To ASG Delhi High Court Mr Chetan Sharma, Mr Mohd. Muqeem Incharge Litigation Union of India (UOI), and other concerned Counsel and Officers
Attached is a copy of Writ Petition 11165/ 2024 Seema Sapra versus Alphabet Inc and Others in Delhi High Court. Given the gravity of the matter, a senior, upright and competent Central Government Standing Counsel needs to be nominated for this matter, who will appear in this matter with integrity after obtaining proper instructions from the concerned Ministry/ Department. I am filing a Writ Petition against the Department of Legal affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India for deliberately attempting to cover up in my cases, for UOI lawyers not appearing, or for cases being fraudulently marked to very junior lawyers and thereby endangering my life and facilitating ongoing attempts to murder me. I am a lawyer. There is an issue of threat to life. I am being poisoned. Delhi High Court protection orders issued to the DCP South West to protect me dated 1 June 2023 (in WP Crl 437/2018) and 28 August 2024 (in WP Civil 11164/2024) are not being complied with. I have copied the Department of Legal Affairs of the UOI on this email as well as the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. The Commissioner of Police is also copied on this email. Seema Sapra Advocate S ee below and attached.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 11165 OF 2024 IN THE MATTER OF Seema Sapra … Petitioner Versus Alphabet Inc & 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. Alphabet Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 USA 2. Google LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 USA 3, Sundar Pichai Chief Executive Officer Alphabet Inc and Google LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 USA 4. Halimah DeLaine Prado General Counsel Google LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 USA 5. Google India Private Limited CIN U72900KA2003PTC033028 No 3, RMZ Infinity - Tower E, Old Madras Road, 4th & 5th Floors, , Bangalore, Karnataka, India - 560016. 6. Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government Of India North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi – 110001 7. Secretary, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology Government of India Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003 8. Commissioner of Delhi Police Police Headquarters, Jaisingh Road New Delhi India 9. Central Bureau of Investigations through the Director, CBI Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003. India 10. DCP SOUTH WEST POLICE HEADQUARTERS JAISINGH ROAD N-DELHI 11. DCP, NEW DELHI POLICE HEADQUARTERS JAISINGH ROAD N-DELHI 12 SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SPECIAL CELL POLICE HEADQUARTERS JAISINGH ROAD N-DELHI 13 Registrar General, Delhi High Court Sher Shah Suri Marg, New Delhi 14 Lieutenant Governor of Delhi 6 Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 15 Hemant Singh Advocate BCD Enrolment No. D/107/1982 Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132 Noida Expressway, Noida 201303 National Capital Region of Delhi 16 Mamta Rani Jha Advocate BCD Enrolment No. D/3007/1999 Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132 Noida Expressway, Noida 201303 National Capital Region of Delhi 17 Shruttima Ehersa Advocate BCD Enrollment No. D/364/2017 Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132 Noida Expressway, Noida 201303 National Capital Region of Delhi 18 Rohan Ahuja Advocate Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132 Noida Expressway, Noida 201303 National Capital Region of Delhi 19 Yashwant Rai Grover Advocate R/o 194 Jor Bagh Delhi 110003 Office at Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132 Noida Expressway, Noida 201303 National Capital Region of Delhi 20 Gitanjli Duggal Legal Director Google India Private Limited No 3, RMZ Infinity - Tower E, Old Madras Road, 4th & 5th Floors, Bangalore Bangalore KA IN 560016 gitanjli@googte.com 21 General Electric Company Now operating as GE Aerospace Headquartered at 1 Neumann Way Evendale, OH 45215 United States 22 Bar Council of Delhi 2/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi-110049 23 Jim Pinter Present Grievance Officer for India Google LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 USA E-Mail: support-in@google.com 24 Bar Council of India 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110 002 25 Mehak Nakra Advocate BCD enrollment no. D/1729/2012 Chamber No. 423 Block-I, Delhi High Court, Delhi 26 Anand Khatri Advocate Chamber No. 422, Block I Delhi High Court, Delhi 27 Sanjay Lao Advocate BCD Enrollment No. D/362/1994 Chamber No. 422, Block I Delhi High Court, Delhi 28 Santosh Kumar Tripathi Advocate Chamber no 423 Block-I, Delhi High Court, Delhi 29 Rahul Mehra Advocate BCD Enrollment No. D-378/ 1998 52 A Uday Park New Delhi RESPONDENTS Filed by Petitioner in Person Seema Sapra Advocate BCD Enrollment No. Rajokri, Delhi 9 August 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 11165 OF 2024 IN THE MATTER OF Seema Sapra … Petitioner Versus Alphabet Inc & 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 FOR FILING OF A FORGED DOCUMENT IN DELHI HIGH COURT WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL 437/2018 BY LAWYER MAMTA RANI JHA UNDER DIARY NUMBER 431938/2019 ON 10 MAY 2019 AND WHICH HAS BEEN FALSELY DESCRIBED AS ‘A CERTIFICATE OF MS LILY KLEY UNDER SECTION 65 B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 ISSUED BY GOOGLE LLC’ AND FOR REGISTRATION OF FIR FOR FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND OTHER CONNECTED OFFENCES APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS The Petitioner abovenamed respectfully submits as under: 1. Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 filed by the Petitioner is pending in the Delhi High Court. It was transferred to the Delhi High Court by the following order of the Supreme Court dated 29 January 2018. ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.4 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1200/2017 SEEMA SAPRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.135103/2017-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 29-01-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) The Court made the following O R D E R In the nature of the prayers made in this writ petition and having heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, we find no special reason as to why the petitioner should not pursue the grievances before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner prays that the petition itself may be sent to the Delhi High Court for being registered as a Writ Petition. We see no reason to deny such a request. Therefore, the Registry is directed to transmit the papers to the Delhi High Court for being appropriately dealt with. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR |
2. The relief sought in Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 is reproduced below. (i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to ask Google, i.e., Respondents 5 and 6 to immediately remove this anonymous blog from Blogger as it violates the right to life and other fundamental rights of the petitioner-whistleblower and complainant of sexual harassment; (ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate as to who created and procured the creation of this anonymous blog titled “Seema Sapra Alert” and published at http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/ (iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate into the use of the email address seemasapraalert@gmail.com and its use to target the petitioner who is a whistleblower against General Electric Company Company and a complainant of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment and sexual assault against Soli J Sorabjee; (iv) Direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to register FIRs against the creators and procurers of this blog and the associated email ID for the crimes committed against the petitioner listed hereinabove in the writ petition and to investigate these crimes in accordance with law and to bring criminal charges against all those involved in procuring, abetting and committing these crimes against the petitioner; (v) Direct the Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to take legal action against the violation of the Petitioner’s right to life and her other fundamental rights by the creators and procurers of this anonymous blog; (vi) To pass such other orders and further orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. |
3. Since 2018, 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 Writ Petition Crl 437/ 2018 and to prevent the registration of FIRs in order to protect the persons who planned, created and used this blog to target the Petitioner. 4. 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-1 5. 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. 6. The present writ petition is concerned with the ongoing obstruction of the administration of justice in WP Crl 437/ 2018. The Petitioner is filing a separate detailed list of dates showing how the administration of justice has been interfered with and subverted in WP Cr4l 437/ 2018. The modus operandi has been very similar to that used in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 in which case the lawyers involved thought they had gotten away with the fraud played on the court by using lawyers to falsely impersonate as lawyers for GE using forged authority documents. In WP Crl 437/ 2018, 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. The present Writ Petition seeks an FIR for forgery, for fabrication of evidence, and for unlawful impersonation in court proceedings in respect of this forged document filed as a Section 65 B Certificate (copy) for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018. 7. Annexed hereto as Annexure A-2 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 to this filing bears the signature of Mamta Rani Jha or of someone who has signed for her. 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. 