I have filed Writ Petition Civil 11618/2024 in the Delhi High Court today seeking FIR for the forged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik which has been filed by Advocate Mehak Nakra in WP Civil 13604/2023.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 11618 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
Versus
Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 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. Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010
Presently posted as DCP Special Cell SR
Police Headquarters Jaisingh Road, New Delhi
2. Mehak Nakra
Advocate BCD enrolment no. D/1729/2012
Chamber No. 423 Block-I, Delhi High Court,
Delhi
3. Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
Government Of India
North Block Central Secretariat
New Delhi – 110001
4. Commissioner of Delhi Police
Police Headquarters, Jaisingh Road
New Delhi India
5. Central Bureau of Investigations
through the Director, CBI
Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003. India
6. DCP SOUTH WEST
POLICE HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH ROAD N-DELHI
7. DCP, NEW DELHI
POLICE HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH ROAD N-DELHI
8. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SPECIAL CELL
POLICE HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH ROAD N-DELHI
9. Registrar General, Delhi High Court
Sher Shah Suri Marg, New Delhi
10. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6 Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi
11. General Electric Company
Now operating as GE Aerospace
Headquartered at 1 Neumann Way
Evendale, OH 45215
United States
12. Bar Council of Delhi
2/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area,
Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi-110049
13. Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
New Delhi - 110 002
14. Anand Khatri
Advocate
Chamber No. 422, Block I
Delhi High Court, Delhi
15. Sanjay Lao
Advocate BCD Enrolment No. D/362/1994
Chamber No. 422, Block I
Delhi High Court, Delhi
16. Santosh Kumar Tripathi
Advocate
Chamber no 423 Block-I,
Delhi High Court, Delhi
17. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SOUTHERN RANGE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH ROAD N-DELHI
RESPONDENTS
Filed by Petitioner in Person
Seema Sapra
Advocate BCD Enrollment No.
Rajokri, Delhi
21 August 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 11618 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
Versus
Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 and Others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF FIR AGAINST ADVOCATE MEHAK NAKRA BCD ENROLMENT NO. D/1729/2012 AND HER CO-CONSPIRATORS UNDER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND/OR THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA FOR FILING OF A FORGED AFFIDAVIT OF AMIT KAUSHIK DANIPS 2010 (PRESENTLY POSTED AS DCP SPECIAL CELL SR) IN DELHI HIGH COURT WRIT PETITION CIVIL 13604/ 2023 ON 20 JULY 2024 UNDER DIARY NO. 2376727/2024 AND FOR REGISTRATION OF FIR FOR FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND OTHER CONNECTED OFFENCES ARISING ON THE FACTS
The Petitioner abovenamed respectfully submits as under:
1. The document filed by Advocate Mehak Nakra on 20 July 2024 in WP Civil 13604/2023 described as an affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik (Annexure A-1 hereto) is a forged affidavit with forged signatures of Amit Kaushik and a fake stamp of Amit Kaushik. It is also a false affidavit with multiple false statements and with forged documents attached as Annexures A, B, C and D.
2. In very brief, the facts are that a protection order addressed to DCP South West was passed for the Petitioner, Seema Sapra by Justice Vikas Mahajan on 1 June 2023 in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018.
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.” |
3. The Petitioner is being poisoned because of her whistleblower corruption, fraud, bribery complaints against General Electric Company and because of her sexual assault complaints against lawyers Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala. She is also interalia being poisoned because AZB lawyers appeared for General Electric Company in the Petitioner’s whistleblower case WP Civil 1280/2012 with forged authority documents and fraud was committed on the Court leading to a perverse judgment dismissing WP Civil 1280/2012 as infructuous.
4. Manoj C. who was DCP South West failed to comply with the protection order dated 1 June 2023, leading the Petitioner to file Contempt Case 1174/2023 against DCP Manoj C. and to file WP Criminal 2469/2023 seeking enforcement of a Supreme Court Order dated 1 March 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.13/2018 and W.P.(C) No.1027/2018 which directed the registration of an FIR by DCP New Delhi for a Police assault on the Petitioner outside Delhi High Court on 1 March 2019 and which also stated that the Petitioner “may also seek police protection since she apprehends danger to her life.”
5. An Order dated 20 September 2023 was passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in WP Crl 2469/2023 directing the DCP South West to file a Status Report on compliance with the Order dated 1 June 2018. This order also stated as follows.
5. Ms. Sapra submits that in the meanwhile she should be given protection as there is threat to her life. 6. A coordinate bench of this court vide the order dated 01.06.2023 had already directed the Delhi Police to provide the protection to Ms. Sapra. Ms. Sapra disputes the said position and submits that despite the aforesaid order, she has not been provided any protection at all and she also further submits that same is subject matter of the contempt petition filed before this Court. 7. Mr. Khatri seeks and is granted one week’s time to file status report in respect of order dated 01.06.2023. 8. List for the purposes of assessing requirement of protection on 09.10.2023, the date already fixed. |
6. Advocate Anand Khatri filed a Status Report in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/2018 on 6 October 2023 allegedly signed by DCP Manoj C. as DCP South West. Annexed to this alleged Status Report of DCP Manoj C. was a single page forged document described as a Threat assessment report allegedly signed by DCP Special Cell SR Alok Kumar and stating that there was no threat to the life of the Petitioner (Annexure A-2).
7. Advocate Mehak Nakra ASC GNCTD who appeared without authority in Contempt Case 1174/2023 also filed an almost identical Status Report in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/2018 on 7 October 2023 allegedly signed by DCP Manoj C. as DCP South West. Annexed to this alleged Status Report of DCP Manoj C. was the same single page forged document described as a Threat assessment report allegedly signed by DCP Special Cell SR Alok Kumar and stating that there was no threat to the life of the Petitioner.
8. The single page document that was filed by both Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra in WP Crl 437/ 2018 and that was described by both of them as the Police Threat assessment report is annexed hereto as Annexure A-2.
9. The single page document filed by Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra in WP Crl 437/ 2018 and described as a Police Threat Assessment report was a copy of a communication allegedly signed by Alok Kumar as DCP Special Cell SR and addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, through Inspector X/PHQ. The date and document number of this alleged communication was obscured. This alleged communication stated that there was no threat to the Petitioner from any quarter. Since this alleged communication was described by the Police Status Report of DCP Manoj C. as a Threat assessment report, it will be referred to as the forged Threat assessment report hereinafter.
10. This forged Threat assessment report was filed in Court to prevent compliance by the Delhi Police with the protection order for the Petitioner passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan on 1 June 2023 in WP Crl 437/2018.
