IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY
CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT
PETITION CIVIL NO. 16010
OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
Versus
DCP Surendra Chaudhary IPS 2013 AGMUT and Others
.. RESPONDENTS
MEMO
OF PARTIES
Ms Seema Sapra
Advocate BCD Enrolment
No. D/1159/1995
R/o rented premises in
Maa Ganga Vidyalaya Lane,
Rajokri, Delhi …Petitioner
Versus
1. Surendra
Chaudhary IPS 2013 AGMUT
Presently posted as DCP South West
Police Headquarters, Jaisingh Road, New Delhi
2. Central
Bureau of Investigation
through
the Director, CBI
Plot
No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi
Road, New Delhi 110003. India
3.
Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010
Presently
posted as DCP Special Cell SR
Police
Headquarters Jaisingh Road, New Delhi
4.
Mehak Nakra
Advocate
BCD enrolment no. D/1729/2012
Chamber
No. 423 Block-I, Delhi High Court,
Delhi
5.
Home Secretary, Ministry
of Home Affairs
Government Of India
North Block Central
Secretariat
New Delhi – 110001
6.
Commissioner of Delhi Police
Police
Headquarters, Jaisingh Road
New
Delhi India
7.
DCP SOUTH WEST
POLICE
HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH
ROAD N-DELHI
8.
DCP, NEW DELHI
POLICE
HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH
ROAD N-DELHI
9.
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SPECIAL
CELL
POLICE
HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH
ROAD N-DELHI
10.
Registrar General, Delhi High Court
Sher
Shah Suri Marg, New Delhi
11.
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6
Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi
12.
General Electric Company
Now
operating as GE Aerospace
Headquartered
at 1 Neumann Way
Evendale,
OH 45215
United
States
13.
Bar Council of Delhi
2/6,
Siri Fort Institutional Area,
Khel
Gaon Marg, New Delhi-110049
14.
Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
New
Delhi - 110 002
15.
Anand Khatri
Advocate
Chamber
No. 422, Block I
Delhi
High Court, Delhi
16.
Sanjay Lao
Advocate BCD Enrolment No.
D/362/1994
Chamber No. 422, Block
I
Delhi High Court, Delhi
17.
Santosh Kumar Tripathi
Advocate
Chamber
No 423 Block-I,
Delhi
High Court, Delhi
18.
SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SOUTHERN
RANGE
POLICE
HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH
ROAD N-DELHI
19.
Principal Secretary
DEPARTMENT
OF LAW, JUSTICE & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT
OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
8TH
LEVEL, C-WING, DELHI SECRETARIAT,
PLAYERS
BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 110002.
20.
Delhi High Court Bar Association
J65P+7W2,
Shershah Road, Delhi High Court, India Gate, New Delhi, Delhi 110003
21.
DCP Special Cell SR
Police
Headquarters Jaisingh Road, New Delhi
22. Sub
Inspector Upender Singh
Vasant Kunj South Police Station
New Delhi
23.
Inspector Sahdev Kumar Rana
Previously
SHO Vasant Kunj South
Police Station, New Delhi
23. Sub Inspector Chetan Rana
Vasant Kunj South Police Station
New
Delhi
24, Sub Inspector Ram Prasad Meena
Vasant
Kunj South Police Station
New
Delhi
24.
Satyajeet Sarin
ACP
Vasant Kunj
Vasant
Kunj New Delhi
25.
Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs
```Ministry
of Law and Justice, Government of India
4th
Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi-110 001
26.
Rohit Meena IPS AGMUT 2012
Through
Cadre Management Ministry
Ministry
of Home Affairs
Government
Of India
North
Block Central Secretariat
New
Delhi – 110001
27.
Manoj C. IPS AGMUT 2011
Presently
posted as DCP Special Cell
Through
Cadre Management Ministry,
Ministry
of Home Affairs
Government
Of India
North
Block Central Secretariat
New
Delhi – 110001
28.
Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh
SHO
Vasant Kunj South
Police Station, New Delhi
RESPONDENTS
Filed by Petitioner in
Person Seema Sapra
Advocate BCD Enrollment
No. D/1159/1995
Rajokri, Delhi
18 November 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
DCP Surendra Chaudhary IPS 2013 AGMUT and Others
…Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING DIRECTIONS
TO THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOR REGISTRATION OF FIR AND REGULAR
CRIMINAL CASE BY THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND FOR REGISTRATION OF FIR AND CBI CASE FOR CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY, AND ATTEMPT TO MURDER THE PETITIONER
ON 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 AND 18 NOVEMBER 2024 BY POISONING IN HER RENTED PREMISES
IN RAJOKRI AND FOR OTHER CONNECTED OFFENCES ARISING ON THE FACTS
The Petitioner submits the following:
1.