8. It is submitted that this document attached hereto at Annexure A-2 filed by lawyer Mamta Rani Jha in WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 10 May 2019 under diary number 431938/2019 is a forged document. 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. 9. The Petitioner relies upon the contents of Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018. 8. 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 9. Lawyers from the law-firm Inttl Advocare who have appeared or have entered appearance for Google LLC in the Writ Petition Criminal 437/2018 include the lawyers listed on the Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018 and described as Advocates of the law-firm Inttl Advocare having its Office at Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector – 132, Noida Expressway, Noida 201303, National Capital Region of Delhi INDIA Phone +91 120 2470200 - 298 (Extn. 124) inttl@inttladvocare.com The lawyers listed on the vakalatnama are the following: Mr Hemant Singh Ms Preetika Singh Ms Mamta R Jha Mr Manish Mishra Ms Shilpa Arora Mr Pranav Narain Mr Waseem Shuaib Ahmed Mr Abhijeet Rastogi Mr Vipul K Tiwari Mr Ankit Arvind Ms Shruttima Ehersa Ms Akansha Singh Mr Rohan Krishnan Ms Saumya Gupta Ms Shreya Khandelwal |
10. In addition to the above Advocates, certain other lawyers have appeared or entered their appearance in WP Crl 437/ 2018 for Google LLC and their names are mentioned in various court orders. These include the following: Mr Sajan Poovayya Sr. Advocate Ms. Priyadarshi Bannerjee Ms. Roshnara Rauf Mr. Pratibhanu S. Kharola Ms. Sakshi Shalini Ms. Sakshi Jhalani Mr Rohan Ahuja Mr Vatsalya Vishal Ms Amishi Sodani |
11. Despite the mention of so many names in the Vakalatnama and in Court orders, the three lawyers who have actually appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 are Sajan Poovayya Sr Advocate, Mamta Rani Jha and Shruttima Ehersa. Shruttima Ehersa has been the constant and has argued for Google LLC except when Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appeared. 12. The filings in WP Crl 437/ 2018 by lawyers Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa on behalf of Google LLC include the following: 13. The Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 that has been produced in favour of Mr Yashwant Rai Grover (who has signed the vakalatnama in WP Crl 437/ 2018) as Constituted Attorney of Google LLC is on its own terms valid only for Civil Proceedings pending before Courts of Civil Jurisdiction. This Power of Attorney is therefore not valid for Criminal Writ Petition 437/2018 being heard by the Delhi High Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction. This Power of Attorney therefore could not have been used in WP Crl 437/ 2018 or relied upon to execute the vakalatnama in WP Crl 437/ 2018 which are criminal proceedings. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover had no authority to act as the Constituted Attorney for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018. The Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018 executed by Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is therefore invalid on this ground alone. Relevant extract from the Power of Attorney “NOW THESE PRESENTS WITNESS that the Company hereby nominates, constitutes and appoints Yashwant Rai Grover, Son of Rohit Kumar Grover, resident of 194, Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110003 (hereinafter referred to as the "Attorney") to be the Company's true and lawful attorney, and in the name of the Company, and on its behalf, to do the following acts, deeds, matters or things in connection with any civil suit(s), petition(s) or any legal proceeding(s) initiated and (or) pending against the Company before the Civil Courts including any authority or tribunal or civil forums (hereinafter referred to as the "Court(s) of Civil Jurisdiction") in India,” |
14. The Power of Attorney in favor of Advocate Yashwant Rai Grover dated 8 March 2018 contains the following statement: “I further state that neither the present Power of Attorney nor any past Power of Attorney or document executed on behalf of the Company may be deemed to either render the Attorney as an agent for service on or for receiving any summons or notices or any documents or pleadings in any manner on behalf of the Company”. The Petitioner submits that neither Mr Yashwant Rai Grover nor any lawyers appointed under a vakalatnama signed by him had any authority to accept any notice or document or pleading on behalf of Google LLC. 15. The Delhi High Court issued notice in WP Crl 437/ 2018 to Google LLC and Google India by order dated 12 February 2018. 16. On 21 March 2018, the Petitioner received the following email from Ms Mamta Rani Jha of Inttl Advocare. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mamta <mamta@inttladvocare.com> Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:44 PM Subject: SEEMA SAPRA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, W.P. (CRL) 437/2018 PENDING BEFORE HIGH COURT OF DELHI [Our Ref: HC/2175] To: sapraconsultants@gmail.com <sapraconsultants@gmail.com>, seema.sapra@gmail.com <seema.sapra@gmail.com> Cc: Hemant Singh <hemant@inttladvocare.com>, Pranav Narain <pranav@inttladvocare.com>, Shruttima Ehersa <shruttima@inttladvocare.com> Dear Ms. Sapra, We represent our client Google LLC, Respondent No. 5, in the captioned matter. For any further communication, you may please contact us. With warm regards, Mamta Rani Jha Partner & Head – Litigation |