11. The Petitioner therefore filed WP Civil 13604/2023 seeking an FIR for forgery, filing of forged document in Court, fabrication of evidence etc in respect of this forged Threat assessment report. Notice was issued in this case on 17 October 2023 but the Respondent DCPs neither appeared nor filed affidavits. Advocate Mehak Nakra continued to obstruct the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/2023 along with SI Chetan Rana and Vasant Kunj South SHO Sahdev Kumar Rana.
12. The Petitioner therefore filed seven Contempt cases against the DCP Respondents in WPC13604/2023 and others for obstruction of the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/2023.
13. The following order was passed by the Delhi High Court on 8 May 2024 in these seven Contempt cases directing the DCP Special Cell SR to file an affidavit addressing the issue that a forged document had been filed as a Threat assessment report and directing him to place on record another copy of this alleged Threat assessment report along with any other connected documents of the Police.
$~60, 61 & 03 to 07 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 720/2024 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: In person versus ROHIT MEENA IPS AGMUT 2012 ..... Respondent Through: None 61 + CONT.CAS(C) 721/2024 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: In person versus DEVESH KUMAR MAHLA IPS AGMUT 2012 ..... Respondent Through: None 3 + CONT.CAS(C) 557/2024 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: In person versus PRANAV TAYAL IPS AGMUT 2011 ..... Respondent Through: None 4 + CONT.CAS(C) 558/2024 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: In person versus INSPECTOR SAHDEV KUMAR RANA ..... Respondent Through: None 5 + CONT.CAS(C) 559/2024 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: In person versus SUB-INSPECTOR CHETAN RANA .... Respondent Through: None 6 + CONT.CAS(C) 560/2024 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: In person versus MANOJ C. IPS AGMUT 2011 ..... Respondent Through: None 7 + CONT.CAS(C) 561/2024 SEEMA SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: In person versus ADDITIONAL DCP ALOK KUMAR DANIPS 2010 ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 08.05.2024 1. Having heard the contempt petitioner who appears in person, we take note of the serious allegations which have been levelled in respect of a communication which is stated to have been placed before the Court on 17 October 2023. 2. Bearing in mind the issues which are flagged by the petitioner, we call upon the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell (SR), Delhi, to file an affidavit explaining the genesis of the aforesaid communication. 3. A copy of the original communication which was produced before the Court shall also be placed for our perusal along with any other related record concerned with the assessment of threat which was undertaken pursuant to the order dated 01 June 2023 passed by the Court in W.P. (Crl.) 437/2018. The said affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks from today. 4. A copy of the submissions as well as the document in question as handed over by the petitioner be included on our digital record. 5. We request the Registrar General of the Court to communicate a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell. 6. Let these matters along with W.P.(C) 13604/2023 be now called on 24.07.2024 at 02.15 P.M. 7. The earlier date fixed i.e. 16.05.2024 in W.P.(C) 13604/2023 shall stand cancelled. YASHWANT VARMA, J. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. MAY 08, 2024/neha |
14. In paragraph 5 of this Order dated 8 May 2024, the Court had directed the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to “to communicate a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell.” Mr Kanwal Jeet Arora did not comply with the direction in paragraph 5 of the Court order dated 8 May 2024 and the Order dated 8 May 2024 was never sent to the DCP Special Cell SR by the Registrar General or by the Delhi High Court Registry. Instead, fabricated documents were placed in Part B of the Court file by Court staff to mislead the Court and the Petitioner that the Registrar General/ High Court Registry had complied with the court order. The Petitioner relies upon the contents of Contempt Case Civil 897/ 2024 which she has filed against Mr Kanwal Jeet Arora. Kanwal Jeet Arora, presently posted as Registrar General of the Delhi High Court has till date not complied with the Court order dated 8 May 2024. This fact has a direct connection to the filing of the forged affidavit dated 20 July 2024 of DCP Amit Kaushik in WPC 13604/2023.
15. The Order dated 8 May 2024 directs the DCP Special Cell SR to file an affidavit explaining the forged Threat assessment report, i.e., the document filed by lawyers Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra as Threat assessment report in WP Criminal 437/ 2018 on 6 and 7 October 2023 respectively (Annexure A-2 hereto).
16. The Index of the Status Report filed by lawyer Anand Khatri in WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 6 October 2023 vide Diary No 1845020/2023 described Annexure G to the Status Report as Threat assessment report. Paragraph 7 of this Status Report under the signature of DCP Manoj C. stated the following.
17. That, the threat assessment report in respect of the petitioner Ms. Seema Sapra has also been carried out through Special Cell/ SR, which has been revealed that there is no reasonable or apparent element of threat to the Asesses/Petitioner from any quarter. However. Police security/ protection has been provided to the Petitioner. Assessment report submitted by the DCP Special Cell (SR) Delhi is annexed herewith as Annexure -G. |
17. On 20 July 2024, Advocate Mehak Nakra Additional Standing Counsel Civil for GNCTD filed an affidavit in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 under diary number 2376727/2024 without sending the Petitioner an advance copy.
18. The Petitioner happened to check the case history section of the Delhi High Court website for WPC 13604/2023 shortly before 4 pm on 22 July 2024 and she discovered that an affidavit had been filed by Mehak Nakra on 20 July 2024. The Petitioner immediately contacted Mehak Nakra through mobile SMS text, WhatsApp and email and requested that a copy be provided to her immediately. A copy of the filing dated 20 July 2024 was eventually sent to the Petitioner by Advocate Mehak Nakra on WhatsApp at 5.18 pm on 22 July 2024.
19. A copy of the filing by Advocate Mehak Nakra on 20 July 2024 in WPC 13604/2023 under diary number 2376727/2024 is annexed hereto as Annexure A-1. This document is supposed to be an affidavit of Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 presently posted as DCP Special Cell SR.
20. A forged and fabricated document was attached to this filing of Advocate Mehak Nakra as proof of service on the Petitioner. The intent clearly was to ambush the Petitioner and to ensure that she did not have a copy of this alleged affidavit for the Court hearing scheduled on 24 July 2024. In the meantime, the Petitioner was being poisoned with intent to prevent her from appearing in her cases in Court on 24 July 2024. The intent was to deceive the Court with a forged affidavit, commit fraud on the Court, and to steal an order behind the back of the Petitioner.
21. The alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik affidavit dated 20 July 2024 contained multiple false statements and it produced another forged document as a fresh copy of the alleged Threat assessment report. The Petitioner therefore filed Contempt Case Civil 1177/2024 against Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 seeking the following relief.