The
Petitioner has been brutally poisoned with acidic chemical fumes of nitric acid
and Sulphuric Acid and with fumes of drain cleaners and with poisonous smoke
deliberately released into her premises from burning plastic, metal and black
oil and with chemical fumes causing loss of consciousness on13, 14, 15, 16, 17
and 18 September 2024.
2.
Hence the present writ petition. Since the
present writ petition is being filed in grave urgency and in circumstances of
an ongoing threat to life and ongoing poisoning, the Petitioner will supplement
with a more detailed list of dates and with additional documents at a later
date.
3.
The
Petitioner is a citizen of India. She has a fundamental right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 reads “No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law.” The Petitioner is a whistleblower and a victim.
She is entitled to whistle-blower protection and to witness protection. The
Petitioner is entitled to the guaranteed fundamental right to equal protection
under the law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which reads – “The
State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India”.
4.
On 1 June
2023, Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the following protection order in WP Crl
437/ 2018 for the Petitioner Ms Seema Sapra. This protection order has not been
complied with till date. The Petitioner continues to be stalked, followed,
hounded and poisoned. Poisonous chemical fumes and gases and poisonous smoke,
pesticides, nerve agents, neuro-toxic fumes, solvent fumes, and fumes causing
loss of consciousness and incapacitation continue to be released into the
premises the petitioner is renting in Rajokri.
|
$~34 * IN
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +
W.P.(CRL) 437/2018 SEEMA
SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through:
Petitioner in person. versus UNION
OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
Ms Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr Yash
Tyagi and Mr Subhrodeep, Advocate
for CGSC. Ms
Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State with SI
Pramod Kumar, Cyber Cell, Crime
Branch. CORAM: HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E
R % 01.06.2023 1. The
petitioner appearing in person has been heard for sometime. 2. She
also submits that she faces threat to her life. Let DCP (South West) look
into it and shall provide all possible protection to her in accordance with
law. 3. List
for further arguments on 16.08.2023, the date already fixed. VIKAS
MAHAJAN, J JUNE 1,
2023 MK |
5.
Subsequent
to the Order dated 1 June 2023 passed in WP Crl 437/ 2018, Lawyers Anand Khatri
Additional Standing Counsel Criminal for GNCTD and Mehak Nakra Additional
Standing Counsel Civil for GNCTD both dishonestly facilitated the filing of
false Status Reports of DCP Manoj C. in WP Crl 437/ 2018 falsely claiming that
the Police is protecting the Petitioner and also falsely claiming that there is
no threat to the Petitioner’s life. Both Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra have
knowingly filed a forged document in WP Crl 437/ 2018 dishonestly describing it
as a Police Threat assessment report. The Petitioner filed WP Civil 13604/ 2023
for FIR for forgery and fabrication of evidence in respect of this forged
document described as a Police Threat assessment report. Mehak Nakra acting in
collusion with Anand Khatri and the powerful group of lawyers targeting the
Petitioner obstructed the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 for
8 months, to counter which the Petitioner filed 7 Contempt of Court cases
against various Police Officers. An order was passed on 8 May 2024 in these 7 Contempt
cases directing the DCP Special Cell SR to respond to the forgery charge and to
produce another copy of this document described as a Police Threat Assessment
Report. Mehak Nakra has on 20 July filed in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 a forged affidavit
of DCP Special Cell SR Amit Kaushik producing another forged document which has
been described as a fresh copy of the Police threat assessment report. The copy of this Police threat assessment report produced
by Mehak Nakra with DCP Amit Kaushik’s alleged affidavit in WP Civil 13604/
2023 does not match the copy earlier produced by both Anand Khatri and Mehak
Nakra with DCP Manoj C’s Status Reports filed in WP Crl 437/ 2018. There are now two differing copies of what
is supposed to be the same original. Forgery of the Police Threat Assessment
report stands established. This establishes beyond doubt that both Anand Khatri
and Mehak Nakra have produced forged documents described as a Police Threat
assessment report purportedly signed by DCP Alok Kumar.
6.
The
present writ petition also seeks Z+ security for the Petitioner. The Petitioner
seeks directions to the Home Ministry to provide Z+ security to the Petitioner.
The Petitioner also seeks a specific direction that the Commissioner of Police and
the Government of India be directed to provide full protection to the
Petitioner and to ensure that she is not harmed in any manner by anyone including
by policemen.
7.