17. The Order passed on 27 April 2018 in WP Crl 437/ 2018 is reproduced below. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 437/2018 SEEMA SAPRA ... Petitioner Represented by: Petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr.Sajan Poovayya, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Priyadarshi Bannerjee, Ms.Mamta R.Jha and Ms.Shruttinaa, Advocates for respondent No.5 Insp.Sanjay Kumar, PS Saket CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA O R D E R 27.04.2018 No steps have been taken for service of respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6. However, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 enters appearance. The main prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is removal of the anonymous blog from blogger at Google titled as ‘Seema Sapra Alert’ and published at ‘http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/’. Considering the contents of the blog which are totally uncalled for and unwarranted, respondent No.5 is directed to remove the anonymous blog as noted above. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has entered appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents No.5, respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter, no notice be issued to respondent No.6. In the meantime, respondents No.1 and 2 be served through the Standing Counsel, Union of India and respondent No.3 be served through the Standing Counsel (Criminal), Govt. of NCT of Delhi by the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3. Copy of the petition be supplied to learned Standing Counsel within two days. Status Report be filed before the next date. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 assures that any cooperation which is required in the investigation of the matter, will be rendered to respondent No.3. List on 1st November, 2018. MUKTA GUPTA, J. APRIL 27, 2018 |
18. The Petitioner submits that the lawyers who appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 27 April 2018 did so without authority and without a valid vakalatnama. These lawyers were Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priyadarshi Bannerjee, Ms. Mamta R.Jha and Ms. Shruttima Ehersa. The submissions and statements made by Mr Sajan Poovayya to the Court during this hearing on 27 April 2018 on behalf of Google LLC were unauthorised. 19. The following statement was made by Mr Sajan Poovayya on behalf of Google LLC during the hearing of WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 27 April 2018. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has entered appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents No.5, respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter, no notice be issued to respondent No.6. |
20. It is submitted that neither Mr Sajan Poovayya nor his briefing counsel had any authority to appear for or speak for Google LLC (respondent 5) in WP Crl 437/ 2018, and that this statement made by Mr Sajan Poovayya to the Court during the hearing on 27 April 2018 was not only unauthorised but also inaccurate. An incorrect statement was made by Mr Sajan Poovayya that participation of Google India (respondent 6) was not necessary in the Writ Petition Crl 437/ 2018. Because of this unauthorised and incorrect statement made by lawyers who had no authority to make this statement or to represent or make submissions on behalf of Google LLC, the Court did not issue notice to Google India. The resulting absence of Google India from the proceedings in WP Crl 437/ 2018 has facilitated the fraudulent attempted sabotage of that Writ Petition and the filing of a forged document as a Section 65 B Certificate (copy) of Google LLC. 21. The Petitioner has in WP Crl 437/ 2018 requested the Court that fresh notice be issued both to Google LLC and Google India in WP Crl 437/ 2018. The proceedings in WP Crl 437/ 2018 are pending. 22. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover, the Constituted Attorney of Google LLC under the Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 is an Associate in the Law-firm Intll Advocare. The Power of Attorney states that it will terminate once Yashwant Rai Grover is no longer an employee of the firm or no longer serves in the same capacity at the firm. It can be assumed that the reference to the “firm” in the Power of Attorney is to the law-firm Intll Advocare. Mr Hemant Singh is the Founder and Managing Partner of Intll Advocare. Ms Mamta Jha is Senior Partner in Intll Advocare. Ms Shruttima Ehersa is an Associate in Intll Advocare. 