(i) To issue notice of contempt to, to convict, and to punish the Respondent Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 presently posted as DCP Special Cell SR in accordance with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by imposing fine and imprisonment upon the Respondent for wilfully, intentionally, deliberately, malafidely and perversely committing contempt of court by wilfully violating the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 8 May 2024 passed in Contempt Cases Civil 557. 558. 559. 560, 561, 720 and 721 all of 2024, and by wilfully filing a false affidavit and by wilfully placing on record a forged document as Annexure C to his affidavit dared 20 July 2024 filed in WP Civil 13604/ 2023, and by intentionally attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Court in order to cover up the filing of the first forged document by Manoj C. in WP Crl 437/ 2018, and by intentionally attempting to cover up the failure of the Delhi Police to comply with the protection order of Justice Vikas Mahajan in WP Crl 437/ 2018 and by intentionally further facilitating the criminal conspiracy and ongoing attempts to murder the Petitioner. (ii) disobeying the Order dated 8 May 2024 of the Delhi High Court passed in Contempt Case 557/2024, Contempt Case 558/2024. Contempt Case 559/2024, Contempt Case 560/2024. Contempt Case 561/ 2024. Contempt Case 720/2024 and Contempt Case 721/2024 and because by these wilful acts DCP Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 has intended and attempted to obstruct the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/ and to cover up the filing of a false and fraudulent Status Report in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018 and the filing of a forged document as an alleged Police Threat Assessment Report; (iii) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. |
22. The present Petition is being filed because a closer scrutiny of the affidavit dated 20 July 2024 that has been filed for Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil 13604/2023 reveals the document to be a forged affidavit for the following reasons.
The signature of Amit Kaushik at two places on page 5 of the affidavit is simply an “A”. The affidavit is not properly notarised. There is no date entered by the deponent in the verification clause and the space for the date is empty. The signatory has not been identified before the notary as mandated by the law. There is no signature for the statement “I identified the deponent who has signed in my presence”. The space for identification by stating son of, resident of etc is blank and no identifying information is provided. There is no signature to establish who has identified Amit Kaushik before the notary. This is a mandatory requirement. Something completely illegible has been written by the notary in the blank space after - Identified by. This illegible writing is intentional. On page 5 of the affidavit, the stamp of the alleged Deponent reads DCP/SR/SPL. CELL whereas it should read DCP/SPL. CELL/ SR. The post presently held by Amit Kaushik is not DCP/SR/SPL. CELL. The post presently held by Amit Kaishik is DCP/SPL. CELL/ SR. This is a crucial mistake in the stamp. A fake stamp has been created with Amit Kaushik’s name and this fake stamp has been used on this affidavit. |
23. The notary who has stamped and signed this forged affidavit is a lawyer named Debajyoti Behuria. His notary registration number is 19716.
24. Debajyoti Behuria Advocate was involved as Notary in another case of a forged affidavit where an FIR was directed to be registered against him and three other lawyers by the learned ADJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in PC No. 01/2019 by order dated 21st October, 2020. Annexed hereto as Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-4 are Delhi High Court Order dated 20 April 2022 passed in CRL.A. 555/2020 & CRL.M.A. 15589/2020 and Delhi High Court Order dated 2 May 2022 passed in CRL.A. 190/2022, CRL.M.As. 8309/2022 & 8310/2022 respectively which set out the facts that led to that FIR against Debajyoti Behuria. Though these High Court orders have quashed the FIR proceedings against the three other lawyers, the proceedings against Debajyoti Behuria have not been quashed. It is an established fact that Debajyoti Behuria notarised an affidavit in the absence of the deponent in this case.
25. The Petitioner submits that it is not a coincidence that Debajyoti Behuria has been used as the Notary in the notarisation and filing of the forged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik in WP Civil 13604/ 2023. Powerful and influential lawyers have used Debajyoti Behuria to help prepare this forged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik by most likely promising to extricate him from the earlier FIR against him.
26. The Petitioner did an online search and found several other affidavits notarised by Debajyoti Behuria and filed in different courts. The first and last pages of some of these affidavits bearing the notary stamp of Debajyoti Behuria are annexed hereto as Annexure A-5. Please note that in all these other affidavits, the deponent is duly identified and the identifier has put his signature on the affidavit. Also note Debajyoti Behuria’s handwriting in these affidavits is in cursive/ running hand and his writing is legible.
27. In the alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik, the handwriting of Debajyoti Behuria is not cursive and is not in running hand and is illegible. Debajyoti Behuria has deliberately used illegible handwriting in Amit Kaushik’s alleged affidavit after the printed words -identified by.
28. The affidavit dated 20 July 2024 of DCP Amit Kaushik is forged. It has not been signed by Amit Kaushik but by someone who has forged the signature of Amit Kaushik on the affidavit and has used a fake stamp for Amit Kaushik.
29. The affidavit filed for Amit Kaushik is defective in law and cannot be accepted by the Court. The legal requirements for execution of an affidavit before a Notary and to ensure that the Deponent is present before the Notary and is correctly identified before the Notary have not been satisfied. These defects in the affidavit assume greater significance in light of the fact that Annexure C to the alleged Affidavit of Amit Kaushik is also a forged document as described hereinafter.
30. The alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik contains a false declaration, i.e., it states that being presently posted as DCP Special Cell SR, he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to depose the affidavit. In fact, DCP Amit Kaushik cannot have personal knowledge as to the events that have been described in the affidavit and as to the facts that have been set out in the affidavit and as to the documents annexed to the affidavit. This is because he was not DCP Special Cell SR at the time these documents were allegedly created and at the time these events allegedly occurred. The deposition in the alleged affidavit that the facts of paragraphs 1-10 of the affidavit are true and correct to the knowledge of DCP Amit Kaushik is a false statement.
31. The alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik dated 20 July 2024 produces the following documents as annexures.
Annexure A – Copy of an alleged Communication dated 19 June 2023 from an (anonymous) INSPR/ X/ PHQ (with an illegible signature) for Additional Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range on the letterhead of the Office of the Commissioner of Police and sent to Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Cell Delhi. This communication states that the memo dated 13 June 2023 received from DCP South West along with its enclosures are enclosed. It further states that a threat assessment be conducted for Seema Sapra and the report be sent to this Hdqrs. at the earliest. It also states that this has the approval of Addl CP New Delhi Range. |
Annexure B – copy of an alleged communication dated 13 June 2023 sent from DCP South West Manoj C. to DCP Headquarter allegedly requesting that the Special Cell be directed to carry out a threat assessment for the Petitioner. |
Annexure C – “fresh” copy of the alleged Threat assessment report Alleged communication from DCP Special Cell SR signed by Alok Kumar and sent to Addl Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range Through Inspr. X/PHQ The document date is shown as 14 August 2023. |
Annexure D – copy of a 3 page document produced for the first time and titled THREAT ASSESSMENT REPORT. It is dated 2 August 2023 and signed by Inspector Satvinder of Special Cell/ SR Note – the contents of this document are false and concocted. This document has been fabricated only for the purpose of cover-up. It has been backdated and forged. |
Annexure E – copy of a document dated 3 June 2023 signed by SHO Vasant Kunj South and copy of a document dated 19 July 2024 signed by SHO Vasant Kunj South. |
32. As the alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik is a forged affidavit, the documents annexed to the affidavit and in particular Annexures A, B, C and D are also forged and fabricated. These documents have been fabricated, forged and backdated only to cover up the filing of the forged Threat assessment report filed in WP Crl 437/ 2018 by Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra. It is clear that several police officers including DCP Manoj C. and Inspector Sahdev Kumar Rana SHO of Police Station Vasant Kunj South are involved in these new forgeries. The contents of these documents support the submission that these are forged documents. However, the present petition seeks an FIR for filing of a forged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik in WPC 13604/2023. And therefore these forged annexures to this forged affidavit will be dealt with in detail separately.
33. All the statements of fact deposed to in this alleged affidavit of Amit Kaushik are basically based upon the annexed documents which are forged and whose source and origins are not explained by the affidavit. There is no statement in this alleged affidavit which is based upon the personal knowledge of DCP Amit Kaushik.
34. The primary purpose of the affidavit of DCP Special Cell SR called for by the Delhi High Court Order dated 8 May 2024 was to ascertain whether the alleged Threat assessment report whose copy was filed by lawyer Anand Khatri and lawyer Mehak Nakra with the alleged Status Reports of DCP Manoj C. in WP Criminal 437/ 2018 was a forged document.
35. The alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik contains at Annexure C to the affidavit what is described in the affidavit as a “fresh copy” of this Threat assessment report. This is the document which the Petitioner in WP Civil 13604/ 2024 has claimed is a forged document.
36. Since the document produced with DCP Manoj C.’s Status Reports by Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra and the document produced at Annexure C with the alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik are both supposed to be copies of the same document (the Threat assessment report), they should be identical. Annexure C of the alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik is supposed to be a better copy of the document described as Police Threat assessment report, a copy of which was allegedly annexed to DCP Manoj C.’s Status Reports.
37. A close comparison of the copy of the Police Threat assessment report produced along with Manoj C.’s Status Reports (Annexure A-2) and the copy of the Police Threat assessment report produced along with Amit Kaushik’s alleged affidavit (Annexure A-6 ) is called for. This comparison shows that these are copies of different documents and are not copies of the same document. The signature, signature stamp and the printing of the signatory’s name on the two documents, the placement of the signature and stamp are different in the two documents. There is also a difference in the signature itself. There are other differences in the two documents.
38. Put simply where we stand is this, Annexure A-2 was alleged to be a forged document with date and document number obscured. The Court asked the DCP Special Cell SR to produce another copy of the original. Annexure A-6 filed with the alleged affidavit of DCP Special Cell SR and stated to be a fresh copy of the original is different from Annexure A-2. Therefore, this conclusively establishes that the Police Threat assessment report produced with Manoj C.’s Status Reports was a forged document and to cover up that forgery, another forged document has been prepared and filed along with the alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik as a fresh copy. The signatures of Amit Kaushik on the affidavit itself are also forged. Besides certain Police Officers, it becomes clear that lawyers Mehak Nakra and Anand Khatri are also involved in the filing of the forged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik and in the forgery of the second forged copy of the alleged Threat assessment report filed with this affidavit. It is also clear that Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra have acted under the influence of and under the instructions of a group of powerful lawyers targeting the Petitioner.
39. Significantly, the alleged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik does not state whether the Threat assessment report is forged or genuine. This is because the alleged affidavit makes no claim that this enquiry was carried out by Amit Kaushik. There is no statement of DCP Amit Kaushik in this alleged affidavit, that he has made any investigation into whether the Threat assessment report was forged or genuine. There is no affirmation by DCP Amit Kaushik in his alleged affidavit that Annexure A-2 is not forged.
40. A comparison of the two copies (Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-6) of the same alleged original document (Threat assessment report) which have been produced with DCP Manoj C.’s Status Reports and DCP Amit Kaushik’s alleged affidavit and in particular a comparison of the signature, the stamp of the signatory and their placement on the two alleged copies establishes that both the copies are forged and fabricated. Therefore, the Threat assessment report allegedly signed by DCP Special Cell SR Alok Kumar allegedly on 14 August 2023 is a forged and fabricated document.
41. Some Police Officers are also involved in this forgery of Amit Kaushik’s alleged affidavit as they were also involved in the filing of the forged Threat assessment report on the court record of WP Crl 437/ 2023. Knowing that the affidavit would be used to make false statements before the Court and would be used to place forged documents on the court record, these Police Officers themselves have facilitated the filing of a forged affidavit for Amit Kaushik, who might have wanted to protect himself personally.
42. Amit Kaushik a DANIPS 2010 Officer is already tainted in that he was Additional DCP South West in 2021 when the Petitioner was being poisoned in Rajokri. Thousands of email complaints were sent by the Petitioner to multiple Police Officers including the DCP South West and the SHO Vasant Kunj South on their official email addresses. Thousands of complaints were posted on Twitter on the official account of DCP South West. These email complaints and Twitter communications were all ignored. As Addl DCP Southwest in 2021, Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 would have been aware of these complaints and of these Twitter posts. And he was party to ignoring them, while the Petitioner continued to be poisoned in Rajokri. Amit Kaushik was party to the criminal conspiracy spearheaded by Delhi Police acting on instructions of their political masters Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to poison and murder the Petitioner Seema Sapra in the premises that she rented in Rajokri in 2020 and which criminal conspiracy was carried out and given effect to by multiple attempts on the Petitioner’s life and by subjecting her to chronic poisoning in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and in 2024. Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 has been rewarded for his role in the criminal conspiracy and the attempts to murder the Petitioner by subsequent plum postings in PM security and now as DCP Special Cell.
43. Some additional details as to the brief facts narrated above are set out below.
44. WP Civil 13604/ 2024 filed by the Petitioner on 12 October 2023 seeks the following relief.
(i) Direct the Commissioner of Police to produce the original of the document filed as Threat Assessment Report of the Delhi Police in WP Crl 437/2018; (ii) Direct the registration of an FIR for forgery of the document filed as Threat Assessment Report of the Delhi Police in WP Crl 437/2018; (iii) In the alternative, quash the Threat Assessment Report of the Delhi Police filed in WP Crl 437/2018; (iv) Direct the Commissioner of Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs to conduct a de-novo, thorough and proper assessment of the threat to the life of the Petitioner after considering all the information, complaints, documents and evidence to be supplied by her; (v) Direct the Commissioner of Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately provide full protection to the Petitioner so as to ensure that the Petitioner is not harmed in any manner including by Policemen; (vi) Direct the Commissioner of Police, the DCP New Delhi and the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide immediate and full protection to the Petitioner after looking into the threat to her life based upon documentary evidence to be supplied by the Petitioner; (vii) Record the statement of the Petitioner that absolutely no security or protection is being provided to her by Delhi Police and that no PSO has been provided to the Petitioner from Vasant Kunj South Police Station and nor has the Petitioner accepted any such PSO; (viii) Record the statement of the Petitioner that she is not willing to accept any PSO from Vasant Kunj South Police Station and neither is she willing to accept any protection from or any interaction with any policeman/ policewoman from Vasant Kunj South Police Station including the beat constables posted in Rajokri as this will only increase the threat to her life; (ix) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. |
45. An order was passed in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 issuing notice. However, the Order dated 17 October 2023 contained the following mistakes.
1. The Order failed to record that the Petition was filed seeking registration of an FIR for forgery on the ground that the alleged Threat assessment report was a forgery. Instead, the Order dated 17 October 2023 misrecorded that the Petitioner “states that she has doubt on the veracity of the aforesaid report”. |
2. The Order dated 17 October 2023 failed to record that a prima facie case for forgery was made out on a bare perusal of the Threat assessment report. |
3. The Order dated 17 October 2023 misrecorded that the threat assessment report was dated Nil. This is incorrect. The document bears a date part of which is visible but which has been obscured deliberately. |
4. The Order dated 17 October 2023 misrecords that the “threat assessment has been carried out in compliance of the Order dated 01.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(Crl) 437/2018.” A document which on plain scrutiny appears suspect and which is missing crucial information cannot be taken cognizance of and which appears to be forged cannot be relied upon to make such statement. No threat assessment was carried out to the knowledge of the Petitioner. She was never contacted. |
5. The Order dated 17 October 2023 misrecords that “In the said report, it is stated that there is no reasonable or apparent threat to the Petitioner/Assessee from any quarter.” Why is the Court in a Writ Petition that claims that the Threat assessment report is forged, going on to record the alleged finding of the Report without first determining as to whether the document is genuine or forged. |
6. The case was wrongly marked to Justice Subramonium Prasad sitting in a Single Bench in violation of the court roster. The case was therefore transferred to a Division Bench later, on the Petitioner’s request. |
7. The Order dated 17 October 2023 is perverse, i.e., contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice. |
46. The Petitioner filed CM APPL 54952/2023 in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 for modification and correction of the Order dated 17.10.2023. This was listed on 3 November 2023, when instead of correcting the mistakes made in the Order dated 17 October 2023, Justice Subramonium Prasad recused. CM APPL. 54952/2023 remains pending and undecided to date.
47. Nevertheless, despite issuance of notice, the Police Respondents failed to appear in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 and failed to file counter affidavits, perhaps hoping to capitalise on the mistakes in the Order dated 17 October 2023 and to use the mistakes in that Order to cover up the filing of a forged document as a Threat assessment report.
48. The Petitioner was therefore constrained to file the following Contempt cases.
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 |
49. It is in these seven Contempt Cases, that the Order dated 8 May 2024 reproduced above, came to be passed.
50. The Delhi High Court Order dated 8 May 2024 takes note of the Written Submissions which were handed over by the Petitioner to the Bench on 8 May 2024. These are reproduced below.
Submissions on forged document described as the Threat Assessment Report 1. Filed in WP Crl 437/2018 with a Status Report purportedly signed by Manoj C. as DCP South West. The Status Report is undated. 2. The date of the document has been deliberately obscured. 3. The document number has been deliberately obscured. 4. The signature of the author has been deliberately obscured. 5. The stamp of the author has been deliberately obscured. 6. Alok Kumar’s name is shown as signatory and described as DCP Special Cell SR. 7. Alok Kumar was not a DCP in the Special Cell. Alok Kumar was only an Additional DCP in the Special Cell. 8. The document does not bear any stamp of the DCP South West who filed it. 9. The only stamps legible are those of Vasant Kunj South Police Station when there is no reason for this document to have been sent to Vasant Kunj South Police Station. 10. The Petitioner’s landlord’s name is incorrect. It should be Mamraj Yadav. Instead, it reads Mamchand Yadav. 11. The Petitioner’s address is incorrect. The Petitioner does not live in her landlord’s house. She is renting a separate walled compound at a short distance from the residence of the landlord. 12. The document records that “the threat assessment of the assessee Ms Seema Sapra has been carried out on the direction of PHQ’s received vide No. P/1010/3290/9456/XIII(B)PHQDelhi dated 19.06.23. This document has not been produced. This document does not exist. No such communication was sent to the Petitioner from the Police Head Quarters. 13. The Petitioner was never contacted about this alleged threat assessment exercise. No threat assessment has been carried out. 14. The statement that “Enquiry into the matter has been carried out by Special Cell (SR) which has revealed that there is no reasonable or apparent elment of threat to the assessee from any quarter” is false and untrue. The Petitioner was never contacted. No threat assessment has been carried out. The Petitioner faces a grave and immediate threat to her life. The filing of this forged document as a Police threat assessment report to obstruct the Delhi High Court protection order dated 1 June 2024 and the conduct of several DCPs in WP Crl 437/ 2018 and in WP Civil 13604/ 2024 establishes beyond an iota of doubt that State agencies including Delhi Police are being used to target and poison the Petitioner. The threat to the Petitioner’s life emanates from powerful persons who have dared to forge a police document and to file it in the Delhi High Court believing with impunity that they will escape any consequences. This points to the role of several lawyers. 15. The document contains a false statement that “Presently, 01 PSO (on round the clock basis) is being provided to her from PS Vasant Kunj South, Delhi.” This statement is false. And it amounts to perjury and is fabrication of false evidence. 16. Why is the Police falsely stating on record that a PSO has been provided to the Petitioner without having done so. This clearly points to an ongoing criminal conspiracy by the Police to eliminate the Petitioner using Delhi High Court proceedings. 17. It is clear that the threat to the Petitioner’s life emanates from as high as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah who helped cover up the Petitioner’s whistleblower corruption complaints against General Electric Company now known as GE Aerospace. 18. The document also falsely records that “This has the approval of Spl. CP/ Spl. Cell Delhi. 19. Why would a copy be given to SI R P Meena of Vasant Kunj South PS? 20. The alignment of the document’s contents is skewed. 21. Why is this document addressed to the Addl Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range. 22. Why is this document addressed to the Addl Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range (Through Inspr. X/PHQ). 23. There are several other stamps/ notings on the document which are deliberately obscured. 24. The only legible stamps are those of the Police Station Vasant Kunj South which was not the proper recipient of this document. 25. At the top of the document the Office is identified as Office of DCP Special Cell C&R Cell (S-IV) Special Cell Delhi. Below the alleged signature it reads Special Cell (SR). 26. Why does the word Delhi appear after “dated”? 27. The Petitioner submits that a prima facie case for forgery is made out. 28. WP Civil 13604/ 2024 was filed in October 2023. Almost 8 months have elapsed. A better copy of the document has not even been filed. All concerned DCPs are missing from the action in Court. Staff from the Vasant Kunj South PS which from the face of the document was involved in the forgery are impersonating as authorised officers and attending court proceedings in WP Civil 13604/ 2023. Seema Sapra Petitioner in Person 8 May 2024 |