The
present Writ Petition is in the interest of justice. No other similar petition seeking
similar relief has been filed by the Petitioner in any Court or forum.
8.
A brief
petition is being filed due to urgency because of the clear and present danger
to the Petitioner’s life. More detailed facts will be placed on record at a
subsequent date.
9.
On 28
August 2024, the following order was passed in Delhi High Court WP Civil
11164/2024. This order was also not complied with by then DCP South West Rohit
Meena.
|
$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11164/2024 SEEMA SAPRA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus USHA RANGNANI IPS AGMUT 2011 AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR O R D E R % 28.08.2024 1. Ms. Sapra vehemently submits that the
protection order passed by this Court on 01.06.2023 in W.P. (Crl.) No.
437/2018, wherein the Court after recording her submissions that she was
facing threat to her life, had directed the DCP (South-West) to look into the
matter and provide all possible protection to her in accordance with law, is
still not being implemented. 2. If that be the position, the DCP
(South-West) will look into the matter and ensure that the order passed by
this Court on 01.06.2023 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 437/2018 is strictly complied
with. 3. List along with W.P.(C) No. 11618/2024
on 10.09.2024 at 2:30 pm. 4. A copy of this order be forwarded to DCP
(South-West) for necessary information and compliance. REKHA PALLI, J SHALINDER KAUR, J AUGUST 28, 2024/ss |
10.
The
Petitioner Advocate Seema Sapra filed the following Written Submissions in WP
Crl 2469/2023 on 13 November 2024.
|
Written Submissions dated 12 November 2024
of the Petitioner Seema Sapra for the hearing of 13 November 2024 in WP
Criminal 2469/2024 and in Contempt Case 636/2024 addressing the attached
Orders dated 7 November 2024 and addressing other crucial issues. 1.
The
Petitioner has lost faith in Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and respectfully
requests Justice Neena Bansal Krishna to recuse from all cases of the
Petitioner. 2.
The Orders
passed in the Petitioner’s cases listed before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
and Justice Mini Pushkarna on 7 November 2024 are attached. The Petitioner
makes the following submissions regarding these orders and the hearings on 7
November 2024. 3.
What
transpired on 7 November is as follows. At 1.30 pm, the Petitioner mentioned
WPC 9860/2024 listed before J. Mini Pushkarma sitting singly and suggested
that she recuse. J. Pushkarma agreed and passed the recusal order. The matter
was adjourned to 5 December 2024 at the request of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner’s request for recusal by Justice Mini Pushkarna was because of the
Petitioner’s interactions with both Justice Mini Pushkarna and Mr Sumit
Pushkarna before the former was appointed as a Judge in the Delhi High Court.
Mr Sumit Pushkarna was a batchmate of the Petitioner at the Law Faculty
between 1992 and 1995. Ms Seema Sapra frequently interacted with Mr Sumit
Pushkarna in the Delhi High Court. The Petitioner had discussed her General
Electric Company whistleblower complaints and the retaliation she was
subjected to with Mr Sumit Pushkarna on multiple occasions. Mr Sumit
Pushkarna was fully aware of how the Petitioner was being targeted by
lawyers, and was always sympathetic, kind, respectful and polite to the
Petitioner and often remarked that the Petitioner Seema Sapra had taken on
and fought the entire system on her own. Ms Mini Pushkarna was also always
kind, respectful and polite to the Petitioner. 4.
The
Division Bench cases listed on 7 November 2024 were taken up at 2.45 pm by J.
Neena Bansal Krishna and J. Mini Pushkarna. J. Pushkarna recused. The
Petitioner then requested Justice Neena Bansal Krishna to recuse as well.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked that if the Petitioner wanted her to
recuse then she would recuse. Ms Seema Sapra replied that she did want
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna to recuse. Since Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
indicated that she was recusing at the Petitioner’s request, the Petitioner
did not elaborate on the reasons for this recusal request nor was she asked
to do so by the Bench. At this point, J. Pushkarna conferred with J. Neena
Bansal Krishna and then remarked to the Petitioner that she had told Justice
Neena Bansal Krishna that if J. Neena Bansal Krishna recused then there would
be no one left to hear the cases. The Petitioner told the Bench that there
were reasons for her requests for the recusals. The Petitioner further stated
that there were several High Courts in the country and that if needed she
would file a transfer Petition in the Supreme Court for her cases to be
transferred to another High Court. The Petitioner also stated that neither J.
Sachin Datta nor J. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora could hear the cases of the
Petitioner. At this point, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that she was
recusing and an order was passed to list the cases before a different Bench
on 5 December 2024, a date requested by the Petitioner. The Division Bench
got up. 5.