23. The Petitioner submits that the law is clear that the same person cannot simultaneously act as the Constituted Attorney of a Party and also as the counsel/ advocate of that Party before a Court of Law in India. The word “person” in this proposition would include a Law Firm Partnership and its partners/ members as well as all retained/ salaried lawyers, including non-partner associates of the firm. For this proposition of law, the Petitioner relies upon (i) the Delhi High Court decision in Anil Kumar and Anr vs Amit rendered on 17 November, 2021; (ii) the Delhi High Court decision in Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (47) PTC 296 (Del); and (iii) on the relevant Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi Rules. The relevant extract from Anil Kumar and Anr vs Amit is reproduced below. “6. The question these petitions was whether Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni, who was acting as the power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff, Mr. Amit Ved/Plaintiff/Respondent herein (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and had verified the plaint on behalf of the said Plaintiff could appear also as a counsel in the matter. In C.R.P. 75/2020, vide order of the Court dated 13th July, 2021, Mr. Sahni submitted that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama and continue as the power of attorney holder and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff. He again assures this Court that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama in the Trial Court proceedings and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff in this matter. He submits that he shall take steps within 2 weeks for substitution of the Vakalatnama by a new counsel. 7. It is made clear that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients, as also as advocates in the matter is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Any advocate who is engaged by a client would have to play only one role, i.e., that of the advocate in the proceedings and cannot act as a power of attorney holder and verify pleadings and file applications or any other documents or give evidence on behalf of his client. This aspect has to be scrupulously ensured by all the Trial Courts. This legal position has been settled by various decisions. In Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (47) PTC 296 (Del), the Court held: "Thus as is manifest from the said rule, it would be a professional misconduct if a lawyer were to don two hats at the same time. However not only that, the partnership firms have a hurdle for acting in the said two capacities even under The Partnership Act, as every partner in a partnership firm is an agent of another and if one were to be acting as an advocate for a client, the rest would also be in the same capacity by virtue of agency and the same would be the situation in case of an advocate acting as a client. However, it cannot be forgotten by any who has ever been graced with the honour of wearing the robe that the lawyer is first an officer of the court and his prime duty is to assist the court in the administration of justice. The rules of conduct as per the Bar Council Of India Rules may act as a guardian angel for ensuring the moral conduct of the lawyers but the legacy of the traditions of the Bar cannot be bedaubed by a few for the lucre of commercial gains. A lawyer cannot forget that this is called a noble profession not only because by virtue of this he enjoys an aristocratic position in the society but also because it obligates him to be worthy of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of achieving justice. The rules of conduct of this profession with its ever expanding horizons are although governed by the Bar Council of India Rules but more by the rich traditions of the Bar and by the cannons of conscience of the members of the calling of justice of being the Samaritans of the society. Thus the foreign companies and firms must respect the laws of this land and the solicitors and law firms are equally not expected to discharge their duties as clients for these foreign companies/firms. Law is not a trade and briefs no merchandise and so the avarice of commercial gains should not malign this profession. Hence there can be no divergent view on the legal proposition that an Advocate cannot act in the dual capacity, that of a constituted attorney and an advocate." |
24. The Power of Attorney filed for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 is in favour of Mr Yashwant Rai Grover as Constituted Attorney. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is an associate lawyer in the law firm Intll Advocare. Therefore, other lawyers of Intll Advocare including its Managing Partner, other Partners, and Associates could not have appeared and cannot appear as Counsel for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018. The Vakalatnama executed by Intll Advocare Lawyer Mr Yashwant Rai Grover in favour of his employers and colleagues at Intll Advocare for WP Crl 437/ 2018 and filed in that matter is invalid, unlawful and against Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi rules. 