51. The Order dated 8 May 2024 contained certain anomalies which are described below.
The forged document is erroneously described in the Order dated 8 May 2024 as “a communication which is stated to have been placed before the Court on 17 October 2023”. The correct position is that this document was filed on 6 October 2023 by lawyer Anand Khatri acting as Additional Standing Counsel Criminal for GNCTD as Annexure G (at page 128) to a Status Report filed on 6 October 2023 vide Diary No 1845020/2023 on the Court record of WP Criminal 437/ 2018, which Status Report was purportedly signed by Manoj C., IPS AGMUT 2011 in his then capacity as DCP South West Delhi. The Index (Table of Contents) of the Status Report filed by lawyer Anand Khatri in WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 6 October 2023 described Annexure G to the Status Report as Threat assessment report. Paragraph 7 of the Status Report filed on 6 October 2023 vide Diary No 1845020/2023 under the signature of DCP Manoj C. in WP Crl 437/ 2018 reads as follows: “That, the threat assessment report in respect of the petitioner Ms. Seema Sapra has also been carried out through Special Cell/ SR, which has been revealed that there is no reasonable or apparent element of threat to the Asesses/Petitioner from any quarter. However. Police security/ protection has been provided to the Petitioner. Assessment report submitted by the DCP Special Cell (SR) Delhi is annexed herewith as Annexure -G.” This document was annexed by the Petitioner to Civil WP 13604/ 2023. |
It would be more useful if the Order dated 8 May 2024 recorded that the Petitioner’s case is that this Threat Assessment report is a forged document for the reasons set out in Writ Petition Civil 13604/ 2023 and in the Written Submissions handed over by the Petitioner on 8 May 2024. The DCP filing the affidavit could then do so being fully informed as to the case to be answered by him and as to what kind of inquiry he needs to undertake before filing an affidavit. |
Since the present Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell (SR) is not the alleged author of the forged document, it would be more appropriate to direct the present Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell (SR) to make an inquiry and to thereafter state on affidavit as to whether the document is forged or genuine. The present Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell (SR) could also be directed to identify in his affidavit as to who is the Alok Kumar who has allegedly signed this document. The present Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell (SR) could also in his affidavit state as to who was the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Cell (SR) on and before 6 October 2023 (i.e., between June 2023 and 6 October 2023) and as to whether or not it was Alok Kumar. |
It would be more appropriate for the Court to ask Alok Kumar, the alleged signatory of the document to state on affidavit if the document is genuine or forged. The Court can also direct Alok Kumar to explain the genesis of the document if he has this knowledge. |
Paragraph 3 of the Order dated 8 May 2024 erroneously states that a “copy of the original communication which was produced before the Court”. The correct position is that this document was filed on 6 October 2023 by lawyer Anand Khatri acting as Additional Standing Counsel Criminal for GNCTD as Annexure G (at page 128) to a Status Report filed on 6 October 2023 vide Diary No 1845020/2023 on the Court record of WP Criminal 437/ 2018, which Status Report was purportedly signed by Manoj C., IPS AGMUT 2011 in his then capacity as DCP South West Delhi. A copy of this document was annexed to WP Civil 13604/ 2023 by the Petitioner. No original communication was produced before the Court. This statement in the Order dated 8 May 2024 is erroneous and likely to be misinterpreted. |
The portion in the Order dated 8 May 2024 reading “Any other related record concerned with the assessment of threat which was undertaken pursuant to the order dated 01 June 2023 passed by the Court in W.P. (Crl.) 437/2018” should instead have read any other record related to this document described as a Threat assessment report. This is what the Court had stated in Court while dictating the Order. Before determining the genuineness of the document, it is misleading to record that any assessment of threat was undertaken pursuant to the order dated 01 June 2023 passed by the Court in W.P. (Crl.) 437/2018. It would have been appropriate to direct the DCP to state on affidavit as to whether or not a threat assessment has been carried out, and if it was carried out, then what was the nature of the exercise and who carried it out. |
52. An affidavit of a Police Officer filed in Court has to be honest, forthright, accurate, and must address the important issues raised. The affidavit must not attempt to evade the issues and the relevant facts. It must not be cleverly drafted to mislead the Court. It must not omit relevant facts. The affidavit must indicate a clear understanding by the Deponent Police Officer of what questions, facts and issues he has been called upon by the Court to answer to and of the circumstances in which he has been asked to do so. A Police Officer cannot take advantage of mistakes and ambiguities in court orders and doing this establishes an intent to deceive.
53. The present petition is therefore being filed and is in the interest of justice.
54. Since 2012, a powerful group of lawyers hostile to the Petitioner who is also a lawyer, have collectively worked to interfere with the administration of justice in the cases filed by the Petitioner to seek justice.
55. The Petitioner has made whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company (now operating as GE Aerospace) in her capacity as former full-time in-house counsel for GE in connection with its tenders for the Railways diesel locomotive factory project at Marhowra in Bihar. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High Court seeking investigation of these complaints and seeking protection. That Writ Petition was also sabotaged by a group of lawyers. A perverse judgment was delivered in that writ petition on 2 March 2015 which was also vitiated by multiple frauds on the Court including the filing of forged and fraudulent authority documents in that case for General Electric Company and its two subsidiaries by the lawyers who claimed to represent GE. It is well-settled law that a court judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and therefore void ab-initio. It is therefore the Petitioner’s case that the Delhi High Court decision of 2 March 2015 in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 is null and void on account of it having been obtained by fraud on the Court. By way of example, a copy of one of the forged authority documents filed for GE India Industrial Private Limited in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 (Power of Attorney copy dated 8 December 2014 allegedly signed by Tejal Patil) by lawyer Nanju Ganpathy then a Partner in AZB & Partners is annexed hereto as Annexure A-7.
56. The Petitioner is also being targeted by this powerful group of lawyers because she has made complaints that she was drugged, sexually assaulted and sexually harassed by two powerful lawyers. The first lawyer is Raian N. Karanjawala who owns a powerful litigation law firm and who claims close friendship with the rich and the powerful including Rupert Murdoch, Ratan Tata, Gautam Adani etc. In 1995, the Petitioner started working in Raian Karanjawala’s law firm after he was recommended to her by Arun Jaitley as his good friend. The Petitioner had lost her father in 1995 while still in law school and this was perhaps the reason she was viewed by Arun Jaitley and Raian Karanjawala as an easy target/ victim. During a work trip to then Calcutta for a court matter for Lufthansa, Raian Karanjawala drugged the Petitioner over a group dinner (with other guests) in the Taj Bengal Hotel's Chinese restaurant, and while walking back to their respective rooms close to midnight, when the Petitioner was staggering and groggy and extremely sleepy, Raian Karanjawala asked the Petitioner if she wanted to join him in his room for a night-cap. The Petitioner said - No I need to sleep - and went into her room and passed out. She does not remember what happened next. Raian Karanjawala continued to use his employee Hari who handled the kitchen in the Defence Colony D-10 office to drug the Petitioner because he feared exposure and wanted to control the Petitioner. On one occasion, Raian Karanjawala told the Petitioner she would end up in a ditch. Raian Karanjawala then attempted to get rid of the Petitioner and eventually he is the person who encouraged the Petitioner who was being drugged by him to join the office of Soli J. Sorabjee who at that time was the Attorney General for India. It is obvious that Raian Karanjawala was aware that Soli J. Sorabjee was a sex predator and that is why Raian Karanjawala made sure that the Petitioner joined Soli Sorabjee’s office so that she could continue to be controlled. Soli J. Sorabjee (who died in 2021) was the Attorney General of India when he sexually assaulted the Petitioner by inviting her for dinner to his Neeti Bagh office, drugging her and then assaulting her by kissing and groping her and putting his tongue inside the Petitioner’s mouth all without consent, when the Petitioner (who was 40 years younger and then in her twenties) was working as an associate lawyer in his office as the Attorney General for India. The Petitioner pulled away from Soli Sorabjee’s grasp and left. Both Soli J Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala continued to have the Petitioner drugged in 2001 and even in 2002 in the UK where the Petitioner was pursuing her LLM at the University of Leicester. The Petitioner was not aware at the time that Raian Karanjawala and Soli Sorabjee were having her drugged as part of their attempts to control her. It is only recently and looking back at certain events in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 that the Petitioner has realised that she was most likely being drugged. A group of lawyers including Saurabh Kirpal and Anupam Sanghi were also used by Raian Karanjawala and Soli Sorabjee to control the Petitioner and to prevent her from speaking out. When the Petitioner was working with Raian Karanjawala, she also worked frequently with Rajiv Nayar, Arun Jaitley and Mukul Rohatgi who were all close friends. All of them were aware of Raian Karanjawala’s plan and attempt to sexually exploit the Petitioner. Soli J. Sorabjee, Raian Karanjawala, Rajiv Nayar, Arun Jaitley and Mukul Rohatgi have all been involved in the planned hounding of the Petitioner and in the destruction of the Petitioner’s life, reputation and career since 2010 and in the attempts to murder her. They have also been involved in the attempted cover up of the Petitioner’s whistleblower complaints against GE and in the sabotage of WP Civil1280/2012.
57. In WP Crl 437/ 2018 filed by the Petitioner, lawyers have been used to falsely impersonate as lawyers of Google LLC and to furnish false information to the Court including going to the extent of filing a forged document as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC. Annexed hereto as Annexure A-8 is a copy of the document (copy) filed by lawyer Mamta Rani Jha in WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 10 May 2019 under diary number 431938/2019. The Index describes this document as Certificate of Ms. Lily Kley under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed on behalf of Google LLC. It is submitted that this forged Section 65-B Certificate was filed to thwart any investigation into the persons/ entities behind the creation of an anonymous Blogger Blog created and published in 2014 to target the Petitioner -lawyer. The Blog which was available at the url http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.com/ until 2018, has now been removed/ deleted.
58. Lawyers from the law-firm named Inttl Advocare have been appearing in Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 for Google LLC without valid authority documents, without a valid Power of Attorney, and without a valid vakalatnama and are doing so in violation of several applicable and binding judgments of the Courts and of Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi Rules.
59. The following provisions of the Indian Penal Code are attracted for forgery and fabrication of evidence by the filing of this forged affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik in WP Civil 13604/2023
Relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code 463. Forgery.—3[Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 464. Making a false document.—3[A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any 4[electronic signature] on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the 4[electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or 4[electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, singed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.—Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with 4[electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his 4[electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.] 465. Punishment for forgery.—Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 466. Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.—3[Whoever forges a document or an electronic record], purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 1[Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "register" includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).] 470. Forged document.—A false 5[document or electronic record] made wholly or in part by forgery is designated “a forged 5[document or electronic record]”. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 5[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 5[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 5[document or electronic record]. 191. Giving false evidence.—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know. 192. Fabricating false evidence.—Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or 1[makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement,] intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”. 193. Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial2***is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A as given false evidence. Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. 196. Using evidence known to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence. 197. Issuing or signing false certificate.—Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 198. Using as true a certificate known to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.—Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. Explanation.—A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of sections 199 and 200. 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine. 202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 203. Giving false information respecting an offence committed.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 1[Explanation.—In sections 201 and 202 and in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of 2[India], which, if committed in 2[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460.] 204. Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence.—Whoever secretes or destroys any 3[document and electronic record] which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such 3[document or electronic record] with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 205. False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution.—Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.. Ins. by Act 2 of 2006, s. 2 (w.e.f. 16-4-2006). |
60. The corresponding relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are also reproduced below. Since the criminal conspiracy to commit the offence and the offence of forgery and filing of the forged affidavit span over the period of May, June and July 2024, the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita will apply.
Relevant Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2024 335. A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— (A) Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (i) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (ii) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (iii) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record; (iv) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or (B) Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or (C) Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. 336. (1) Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. (2) Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (4) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 337. Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court or an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or Aadhaar Card, or a register of birth, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “register” includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 339. Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 337 of this Sanhita, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section 338, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 340. (1) A false document or electronic record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated a forged document or electronic record. (2) Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record. 227. Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know. 228. Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”. 229. (1) Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. (2) Whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any case other than that referred to in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court. Illustration. A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a Court according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court. Illustration. A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed by a Court to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. 233. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence. 234. Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 235. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 236. Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 237. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. Explanation.—A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of section 236 and this section. 238. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false shall,— (a) if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration. A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine. 239. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. 240. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation.—In sections 238 and 239 and in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out of India, which, if committed in India, would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 103, 105, 307, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 309, sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 310, 311, 312, clauses (f) and (g) of section 326, sub-sections (4), (6), (7) and (8) of section 331, clauses (a) and (b) of section 332. 241. Whoever secretes or destroys any document or electronic record which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such document or electronic record with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. 242. Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.- |
61. The actions of Advocates Mehak Nakra, Anand Khatri, Sanjay Lao, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, DCP Manoj C., SHO Sahdev Kumar Rana, SI Chetan Rana and their unknown co-conspirators in filing a forged affidavit for DCP Amit Kaushik in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 amount to serious criminal offences attracting the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - 463 IPC Forgery, 464 IPC Making a false document, 465 IPC Punishment for forgery, 466 IPC Forgery of document used in Court proceedings, 470 IPC Forged document, 471 IPC Using as genuine a forged document, 191 IPC Giving false evidence, 192 IPC Fabricating false evidence, 193 IPC Punishment for false evidence in a judicial proceeding, 196 IPC Using evidence known to be false, 197 IPC Issuing or signing false certificate, 198 IPC Using as true a certificate known to be false, 199 IPC False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence, 200 IPC Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false, 201 IPC Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, 202 IPC Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, 203 IPC Giving false information respecting an offence committed, 204 IPC Secretion or Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence, 205 IPC False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution, 335 BNS Making a false document, 336 BNS. Forgery for Making a false document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person or with intent to commit fraud, 337 BNS forgery for misuse in judicial proceedings, 339 BNS Knowingly possessing forged document and intending its fraudulent use as genuine, 340 BNS dishonest use as genuine of forged document, 227 BNS Giving false evidence, 228 BNS Fabricating false evidence, 229 BNS Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence for use in judicial proceeding and intentionally giving false evidence and intentionally fabricating false evidence, 233 BNS corruptly using as genuine evidence known to be false or fabricated, 234 BNS Issuing or signing false certificate to be used as evidence, 235 BNS Giving false evidence by corrupt use of false certificate as true certificate, 236 BNS Giving false evidence by making false declaration, 237 BNS Giving false evidence by corrupting using false declaration as true, 238 BNS Causing evidence of offence to disappear and giving false information concerning offence with intent to screen offender, 239 BNS Intentionally omitting to give information concerning offence despite being legally bound to do so, 240 BNS Giving false information respecting an offence known to have been committed, 241 BNS Secreting or destroying evidence to prevent its production as evidence, 242 BNS False personation for legal proceeding.
62. It is imperative that FIRs be registered for these offences which have been committed and which continue to be committed to thwart the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/2023 and to shield the persons who created and filed the forged Threat Assessment Report in WP Crl 437/2018 with the false Status Reports of DCP Manoj C.
63. 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.
64. 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”.
65. It is evident that lawyers appearing for Delhi Police in WP Crl 437/ 2018 and in WP Civil 13604/2023 have colluded with the persons targeting the Petitioner and having her poisoned. Anand Khatri, Sanjay Lao, Santosh Kumar Tripathi and Mehak Nakra have facilitated the obstruction of the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/2023. These lawyers appearing as Counsel/ agents of the GNCTD constitute State agents and they have been party to the violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by their active and intentional participation in the ongoing attempted sabotage of WP Civil 13604/ 2023 and in the conspiracy carried out to shield the offenders who created and filed the forged Threat Assessment Report with intent to prevent compliance with the protection order for the Petitioner passed by Justice Vikas Mahajan on 1 June 2023 in WP Crl 437/ 2018.
66. 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 |
67. 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 Amit Kaushik producing another forged document which is 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 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 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.
68. Contempt Case 1177 / 2024 filed by the Petitioner on 26 July 2024 against DCP Amit Kaushik pursuant to his alleged affidavit dated 20 July 2024 filed in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 producing this second forged document as a fresh copy of the Police threat assessment report was listed for hearing in the Delhi High Court on 7 August 2024 and has been adjourned to 21 August 2024 to come up with WP Civil 13604/ 2023.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) Direct the registration of an FIR against lawyers Mehak Nakra Advocate BCD enrolment no. D/1729/2012, Anand Khatri Advocate, Sanjay Lao Advocate BCD Enrolment No. D/362/1994, Santosh Kumar Tripathi Advocate, Debajyoti Behuria Advocate and Notary, Police Officers DCP Manoj C., Inspector Sahdev Kumar Rana SHO Vasant Kunj South, Sub Inspector Chetan Rana, Sub Inspector Ram Prasad Meena, and other unknown co-conspirators for forgery of the document filed as affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik on 20 July 2024 in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil 13604/2023 and for filing of a forged affidavit and for fabrication of evidence;
(ii) Direct the registration of an FIR against lawyers Mehak Nakra Advocate BCD enrolment no. D/1729/2012, Anand Khatri Advocate, Sanjay Lao Advocate BCD Enrolment No. D/362/1994, Santosh Kumar Tripathi Advocate, Debajyoti Behuria Advocate and Notary, Police Officers DCP Manoj C., Inspector Sahdev Kumar Rana SHO Vasant Kunj South, Sub Inspector Chetan Rana, Sub Inspector Ram Prasad Meena, and other unknown co-conspirators for filing a forged document in Delhi High Court WP Civil 13604/2023 falsely described as affidavit of Amit Kaushik DCP Special Cell SR for Offences committed and attracting the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - 463 IPC Forgery, 464 IPC Making a false document, 465 IPC Punishment for forgery, 466 IPC Forgery of document used in Court proceedings, 470 IPC Forged document, 471 IPC Using as genuine a forged document, 191 IPC Giving false evidence, 192 IPC Fabricating false evidence, 193 IPC Punishment for false evidence in a judicial proceeding, 196 IPC Using evidence known to be false, 197 IPC Issuing or signing false certificate, 198 IPC Using as true a certificate known to be false, 199 IPC False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence, 200 IPC Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false, 201 IPC Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, 202 IPC Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, 203 IPC Giving false information respecting an offence committed, 204 IPC Secretion or Destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence, 335 BNS Making a false document, 336 BNS. Forgery for Making a false document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person or with intent to commit fraud, 337 BNS forgery for misuse in judicial proceedings, 339 BNS Knowingly possessing forged document and intending its fraudulent use as genuine, 340 BNS dishonest use as genuine of forged document, 227 BNS Giving false evidence, 228 BNS Fabricating false evidence, 229 BNS Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence for use in judicial proceeding and intentionally giving false evidence and intentionally fabricating false evidence, 233 BNS corruptly using as genuine evidence known to be false or fabricated, 234 BNS Issuing or signing false certificate to be used as evidence, 235 BNS Giving false evidence by corrupt use of false certificate as true certificate, 236 BNS Giving false evidence by making false declaration, 237 BNS Giving false evidence by corrupting using false declaration as true, 238 BNS Causing evidence of offence to disappear and giving false information concerning offence with intent to screen offender, 239 BNS Intentionally omitting to give information concerning offence despite being legally bound to do so, 240 BNS Giving false information respecting an offence known to have been committed, 241 BNS Secreting or destroying evidence to prevent its production as evidence;
(iii) Direct the Commissioner of Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately provide full protection to the Petitioner so as to ensure that the Petitioner is not harmed in any manner including by Policemen;
(iv) 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;
(v) 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 ON: 21 August 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
Amit Kaushik DANIPS 2010 & Others …Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, D/o Late Amolak Raj Sapra, age 53 years presently living on rent in premises in 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.
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 21st day of August 2024.
DEPONENT
No comments:
Post a Comment