As WP Crl
2469/2023 with Contempt Case 636/2024 was also coming up before Justice Neena
Bansal Krishna on 13 November 2024 and as WP Crl 437/2018 and the connected
Contempt cases were coming up before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on 20
November 2024, the Petitioner again mentioned the cases before J. Neena
Bansal Krishna about half an hour later and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
confirmed that she had recused. 6.
The
Petitioner was therefore quite surprised by the written order of 7 November
2024 signed by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Mini Pushkarna which
was released after 8 pm on 8 November. The Petitioner has the following
grievances regarding this Order dated 7 November 2024. 7.
The order
of 7 November 2024 signed by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Mini
Pushkarna does not contain a recusal by J. Neena Bansal Krishna despite her
clear indication in Court that she was recusing. The Petitioner Ms Seema
Sapra requests that Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recuse from all cases of the
Petitioner. On 7 November 2024 the Petitioner was never called upon to state
the reasons for the recusal request. Therefore, these reasons for requesting
recusal by Justice Neena Bansal Krushna are set out below. 8.
The order
pre-empts and causes prejudice to the Petitioner by incorrectly recording the
following.
9.
This is an
incorrect statement. The Petitioner never made this submission. This is not
the stand of the Petitioner Ms Seema Sapra. The Petitioner is before the
Delhi High Court and is actively seeking relief from the Dehi High Court in
all her cases, both urgent interim and final relief. At present, the
Petitioner is not planning to move any Transfer Petition before the Supreme
Court. The Petitioner never asked the Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
to record such a submission. Neither was this submission recorded in open
Court on 7 November 2024 when Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dictated the
Order. If it had been recorded in the presence of the Petitioner, the
Petitioner would have certainly clarified the position then and there. It is also strange that the Order dated 7
November 2024 uses the word “tried” instead of the word “heard”. The correct
word to use would be heard and not tried. 10.
As described above, during the hearing on 7
November 2024, in response to a statement made by Justice Mini Pushkarna that
there would be no one left to hear the cases of the Petitioner, the
Petitioner had only indicated that in such a situation and if the need arises
then the Petitioner will petition the
Supreme Court to transfer her cases to another High Court. The facts and
reasons in support of such a request would obviously be set out in detail in
the transfer petition if and when it is filed by the Petitioner. As of today,
the Petitioner who is being poisoned is before the Delhi High Court which is
hearing the writ petitions filed for the violation of the Petitioner’s
fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
which seek urgent protection orders and compliance with protection orders,
and the registration of criminal cases for crimes committed against the
Petitioner using State agencies like the Police and Government/ Police
lawyers. 11.
For further
clarity, please note that recusal by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna will in any
case not mean that there is no one left to hear the cases of the Petitioner
in the Delhi High Court. There are other Judges who can hear the Petitioner’s
cases. More importantly, the Petitioner has lost faith in Justice Neena
Bansal Krishna and has no expectation of getting protection or justice from
her Court. 12.
There have
been valid reasons whenever the Petitioner has requested a Judge to recuse.
Certain Judges have recused on their own without specifying reasons and
without any request by the Petitioner. 13.
The
Petitioner does have valid concerns that the Delhi High Court might not be
the appropriate forum for her cases given that several prominent lawyers from
the Delhi High Court have committed fraud on the Court in WP Civil 1280/
2012, in OMP 647/2012, in WP Crl 437/ 2018, in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 and the
Petitioner is seeking relief for these frauds and forgeries. Very powerful
lawyers have become the source of the threat to the life of the Petitioner.
These lawyers have used other lawyers including Bar Association Office
Bearers (both in the Supreme Court and in the Delhi High Court) to target the
Petitioner. There is a 14-year documented history with evidence of such
targeting of the Petitioner by lawyers who are very powerful both within the
legal fraternity and outside. The Delhi High Court Bar was weaponised against
the Petitioner in the last 14 years. Several Judges of the Delhi High Court
appointed in the last 14 years have come from this very Bar. 14.
The lawyers
targeting the Petitioner with support from SCBA and DHCBA Office Bearers have
made the Court itself a very dangerous place for the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has been and continues to be targeted with chemical agents in the
Delhi High Court since at least 2012. She has been drugged in the Delhi High
Court multiple times. She is being smeared in the Delhi High Court. She is
being subjected to social ostracization and abuse in the Delhi High Court.
She is being stalked and surveilled in the Delhi High Court. The DHCBA has
been used to pass two malacious, malafide and defamatory resolutions (in 2014
and in 2019) targeting and smearing the Petitioner and spreading false
statements and lies about the Petitioner and without giving the Petitioner
any opportunity to set out the correct facts. These DHCBA resolutions
were maliciously given even to the Delhi Police and to the SHO of Tilak Marg
Police Station in order to use the Police to target the Petitioner. The same
Police from Tilak Marg Police Station was used to facilitate the poisoning
and attacks on the Petitioner outside Delhi High Court and in Bapa Nagar. It
is Policemen from Tilak Marg Police Station who physically assaulted and beat
up the Petitioner in the early hours of 1 March 2019, which assault is the
subject matter of Writ Petition Criminal 2469/2023. Abhijat Bal was as Hony.
Secretary of the DHCBA in 2014 instrumental along with Mr A S Chandhiok in
the passing of the illegal, malicious, defamatory, and malafide DHCBA
Resolution of 2014 against the Petitioner and in giving a copy to the Police.
The 2019 DHCBA Resolution was almost a verbatim copy of the 2014 Resolution.
The present President and Vice President of the DHCBA Mr Mohit Mathur and Mr
Jatan Singh respectively, were also party (along with Abhijat Bal) to the
DHCBA resolution of 2019 which was passed to target the Petitioner. The
intent of these two DHCBA Resolutions was to destroy the Petitioner, her
life, her career, her reputation and to facilitate attacks on the Petitioner.
Mr Abhijat Bal is again contesting for the post of President in the DHCBA
elections in 2024. 15.
The
Petitioner is being targeted with chemical agents inside the Delhi High
Court, inside Court-rooms and before and during the hearings of her cases by
lawyers from the Delhi High Court Bar. The intent is to prevent the
Petitioner from being able to access justice. 16.
Since
January 2024, the Petitioner is being targeted by lawyers in such a manner
inside the Delhi High Court which is intended to cause serious injury, cause
the Petitioner to fall, or to interfere with her ability to breathe. The
reason for these serious and desperate attacks on the Petitioner inside the
Delhi High Court is that the Petitioner is fighting back by way of her writ
petitions exposing the forged Police documents that have been filed since
October 2023 in order to obstruct compliance by Delhi Police with the
protection order for the Petitioner dated 1 June 2023 passed by Justice Vikas
Mahajan in WP Crl 437/ 2018. 17.
In January
2024. the Petitioner was targeted with chemical agents both outside and
inside the court room when WPC 13604/2023 was listed before a Bench
comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravindra Dudeja. The intent
appeared to be to cause the Petitioner to fall as the poisoning affected the
Petitioner’s legs. 18.
On 7
November 2024, the Petitioner was again targeted and poisoned while exiting
the Court room of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and after leaving the court
room. The Petitioner was followed to the Chamber block and was targeted and
poisoned there by lawyers. The Petitioner was followed and poisoned again
when she went to buy court fee. She was poisoned with chemical fumes in the
Additional Court building and later in the main lawyers cafeteria. Two
lawyers/ interns who attempted to enter an elevator containing the Petitioner
were also used to poison the Petitioner. CCTV plus the Petitioner’s detailed
statement will provide evidence and further investigation will yield
additional evidence. This poisoning was very severe and the intent again
appeared to be to cause the Petitioner to fall down. 19.
These two
incidents of poisoning from January/February 2024 and from 7 November 2024
are only illustrative. The Petitioner is being poisoned whenever she is in
the Delhi High Court. This poisoning has now escalated and is intended to
cause grievous harm to the Petitioner on Delhi High Court premises in a
controlled environment where lawyers can be used to cover up subsequently. 20.
Therefore,
the Petitioner is certainly exploring the pros and cons of seeking transfer
of her cases to another High Court, but she has not yet decided to seek such
a transfer at the present time and nor has she at present filed any such
transfer petition. If and when such a transfer Petition is filed, the
Petitioner will inform the appropriate Bench of the Delhi High Court. 21.
The order
dated 7 November by incorrectly recording the following incorrectly suggests
as if the Petitioner’s request for recusal by J. Neena Bansal Krishna was
because the Petitioner does not want the Delhi High Court not to hear her
cases. This is incorrect. The Petitioner is seeking urgent protection orders
from the Delhi High Court. The reasons for the Petitioner’s request for
recusal by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna are set out below.
22.
The Order
dated 7 November 2024 also directs the following.
23.