25. All the lawyers associated with the law-firm Intll Advocare whose name appears on the vakalatnama or who have appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437 2018 or whose name appears in Court Orders as having appeared for Google LLC had/ have no authority to represent Google LLC as Counsel in WP Crl 437/ 2018 before the Delhi High Court. All Court appearances by them and all submissions/ representations/ filings made by them in WP Crl 437/ 2018 in the Delhi High Court were made without authorization by Google LLC and therefore cannot be accepted by the Court. 26. Lawyers Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa have also filed a forged document as a copy of what has been described as a certificate dated 2 May 2019 of one Ms Lily Kley under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018. This is a forged document, is fraudulent and is an unauthorised filing which cannot be accepted by the Court. 27. The lawyers from Intll Advocare Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa have not only appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 without a valid vakalatnama or legal authorization, thereby falsely impersonating as counsel for Google LLC, but they have also attempted to scuttle any investigation, have misdirected the Court and the Police, and have participated in the fabrication and filing of false evidence. 28. Points to note about the document (annexure A-2 to the present Petition) described as Section 65 B Certificate (copy) filed for Google LLC in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 which establish that it is a forged document. A. The document is filed in Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 pursuant to Order dated 20 March 2019 passed in WP Criminal 437/ 2018. The document/ certificate however incorrectly states in paragraph 3 that the information has been extracted pursuant to the order passed In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in civil suit number 437/2018. This factual error alone is sufficient to make this document/ certificate suspect. This is a material factual error going to the root of the authenticity of this document. The Petitioner submits that it is incomprehensible that Google LLC which would only issue a Section 65 B certificate after multiple vetting by several in-house and external legal counsel would make such a basic factual error. | B. The document refers to attached documents in the plural in several places but only a single page is attached. In para 4, the words “attached documents” and “copies” appear. In para 5, the words “attached documents” and “records” appear. In para 6, the word “printouts” appears. | C. The Certificate is neither notarised nor apostilled even though it has been executed outside India. All documents executed outside India are required by law to be apostilled. Further what has been filed is a photocopy. | D. The place of execution is shown as Google LLC instead of a geographic location. | E. This document has been filed by lawyers who have and had no legal authority to represent or appear as counsel for Google LLC in Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 and whose vakalatnama is defective for the reasons indicated hereinabove, and who were/ are falsely impersonating as authorized counsel for Google LLC for WP Crl 437/ 2018. |
29. Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced below. Section 65B. Admissibility of electronic records. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:-- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether-- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, -- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section, (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; -- (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation. -- For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process. |
30. Lawyers from the lawfirm Inttl Advocare Hemant Singh, Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa, Rohan Ahuja, and Yashwant Rai Grover have been used to sabotage the Petitioner’s efforts to obtain justice and to obstruct the administration of justice in Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 instituted by the Petitioner. They have falsely impersonated as authorised counsel for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018. They have deceived the Court. They have produced an invalid vakalatnama and an invalid power of attorney. They have filed a forged document as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC in WP Criminal 437/ 2018. 31. This Blog titled Seema Sapra Alert was created in 2014 to target the Petitioner even while Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 was being heard in the Delhi High Court. From the contents of what was posted on the Blog, it is clear that the intent of the persons who procured and created this Blog was to smear and target the Petitioner. They had detailed information on the Petitioner and her complaints and a highly distorted version was published on the blog. They had legal knowledge. It is clear that GE Executives, Montek Singh Ahluwalia and some lawyers including A S Chandhiok, Soli Sorabjee, Arun Jaitley, Rajiv Nayar, Zia Mody, Raian Karanjawala, Mukul Rohatgi and others were behind the creation of this blog. The Blog invited people to connect on an email seemasapraalert@gmail.com to conspire on how to target the Petitioner. The blog used a picture of the Petitioner. 