r/w 302(2) and avail the option of Special Vakalath and thereby appoint an advocate to assist the learned public prosecutor to conduct the case.

Anil @ Satyagraha.com

P: +91 7095 776633

P: +91 8019 291111

DISCLAIMER NOTICE: This Message and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This message or any part of it is not construed to be Legal Advice. For legal help, kindly contact a lawyer that specializes in the area of your concern. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply Message and destroy all copies of the original message.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message or any action taken in reliance on this Message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Thanks For your quick response sir. but i did not understand a single word except "it is recommended that you open a new query that is more focused on the allegations that you make"

 

May-21-2018 Mon, 09:18 PM

1. AS TO regarding …

“xxx  … Police had not written my 6 pages hand written story in FIR... xxx”

1. IN THE MATTER OF  LALITA KUMARI V. GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS., 2008 (7) SCC 164[1],  the Hon’ble Apex Court speaking through Learned B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ., as  decided On : 07/14/2008, adverted that has Many a times FIR are not registered even after intervention of higher police officers or orders of courts – On the other hand some practical persons do not have any difficulty and has held —

“(Para ¶ 8) —                        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR lodging of – Many a times FIR are not registered even after intervention of higher police officers or orders of courts – On the other hand some practical persons do not have any difficulty – Their FIR are registered and investigation proceeds at super-sonic speed – The erring police officials, if summoned to court for their misdemeanor, even assault the presiding officers of the court – It is high time the Supreme Court steps in to correct the situation – Notices issued as to why directions should not be issued in this regard.”

”

AGAIN, in LALITA KUMARI V. GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS., 2013 (4) CRIMES(SC) 243[2], the Hon'ble Supreme Court speaking through Learned P. Sathasivam, CJI, Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash and Ranjan Gogo, JJ., vide Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 with S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5986 of 2006 , S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5200 of 2009 Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2007 and Contempt Petition (C) No. D26722 of 2008 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008 Decided on : 12.11.2013, and has held —

“(Paras ¶¶  60 , 61 and 63) —         Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 154—Police Act, 1861—Section 44—FIR—Registration of—If at all, there is any inconsistency in provisions of Section 154 of Code and Section 44 of Police Act, 1861, with regard to fact as to whether FIR is to be registered in FIR book or in General Diary, provisions of Section 154 of Code will prevail and provisions of Section 44 of Police Act, 1861 (or similar provisions of respective corresponding Police Act or Rules in other respective States) shall be void to extent of repugnancy—Registration of FIR is mandatory and also that it is to be recorded in FIR Book by giving a unique annual number to each FIR to enable strict tracking of each and every registered FIR by superior police officers as well as by competent court to which copies of each FIR are required to be sent.

xxx

(Paras ¶¶ 98, 100 and 101) —         Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 154—FIR—Registration of—While registration of FIR is mandatory, arrest of accused immediately on registration of FIR is not at all mandatory — Arrest of a person and registration of FIR are not directly and/or irreversibly linked and they are entirely different concepts operating under entirely different parameters—If a police officer misuses his power of arrest, he can be tried and punished under Section 166 of IPC.

(Paras ¶¶ 44 and 45) — Interpretation of Statute—Golden Rule of Construction—If the provision is unambiguous and legislative intent is clear, court need not call into it any other rules of construction—Golden rule of interpretation can be given a go-by only in cases where language of the section is ambiguous and/or leads to an absurdity.”

RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS

1. REACH OUT TO THE HIGH COURT vide CrPC § 482 or Art. 226 (Writ) and specifically seek to correct the palpable errors that are seen ex facie. Secondly, seek action against the erring Police who have been derelict in their duty.

Anil @ Satyagraha.com

P: +91 7095 776633

P: +91 8019 291111

DISCLAIMER NOTICE: This Message and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This message or any part of it is not construed to be Legal Advice. For legal help, kindly contact a lawyer that specializes in the area of your concern. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply Message and destroy all copies of the original message.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message or any action taken in reliance on this Message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.