This
direction is strange and contrary to judicial protocol. The Division Bench of
J. Neena Bansal Krishna and J. Mini Pushkarna cannot direct the matters to be
listed before the Chief Justice. Justice Mini Pushkarna had already recused
earlier in WP Civil 9860/2024 sitting singly. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
should have recorded her recusal as she stated in Court and the direction
should have been to list the cases before a different Bench subject to orders
of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice cannot pass a recusal order for
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. Only she can recuse herself. The Order dated 7
November neither records the recusal (which was granted in Court), nor does
it record a rejection of the recusal request. 24.
It is
unfortunate that an order with inaccuracies has been passed by Justice Neena
Bansal Krishna and Justice Mini Pushkarna on 7 November 2024 and that this is
an Order which causes prejudice to the Petitioner by recording a submission
which was never made by the Petitioner. This order has necessitated the
filing of the present written submissions. 25.
The
Petitioner is requesting recusal by J. Neena Bansal Krishna from all her
cases because the Petitioner has lost faith in Justice Neena Bansal Krushna
and in fact this Order dated 7 November 2024 provides another reason for such
loss of faith. The table below points out how this order has caused prejudice
to the Petitioner.
26.
Therefore,
the Petitioner reiterates her request for J. Neena Bansal Krishna to recuse
from the Petitioner’s cases. 27.
The
Petitioner intends to proceed with her cases before the Delhi High Court. 28.
If
required, an application for clarification/ correction of this order dated 7
November 2024 will be filed and if necessary, a review petition will be filed
but these are strictly not necessary. These Written Submissions clarifying
the Petitioner’s position and seeking recusal by J. Neena Bansal Krishna will
suffice. 29.
What is
most concerning about this Order dated 7 November 2024, is that both J. Neena
Bansal Krishna and J. Mini Pushkarna were aware that the Petitioner is being
poisoned. One of the Petitioner’s main grievances against J. Neena Bansal
Krishna is her failure to even record this fact in her orders since July 2024
when cases of the Petitioner have been listed before her. Both J. Neena
Bansal Krishna and J. Mini Pushkarna were aware that the Petitioner is
seeking urgent protection orders and compliance with protection orders. Yet
J. Neena Bansal Krishna and J. Mini Pushkarna failed to record this. Instead,
they incorrectly recorded a statement implying that the Petitioner is not
pressing for relief before the Delhi High Court and then they directed the
cases to be listed before the Chief Justice for “further Orders”, knowing
fully well that the Chief Justice cannot pass any such orders, only the
assigned Bench can. 30.
A lay
person reading this order or someone who was not present in Court reading
this Order will certainly be misled. An important aspect of any court order
is the message that it sends out. The Orders passed in the Petitioner’s cases
are being read by the persons who are behind the threat to her life, by
policemen and the persons being used to poison the Petitioner and against
whom the Petitioner has filed cases seeking registration of FIRs, for
poisoning and ongoing attempt to murder. What message will this 7 November
2024 order send to those people who will read the order but might not read
this clarificatory Written Submission of the Petitioner. The Order dated 7
November 2024 aggravates the threat to the life of the Petitioner and the
Judges who passed that order have not shown due concern, care and regard for
the rights, the safety, and the well-being of the Petitioner. It is baffling
as to why the Order dated 7 November 2024 contains this inaccurate account of
the Petitioner’s submissions, of the hearing of 7 November 2024, and of the
Petitioner’s position. This Order dated 7 November 2024 has created an
opportunity and incentive for the persons having the Petitioner poisoned to
finish off the Petitioner. 31.
The
Petitioner’s cases WP Crl 437/2018 and WP Crl 2469/2023 were listed at least
three times since July 2024 before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. On all these
hearings, the Court was informed that the Petitioner was being poisoned. On
all these hearings, the Petitioner was also targeted with chemical agents
both before, during and after the hearing by lawyers and policemen. At no
point did Justice Neena Bansal Krishna take notice of these facts. The cases
were adjourned because the Petitioner’s right to access justice was
obstructed by lawyers. 32.
During one
of these hearings before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, the Petitioner had
objected to ASC Anand Khatri continuing to appear for Delhi Police as counsel
in the Petitioner’s cases. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna had orally told Anand
Khatri not to appear. Yet Anand Khatri continued to appear in the
Petitioner’s cases and his appearances were recorded by Justice Neena Bansal
Krishna in her orders. This was done despite Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
being aware of WP Civil 13604/2024, WP Civil 11618/2024, WP Civil 14578/2024
which establish that Anand Khatri has obstructed compliance with the
protection order dated 1 June 2023 passed for the Petitioner in WP Crl
437/2018, that to this end he has filed forged Police documents, made false
statements in court, and is being used to cover up the ongoing poisoning of
the Petitioner. The Petitioner has filed WP Civil 9860/2024 and WP Civil
14387/2024 seeking registration of FIR against Anand Khatri for criminal
conspiracy for attempt to murder the Petitioner. Anand Khatri has been
impleaded as a Respondent in some of these writ petitions. These cases were
also listed before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on at least 4 dates. Yet in the order dated 29 October 2024 passed by Justice Neena
Bansal Krishna in WP Crl 2469/2023, the following appearance is recorded - Mr.
Anand V. Khatri, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for the State with SI Radha
Krishnan, PS Tilak Marg. How can Anand Khatri appear in this case. How can SI
Radha Krishan of PS Tilak Marg appear in this case. How have these
appearances been recorded. The Supreme Court Order dated 1 March 2019 in
respect of which compliance is sought in WP Crl 2469/2023 is addressed to the
DCP New Delhi. The assault on the Petitioner was by two policemen from Tilak
Marg PS. The then SHO was involved in the cover up. How is an SI from Tilak
Marg PS appearing for the Police. How has Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
allowed this. 33.
The order
dated 29 October 2024 passed by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in Contempt Case
636/2024 Seema Sapra versus Pranav Tayal IPS AGNUT 2011 records the following
appearance - Ms. Monika
Arora, CGSC with Ms. Radhika and Mr. Subrodeep Saha, Advocates for UOI. SI
Radha Krishnan, PS Tilak Marg. How has the appearance of a CGSC been recorded
for Pranav Tayal in a Contempt case of personal liability filed against him
for violating a Court order. How has the appearance of SI Radha Krishnan PS
Tilak Marg been recorded in this contempt case against Pranav Tayal AGMUT
2011 who was DCP New Delhi when the contempt of court took place. Ms Monika Arora was not present in Court
before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on 29 October 2024 for these cases. Who
gave this appearance of Monika Arora along with SI Radha Krishnan PS Tilak
Marg to the Court on 29 October 2024. How will the Petitioner’s cases be
heard properly, and how will the Petitioner get an effective hearing if the
Court does not even ensure that proper representation is present for Delhi
Police for the Court hearings. 34.
Not once
since July 2024 to the present (mid-November 2024), has Justice Neena Bansal
Krishna shown any concern for the Petitioner being poisoned. Not one
statement, not one question, not one order has emanated from Justice Neena
Bansal Krishna addressing the submission of the Petitioner that she is being
poisoned and that her life is in danger. 35.
The
Petitioner submits that she has lost faith in Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.
The Petitioner has no hope of getting justice from Justice Neena Bansal
Krishna’s Court. The Petitioner has not even got a hearing, leave alone an
effective hearing from Justice Neena Bansal Krishna’s Court since July 2024. 36.
The Order
dated 7 November 2024 has also incorrectly recorded the appearance of counsel
in several places. Neither Pratima Lakra, nor Radhika Dubey, nor Shashank
Garg nor Monika Arora nor Anubha Bhardwaj were present in Court either in
person or through virtual link. How does CBI counsel Anubha Bhardwaj appear
for Respondents 6-12 in WP Civil 11165/2024? Respondent 6 is the Home
Ministry. Respondent 7 is the Ministry of Electronics & Information
Technology. Respondent 8 is the Commissioner of Police. Respondent 9 is the
CBI. Respondent 10 is DCP South West. Respondent 11 is DCP New Delhi.
Respondent 12 is Special Commissioner of Police Special Cell. Who is Piyush
Beriwal and why and for whom has his appearance been recorded in the Order
dated 7 November 2024. 37.
One of the
Petitioner’s reasons for seeking recusal by J. Neena Bansal Krishna is her
perceived indifference to and lack of concern shown for the Petitioner’s
complaints of poisoning. 38.
In her
orders dated 29 October 2024 passed in WP Crl 437/2018 and WP Crl 2469/2023,
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has recorded the appearance of Anand Khatri for
Delhi Police despite the fact that cases filed by the Petitioner impleading
Anand Khatri and seeking FIRs against Anand Khatri had been listed before
her. The recording of Anand Khatri’s appearance for Delhi Police is therefore
improper and prejudicial to the Petitioner. 39.
For all the
above reasons, the Petitioner requests that Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
recuse from all cases of the Petitioner and pass an order requesting the
Chief Justice to list the Petitioner’s cases before another Bench. The
Petitioner once again reiterates her respect for the Office of Delhi High
Court Judge Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. However, Justice must not only be
done but must also be seen to be done. The Petitioner has no faith left in
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. Seema Sapra 12 November 2024 |
11.
Annexed
here as annexure A1 are copies of text messages sent by the petitioner to DCP
Surendra Chaudhary and SHO Arvind Pratap Singh.
12.
The
Petitioner places reliance upon court records of the following cases filed by
her in the Delhi High Court. She also
places reliance upon the cases/ writ petitions/ applications filed by her in
the Supreme Court of India.
|
WP Civil 1280/2012 WP Crl 437/2018 WP Crl 2469/2023 WP Civil 13604/2023 WP Civil 11164/2024 WP Civil 11165/2024 WP Civil 11618/2024 WP Civil 9860/2024 WP Civil 5565/2024 WP Civil 13927/2024 WP Civil 14397/2024 WP Civil 14578/2024 CONT.CAS(C)
557/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus PRANAV TAYAL IPS AGMUT 2011 CONT.CAS(C)
558/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus INSPECTOR SAHDEV KUMAR RANA CONT.CAS(C)
559/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus SUB-INSPECTOR CHETAN RANA CONT.CAS(C)
560/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus MANOJ C. IPS AGMUT 2011 CONT.CAS(C)
561/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus ADDITIONAL DCP ALOK KUMAR DANIPS 2010 CONT.CAS(C)
720/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus ROHIT MEENA IPS AGMUT 2012 CONT.CAS(C)
721/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus DEVESH KUMAR MAHLA IPS AGMUT 2012 CONT.CAS(C)
1177/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus AMIT KAUSHIK DANIPS 2010 CONT.CAS(C)
1174/2023 SEEMA SAPRA versus SANJAY ARORA & ANR CONT.CAS(C)
382/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus ROHIT MEENA, IPS AGMUT 2012 & ANR. CONT.CAS(C)
391/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus MANOJ C. IPS AGMUT 2011 CONT.CAS(C)
408/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus ROHIT MEENA IPS AGMUT 2012 AND ANR CONT.CAS(C)
409/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus MANOJ C, IPS AGMUT 2011 CONT.CAS(C)
417/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus MANOJ C. IPS AGMUT 2011 CONT.CAS(C)
418/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus MANOJ C. IPS AGUMUT 2011 CONT.CAS(C)
419/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus ROHIT MEENA IPS AGMUT 2012 AND ANR CONT.CAS(C)
636/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus PRANAV TAYAL IPS AGMUT 2011 CONT.CAS(C)
683/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus SANJAY ARORA IPS TAMIL NADU CADRE 1988 CONT.CAS(C) 684/2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus ROHIT MEENA
IPS AGMUT 2012 CONT. CAS(C) 897.2024 SEEMA SAPRA versus KANWAL JEET
ARORA, AN OFFICER OF DHJS |
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the
aforesaid circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i)
Direct
the CBI to register an FIR and regular criminal case against DCP Surendra
Chaudhary IPS 2013 AGMUT presently posted as DCP South West Delhi Police, and
Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh presently posted as SHO Vasant Kunj South Police
Station for the poisoning and attempted murder of Advocate Seema Sapra in her
rented premises in Rajokri on 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 November 2024 with
nitric acid fumes, sulphuric acid fumes, drain cleaner fumes, poisonous
chemical fumes, gases and poisonous smoke deliberately released into her rented
premises all through the day and night;
(ii)
Direct the
Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police to immediately provide full
protection and security to the Petitioner and direct them to ensure that
the Petitioner is not harmed in any manner by any persons including Policemen;
(iii)
Enforce
the Petitioner’s fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India by directing the Government of India through the Ministry
of Home Affairs to immediately provide Z+ security to the Petitioner;
(iv)
Direct
the present DCP South West Surendra Chaudhary and Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh
to be personally present in Court for the hearings of the present case;
(v)
Direct
the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately remove Surendra Chaudhary as DCP
South West;
(vi)
Direct
the Commissioner of Police to immediately remove Arvind Pratap Singh as SHO
Vasant Kunj South Police Station;
(vii)
To pass
such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case.
FILED BY SEEMA SAPRA, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
FILED 18 November 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
Versus
DCP Surendra Chaudhary IPS 2013 AGMUT & Others
…Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, D/o Late Amolak Raj Sapra, age 53 years presently
living on rent in premises located at Maa Ganga Vidyalaya Lane, Rajokri, Delhi
do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner and am familiar with the
facts and circumstances of the case and am competent and authorized to swear
this Affidavit.
2. That I have drafted, read and understood the
accompanying Writ Petition and I state that the contents of the Petition are
based on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I believe to be true
and correct and all annexures are true copies of the respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.
Verified at New Delhi on this 18th day of November 2024.
DEPONENT
No comments:
Post a Comment