32. After Writ Petition Crl 437/ 2018 was registered in the Delhi High Court, a group of lawyers entered into a criminal conspiracy with other persons to sabotage this case and to obstruct the administration of justice. Rahul Mehra who was then Standing Counsel Criminal GNCTD was a part of this criminal conspiracy. The Petitioner has reason to believe that the lawyers involved in the creation, publication and use of this blog to target the Petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with lawyer Hemant Singh to obstruct the administration of justice in WP Crl 437/ 2018. Hemant Singh who is the Managing Partner of Inttl Advocare and who regularly appears for Google in cases before the Delhi High Court was roped in to falsely impersonate as the counsel for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 with the intention of furnishing false information to the Court so as to scuttle any investigation. Hemant Singh used his colleagues Mamta Rani Jha and Shruttima Ehersa to impersonate Google LLC’s lawyers in WP Crl 437/ 2018, to file an invalid vakalatnama, to file an invalid power of attorney, to furnish false information to the court, to file this forged document as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC, and to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice in WP Crl 437/ 2018. 33. This forged Section 65 B Certificate was filed to obstruct the administration of justice in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 and to obstruct the investigation into the persons/ entities responsible for creating the anonymous Blogger Blog at url http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.com/ which was used to target and destroy the Petitioner’s life and career and to facilitate physical attacks on the Petitioner and to facilitate the poisoning of the Petitioner; 34. This forged Section 65 B Certificate establishes a pattern showing that lawyers are being used to sabotage the legal proceedings instituted by the Petitioner and to obstruct the administration of justice in her cases with the intent to prevent the Petitioner from accessing justice, and establishing that the threat to the life of the Petitioner also issues from a powerful lobby of lawyers acting in concert and who are using other lawyers to target the Petitioner. 35. The filing of this forged document as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) not only further establishes the gravity of the threat to the life of the Petitioner but has also become the source of an independent threat to the Petitioner’s life as the lawyers behind this forgery are also targeting the Petitioner. 24. Annexed hereto as Annexure A-5 is a copy of written submissions filed by the Petitioner in WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 10 May 2023 under diary number 825863/2023. 25. Annexed hereto as Annexure A-6 is a copy of written submissions filed by the Petitioner in WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 19 May 2923 under diary number 914741/2023. 26. The following provisions of the Indian Penal Code are attracted for forgery and fabrication of evidence by the filing of this forged document in WP Crl 437/ 2018 falsely described as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC and for false impersonation in Court proceedings. 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). |
27. The corresponding relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are also reproduced below. Some of the Offences that are made out on the facts are continuing offences and the relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita will also 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 |
| 20 attachments |  | | Annexure A 7 filed with alleged affidavit July 2024 close up.jpeg
6K |
|  | | Annexure A 7 iled with alleged affidavit July 2024.jpeg
64K |
|  | | Annexure A 8 filed with status report Oct 2023 close up.jpeg
6K |
|  | | Annexure A 8 filed with status report Oct 2023.jpeg
73K |
|  | | Annexure A 2 65 B certificate along with BSI.pdf
108K |
| | | Annexure A 1 Gmail - Documents as requested.pdf
116K |
| | | Annexure 2 Gmail - Documents as requested.pdf
116K |
| | | Annexure A 3 VAKALATNAMA BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 5 (2).pdf
112K |
|  | | Annexure A 5 Written Submissions filed 10 May 2023.docx
35K |
| | | Annexure A 6 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS filed 19 May 2023.docx
35K |
| | | annexure A 4 List of Documents dated 23.01.2019 (2).pdf
760K |
| | | Annexure 1 Filing dated Jan 20, 2015.pdf
2049K |
| | | Annexure A 1 Filing dated Jan 20, 2015.pdf
2049K |
| | | LOD short.docx
19K |
| | | NEW INDEX GOOGLEW WRIT.docx
19K |
| | | urgent application.docx
18K |
| | | memo of parties.docx
29K |
| | | WPC 11165 of 2024.docx
80K |
| | | WPC 11165 of 2024.pdf
382K |
| | | 28 Aug 2024.pdf
1206K |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment