1

March 19, 2014 To, 1). Hon. President of India Rashtrapati Bhavan New Delhi 110004. 2). Hon. Chief Justice OF India Hon. Supreme Court of India Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110 001. 3). Hon. Chief Justice Hon. Bombay High Court Fort, Mumbai 400032. 4). Director, C.B.I, Room No. 114, North Block, New Delhi 110001.

5). CBI Joint Director - Zone-I Tanna House, Nathalal Pareekh Marg, Colaba, Mumbai 400039.

Comlainant:

Mrs. Mohini Naraindas Kamwani, 79 year old Senior Citizen Widow of Freedom Fighter 101, Mauli Society, 1ST Floor, A Wing, Plot No. 29C, Sector No. 4, Vashi , Navi Mumbai – 400703

SUBJECT:

1)

IMMEDIATE REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE C. B. I. AGAINST HON.

JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR. 2) IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA

BHATKAR OUT OF STATE DURING PENDENCY OF ENQUIRY.

2

3)

FORWARDING REFERENCE TO HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT FOR TAKING ACTION

AGAINST HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR UNDER CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT AS PER LAW LAID DOWN IN SPENCER & COMPANY LTD – Vs- VISHWADARSHAN DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD (1995) 1 SCC 259 FOR THEIR WILLFUL DISREGARD AND DISOBEDIENCE OF LAW LAID DOWN BY HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT. 4) FORWARDING REFERENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST HON.

JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR FOR THEIR PROVED MISBEHAVOUR, INCAPACITY AND BIASED TREATMENT TO 79 YEAR OLD SENIOR CITIZEN WIDOW OF FREEDOM FIGHTER PETITIONER AND ALSO VIOLATING THE MANDATE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT EQUALITY BEFORE LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. Hon. Sirs, 1. I, the Petitioner Mohini Kamwani, am a Citizen of India and a law abiding Citizen. 2. I AM A 79 YEAR OLD WIDOW OF FREEDOM FIGHTER WHO WAS INCARCERATED WITH M.K. GANDHI IN 1942 QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT. 3. I had severed our relation Legally with my Married Daughter Sumita Karani and her family in 2007 by giving them Legal Notice in Vashi Times, because they had looted and cheated us and destroyed us financially leading to Deaths of my Husband and Son and Suicide by my 2nd Unmarried Daughter Gita in 2007. 4. But again from August 2010 to December 2010 my Grandson Manoj Karani started Threatening us by coming to our house and Demanding my Bank Account No. and Signatures to loot us again. 5. On 23.12-2010, we went to Vashi Police Station to file FIR against Karani family, but Police asked us to give everything in Writing. On 24-12-2010, we approached then Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner Mr. Javed Ahmed who refused to take our complaint. Then we went back to Vashi Police Station who only registered an N.C. 6. As no action was taken against Karanis, I complained to higher Authorities, but still no action was taken. 7. So I sat on Hunger Strike at Azad Maidan from 16-01-2012 to 24-01-2012.

8. On 25-01-2012 Vashi Police arrested me & my 2nd Son Dilip Kamwani illegally and Jailed us for 4 days at Kalyan Jail in a False Case that we were going to commit Suicide – BECAUSE I HAD COMPLAINED AGAINST POLICE TO HIGHER AUTHORITIES THAT POLICE WERE NOT REGISTERING MY FIR AGAINST MY ACCUSED RELATIVES WHO WERE THREATENING ME !!! 9. After getting out of Jail, on 07-05-2012 I filed a Criminal Writ Petition no. 1857/2012 in Bombay High Court and that Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar were the Presiding Judges who delivered the Final Judgment Order on 13-6-2013.

3

10.

I the Petitioner had filed Amendments in the said Crim.WP 1857/2012 and Prayed for

Contempt proceedings against the Police and proceedings for filing False Affidavits, Statements, Reports, etc. in High Court and JMFC Vashi Court and doing Forgery and Perjury, WHICH WERE PROVED BY NONE OTHER BUT HONEST JUDGE HON. JUSTICE A.S. OKA AND WHO ALSO PASSED 2 CLEAR ORDERS DATED 20-11-2012 AND 23-11-2012 CLEARLY STATING FORGERY AND PERJURY BY POLICE. 11. That EVEN AFTER THESE 2 HC Orders, the Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula

Bhatkar, neither allowed our Prayers nor rejected it but Dismissed those Prayers without any Reason. This is an Offence u/s 218, 201, 219 of IPC. 12. This is also an Offence under Contempt of Court‟s Act for Not following guidelines of Hon.

Supreme Court. 13. BRIEF FACTS OF MY CASE

(A). 79 year Petitioner Mohini Kamwani and her son Dilip Kamwani aged 58 were Illegally Arrested and Incarcerated for 4 days at Kalyan Jail on 25-1-2012, in Blatant Violations of D.K. Basu Vs. State of Bengal 1997 SC Arrest Guidelines, in a False Case filed by Vashi Police in a Criminal Conspiracy by 2 Vashi SPIs, DCP and Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner, filing a False Affidavit in JMFC Vashi Court that Petitioner Mohini Kamwani and her son were going to Commit Suicide; because Mohini Kamwani had sent 100+ Complaints to Higher Authorities from 2011 about Police Not registering her FIR against her Accused relatives, Karanis, who were Threatening her from August 2010 and Demanding her Bank a/c no. and Signatures to Loot her AGAIN, even though Mohini Kamwani had Severed her Relation Legally with her relatives since 2007 due to their Past atrocities, Looting and Financial Destruction leading to the untimely Deaths of Petitioner‟s Husband, young 2nd son and Suicide by her 2nd unmarried Daughter Gita in 2007. (B). After coming out of Jail, Petitioner Mohini Kamwani filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1857/2014 in Hon. Bombay High Court on 7-5-2012, annexing several Prima Facie Documentary Evidences as Exhibits, including above Exhibit “A”, and other stating Criminal Conspiracy by Police Protecting my Rich and Powerful Accused Karani Family and Mohini Kamwani has clearly Prayed for the Suspension and Prosecution of the Police. (C). That the HONEST JUDGE Justice Shri Abahay S. Oka CAUGHT the Police LYING in the False Affidavit dated 3-8-2012 filed by my Accused Vashi SPI Raosaheb Sardesai and passed 2 Orders dated 20-11-2012 and 23-11-2012 Clearly stating “The affidavit filed (by SPI R. Sardesai) is totally unsatisfactory” and directed that the concerned officer (SPI R. Sardesai) to remain present on 23.11.2012 along with entire record.” and Detecting Police FORGERY in Police Station Diary entry No.26, stated “We have perused the original arrest form of the petitioner and her son. Prima facie,

4

it appears to us that endorsement that arrestees declined to sign the same has been subsequently made as the handwriting appears to be different than the handwriting in which various details have been filled in. In any case, additional affidavit cannot be permitted to be filed to fill up any lacuna”. Hon. Justice A.S. Oka and S.S. Shinde also stated in the said Order that Prima Facie case is made out by Petitioners (us) that directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] have not been complied with. (D). On 29-8-2012, Petitioner had filed a Rejoinder to SPI R. Sardesai‟s FALSE Affidavit, clearly stating that my complaint was about Threats by Accused Karanis and NOT about Rs. 1.36 Crore, as also FALSELY Alleged by Police Respondents, and that we were NOT going to Commit Suicide. (E). On 22-2-2013, my Accused 2nd Vashi Police SPI Laxman Kale, AGAIN, filed 3rd False Affidavit, even after 2 above HC Orders; but Hon. Justice P.V. Hardas, who was assigned our case from 112-2013 along with Hon. Justice Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, have Deliberately NOT mentioned a word about the Falsity of this Police Affidavit, Nor about the Criminal Conspiracy of DCP P. Purushottam Karad attaching as Exhibit A in this False Affidavit a False Reply to Hon. Bombay High Court on behalf of ADG Ahmed Javed, in the Final Judgment Order dated 13-6-2013; even though Petitioner Mohini Kamwani has:

(i). Added a Clear Prayer in Para 23 in her Amendment dated 27-2-2013 TO HON. JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS…”23. I request to Add/Amend this in my Prayers – as continuation – Prayer (k) Suspension and Prosecution of Respondent No.1 Laxman Kale and Raosaheb Sardesai and Respondent No.2, DCP Vashi Zone 1, for Lying and sending False and Malafied Replies/Reports to Higher Authorities including to Hon. Bombay High Court Registrar (Legal & Research) as Exh „A‟ in PSI Laxman Kale‟s Affidavit to this Hon. Court dated 22-02-2013 about Manoj Karani and family to Protect them and deny Justice to me, a 79 year Sr. Citizen Widow Complainant and get me Arrested And Jailed.

(ii). Repeatedly Added the same above mentioned Prayers in her Rejoinder dated 1-3-2013 TO HON. JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS in Para 4-5 and also in Para 11 – PRAYER/S: I am 79 today, I am awaiting Final Judgment. Respondents are trying all the Dubious methods to Delay my matter and submit False Sworn affidavits and False Replies to my Submissions and go into the merits of the case by submissions/arguments on MSHRC, NCW, my alleged claim of Rs. 1.36 Crore a Civil Matter, etc., EXCEPT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MY PETITION, which is our Illegal Detention and Arrest my son‟s handcuffing…. I also Humbly Pray, Your Lordships, pending Final Judgment, to Suspend Respondent No.1 Laxman Kale and PSI Raosaheb Sardesai and Respondent No.2, DCP Vashi Zone 1 and their Prosecution as per my Prayers (a), (b), (e), (f), (i).

5

(iii). Added the same Prayers in her Amendment 3 dated 28-3-2013 TO HON. JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS Para 37, adding the Name of Respondent No.3 Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner “37. Petitioners humbly requests following Prayers to be Amended/Added: (s) Pending hearing and final disposal we request this Hon. Court be pleased to direct that officers of Respondents No.1 Vashi SPI Laxman Kale and Vashi SPI Raosaheb Sradesai, Respondent No.2 DCP Zone I Navi Mumbai and Respondent No.3 Navi Mumbai Commissioner of Police be suspended and prosecuted for illegally detaining, arresting and seeking detention order and Judicial Custody from the Learned Magistrate of Hon. JMFC Vashi Court on False Sworn Affidavit/chargesheet/submissions”.

(iv). Added the same Prayers in her Amendment 4 dated 30-3-2013 TO HON. JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS – with stating that Respondent Police officers have done Perjury, Forgery etc. and also in Para 43. “Your Lordships, we would like to humbly request the Learned APP through this Hon. Court, and that we wish no offence to her/him, that along with being the counsel for the Respondent Police officers, she/he is also an officer of the court and a woman and a human being; she/he should see the Truth and stop the Respondent Police officers from filing any further False Sworn Affidavits to misguide this Hon. Court and hamper our Justice delivery, …and also as Respondent Police officers have already done Perjury in my case by submitting False Sworn Affidavits in Hon. JMFC Vashi Court which has been Proved by the orders dated 20-11-2012 and 23-11-2012 of this Hon. Court after thorough Perusal of the Station Diary/other Records by the Hon. Court, and again False Affidavits filed by Respondents Raosaheb Sardesai and Laxman Kale in this Hon. Court attaching False Reports/Replies of Respondent No.2 DCP P. Karad as Exhibit, who has been Lying since 2011…”

(F). On 13-6-2013, Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar gave us the Final Judgment Order ONLY awarding us a Compensation of Rs. 3 Lac each, but No action of Prosecution or Proceedings against the 4 Guilty Police Officers for their Criminal Offences like filing False Affidavits, Cases, Statements, Contempt of SC/HC/JMFC Vashi Court, as Prayed by us through various Amendments, thus Protecting them from any Punishment.

14.

In order to prosecute the said Judges Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar

and to save the pure fountain of justice from further pollution and also with a view to put lid on arbitrary exercise of power by corrupt Judges of Higher Judiciary I send complaint as my National duty and pious obligation as enshrined in Article 51 (A) (h) of the Constitution of India. 15. Moreover in view of the law laid down in Ramlal –vs- State 2001 Cri.L.J. 800 for

registration of Criminal case against a High Court Judge sanction is not necessary. In another case of Shri. Shameet Mukharjee –Vs- C.B.I. 2003 DRJ (70) 327, the corrupt High Court Judge was arrested and detained to PCR for 12 days.

6

In the case of Ramanlal –Vs- State 2001 Cri. L. J. 800, it has been held that, the High Court Judge is liable to be prosecuted in view of Sec. 120 (B) of I.P.C. if he supports the conspirators. It has been held that, 2001 Cri. L.J. 800 A] Cri. P.C. Sec. 197 – Sanction for prosecution – Accused are Additional High Court Judge, Suprintendant of Police Sanjeev Bhatt and others – The accused hatched conspiracy to falsely implicate a shop owner in a case under N.D.P.S. Act and when shop owner submitted to their demands he was discharged – Complaint u.s. 120-B, 195, 196, 342, 347, 357, 368, 388, 458, 482, I.P.c. and Sec. 17, 58 (1), (2) of NDPS Act – Held – there is no connection between official duty and offence – No sanction is required for prosecution – Registration of F.I.R. and investigation legal and proper. B] Cri. P.C. Sec. 156 – Investigation against accused Addl. High Court Judge – Whether

prior consultation with Chief Justice is necessary prior filling of F.I.R. against a High Court Judge as has been laid down by Supreme Court in K. Veerswami‟s case (1991) (3) SCC 655) – Held – In K. Veerswami‟s case Supreme Court observed that the Judges are liable to be dealt with just the same as any other person in respect of criminal offence and only in offence regarding corruption the sanction for criminal prosecution is required – the directions issued by Hon‟ble Supreme Court are not applicable in instant case. C] The applicant – Ram Lal Addl. High Court Judge hatched criminal conspiracy – The

Bar Association submitted a representation to Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India on 11-09-1997 requesting to not to confirm Raman Lal as Judge of the High Court – Later on he was transferred to Principal Judge of city Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad – S.P. (C.I.D.) Jaipur sent a questionnaire through the registrar, Gujrat High Court to accused Addl. High Court Judge – Chief Justice granted permission to I.O. to interrogate – Later on I.O. sent letter to applicant to remain present before Chief Judicial Magistrate at the time of filing the charge-sheet – Applicant filed petition before High Court challenging it – Petition of applicant was rejected by High Court and Supreme Court in limine – No relief is required to be granted to petitioner in view of the facts of the case. D] Conspiracy – I.P.C . Sec. 120 (B) --Apex Court made it clear that inference of conspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it become difficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from act or illegal omission committed by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator become the act of the other – A conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable – proceeding against accused can not be quashed. E] Jurisdiction – Continuing offence – Held – When Complainants allegations are of stinking magnitude and the authority which ought to have redressed it have closed its eyes and not

7

even tried to find out the real offender and the clues for Illegal Arrest and harassment are not enquired then he can not be let at the mercy of such law enforcing agencies who adopted an entirely indifferent attitude – Legal maxim Necessitas sub lege Non contineture Quia Qua Quad Alias Non Est Lictum Necessitas facit Lictum, Means necessity is not restrained by laws – Since what otherwise is not lawful necessity makes it lawful – Proceeding proper cannot be quashed. In present case learned Judges misused his power to help the accused and tried to harass the complainant hence, he is co-conspirator in the main crimes and therefore, liable to be punished as per Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 16. MOREOVER THE SERIOUS ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT IT

REQUIRES THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AT THE HANDS OF C.B.I. FOR DISCLOSING THE COMPLETE CONSPIRACY IN THE MATTER. 17. It is worth to mention here that JMFC Vashi Learned Magistrate, who was also one of the co-

Conspirator of Police and my Accused Relatives Karanis and who sent us to Judicial Custody for 3 days at Kalyan Jail, has been SUSPENDED by the Hon‟ble High Court, AS WE COMPLAINED TO HON. SUPREME COURT AND HON. HIGH COURT AGAINST HIM, along with others. 18. Apart from the details of allegations given in the complaint the petitioner would like to bring

to the notice of President of India, Hon‟ble Chief Justice & C.B.I., the malafides, clear illegalities and clear biasness on the part of Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar which are essential for the charges under Section 218, 201, 219, etc. r/w 120B of I.P.C.

THE CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT & INCAPACITY OF HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR

19. CHARGE NO. 1 # I.P.C. 218, 201, 219, ETC. MISUSE OF POWER TO SAVE THE ACCUSED.

THAT HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS SHOCKINGLY TOLD THE PETITIONERS THAT THE POLICE HAVE NOT DONE ANY CONTEMPT OF HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THUS PROTECTING OUR 4 RESPONDENT POLICE OFFICERS, when Petitioner‟s son Humbly told the Hon. Court: (i). that the Police have filed a False Affidavit under Oath in a False Case in JMFC Vashi Court to OBTAIN a Favorable Order of Judicial Custody for Petitioners; (ii). and also filed 2 False Affidavits in Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Justices Shri A.S. Oka and Shri S.S. Shinde have clearly stated in the Order dated 20-11-2012 “The affidavit filed (by SPI R. Sardesai) is totally unsatisfactory” and that the Order also states that the “Prima Facie case is

8

made out by Petitioners that directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] have not been complied with; (iii). That the Police have also done Forgery in Police Station Diary entry No. 26 which was Caught by None other but Hon. Justices Shri A.S. Oka and Shri S.S. Shinde as stated in their Order dated 23-11-2013; (iv). That the Police have Violated Hon. SC Arrest Guidelines of D.K. Basu Vs. State of Bengal 1997; SO THE ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD BE SUSPENDED AND PROSECUTED FOR ABOVE MENTIONED OFFENCES AND CONTEMPT OF COURTS; BUT HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR NEITHER ALLOWED OUR PRAYERS NOR REJECTED IT BUT DISMISSED THOSE PRAYERS WITHOUT ANY REASON. This was an act done to SAVE the Accused Police Officers.

Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of AIR 1921, Bom. 115 held that, AIR 1921 Bom. 115 “IPC 218:-The gist of the section is stifling of truth and the perversion of the course of justice in case where an offence has been committed, to screen any particular person. It is sufficient that he knows it to be likely that justice will not be executed and that someone will escape from punishment”

The Apex Court in a decision in the case of Smt. S.R. Venkatraman vs. Union of India and Anr. Reported in (1979) 2 Supreme Court cases 491, wherein while considering the question of malice in law by quoting the observations of Viscount Haldanein the decision in the case of Shearer vs. Sheilds reported in (1914) AC 808, it has been observed by Apex Court in paragraph no.5 of the said decision: “5……. Malice in law is however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it as follows in Shearer v. Shields: A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind; he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of his mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently. Thus malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause.”

20. CHARGE NO. 2 #

9

CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF DIRECTION OF HON. SUPREME COURT 3-JUDGE BENCH, BY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR: Petitioners submitted various Case Laws and Citations on 8-4-2013, to Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, the Presiding Judges, through our Submission titled: Filing of case laws/precedent judgments as case citations on record by way of „Purshish‟ and our „Written notes of Arguments‟, WHICH WERE OF CASES WHERE COURTS HAD PROSECUTED AND OR SENTENCED THE ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS FOR FILING FALSE SWORN AFFIDAVITS IN COURTS, DELIBERATE INACTION BY POLICE TO REGISTER FIR, SUMMONING A WOMAN TO POLICE STATION FOR INQUIRY (79 YEAR PETITIONER MOHINI KAMWANI IN THIS CASE), HANDCUFFING A PETITIONER (DILIP KAMWANI IN THIS CASE), ETC; BUT Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar neither discussed nor even the Citations were Referred in the Final Judgment Order dated 13-6-2013. Moreover refusing to explain the authorities/case laws in the Final Judgment is clear violation of law laid down by 3-Judge Bench of Hon. Supreme Court in Dwarkesh Industries vs. Prem Heavy Engineering 1997 SCC (6) 450 where it has been laid down that: Judicial Adventurism – High Court ignoring various laws settled by Supreme Court – Held When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial ordor which is clearly contrary to the setded legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wronful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops. It is unfortunate, that notwithstanding the authoritative pronouncements of Supreme Court, the High Courts and the courts subordinate thereto, still seem intent on affording innumerable opportunities for dealing with this area of law, thought by Supreme Court to be well settled.- order of High Court set aside – The appellant granted to costs quantified at Rs.20,000”.

Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bathija and others vs. The Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 Supreme Court held that: Constitution of India, Art. 141 – PRECEDENTS – Judges are bound by precedents and procedure – They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority – where a single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a bench of co-rdinate jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a larger Bench. It is subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure – it is the duty of judges of superior courts and tribunals to make the law more pre- dictable. The question of law directly arising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The law

10

must be made more effective as a guide to behaviour. It must be determined with reasons which carry convictions within the Courts, profession and public. Otherwise, the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise their clients. Subordinate courts would find themselves in an embarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinions. The general public would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimately falls into disrepute – One must remember that pursuit of the law, however glamorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench (Paras 17, 20).

21. CHARGE NO. 3 # HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SAVED MY ACCUSED 4 POLICE OFFICERS – EVEN AFTER MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (DEPT. OF JUSTICE0) SENT A LETTER TO THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Justice also sent a Letter No. L-15012/5/2012-Jus dated 16-102012 to Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Justice P.V. Hardas asked the Petitioner to show the Court the Complaint sent by the Petitioner to Ministry of Law and Justice, which the Petitioner showed saying that she had Complained to Hon. Prime Minister and the Hon. PMO had sent the Petitioner‟s Petition dated 21-08-2012 to Ministry of Law and Justice, where the 79 year Petitioner has shown Fear of being KILLED by her Accused Police Officers and Accused Relatives Karanis, because she has filed a Case against them in High Court + Police filing False Affidavits; But still Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar did not take the matter Seriousely and initiated no Proceedings against Police. This resulted in 2 unknown persons beating up Petitioner‟s son Dilip Kamwani on 26-10-2013 and when he went to Complain about it in Vashi Police Station, the Constable Deshmukh did not file his complaint but beat him up and Fractured his Left Thumb. Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar have mentioned this incident in the Final Judgment Order dated 13-6-2013, BUT AGAIN PROTECTED THE POLICE BY NOT EVEN MENTIONING HIS NAME AND ONLY ASKING THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE AND REGISTER FIR AGAINST 2 UNKNOWN PERSONS AND SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THE HON. COURT. 22. CHARGE NO. 4 # That Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas was the Presiding Judge from February 2013 and heard my Petition and Arguments 3 times while 2 more Hon. Judges were changed and upto April 2013 till 13-6-2013, Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar were the Hon. Judges, who delivered the BIASED Final Judgment PROTECTING my Accused Police Officers by NOT Prosecuting them for filing False Affidavits and Contempt of Court.

23. CHARGE NO. 5 #

11

MY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS WERE PROMOTED AND GIVEN MEDALS EVEN AFTER THEIR CRIMINAL OFFENCES WERE PROVED BY NONE OTHER BUT HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BECAUSE HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SAVED THE CORRUPT POLICE. That Petitioner also Informed the Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, that BECAUSE THE HON. JUDGES HAD NOT INITIATED ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OUR ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS, HENCE our Accused Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner Ahmed Javed was PROMOTED as ADG Law & Order Maharashtra in 2012 and Accused Vashi SPI Laxman Kale, who Arrested us Illegally Blatantly Violating D.K. Basu 1997 SC Arrest Guidelines, was given a DGP‟s Medal on 1-5-2013 and PROMOTION as SPI in-Charge of Vashi Police Station on 28-5-2013 (he was API Nerul Police Station), JUST BEFORE THE FINAL JUDGMENT ON 13-6-2013; WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT, PROBABLY, THE FINAL JUDGMENT WAS “INFLUENCED AND DICTATED” BY OUR POWERFUL ACCUSED: THE STATE, SENIOR POLICE OFFICERS AND OUR RICH AND POWERFUL ACCUSED KARANI FAMILY, BECAUSE Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar DID NOT INITIATE ANY PROCEDDINGS AGAINST NONE OF THE 4 GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS FOR PERJURY, FORGERY, CONTEMPT OF COURTS, ETC., AS REPEATEDLY PRAYED BY THE PETITIONERS THROUGH THEIR VARIOUS AMENDMENTS AND HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR PROTECTED THE GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS.

24. CHARGE NO. 6 # VIOLATION OF OATH TAKEN AS HIGH COURT JUDGES AND VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR. The Constitution of India Schedule III Articles 75 (4), 99, 124 (6), 148 (2), 164 (3), 188 and 219 provides that forms of Oaths or Affirmation No. VIII is as follows: “ Form of oath or a affirmation to be made by the Judges of a High Court.” I, A.B., having been appointed Chief Justice (or a Judge) of the High Court at (or of) ---------------- do that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, [that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India] that, I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, Knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or illwill and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Article 14 of the constitution of India makes it mandatory to give equal treatment to all citizens (1956 Cri. L.J. (Bom.) Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amnachalam Swami -Vs- State AIR 1956 Bombay 695 held that,

12

“(Para 4)

Mr. Kavelkar is right when he urges that Article 14 assures to the citizen equality

not only in respect of a substantive law but also procedural law, and if any procedure is set up which deprives a citizen of substantive rights of relief and defence the citizen is entitled to complain of this procedure if two persons equally situated the older procedure is still available where these substantive rights of relief and defence were secured.” In the Final Judgment of my CrimWP No. 1857/2012, Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, neither discussed nor even Referred the Citations and neither allowed our Prayers nor rejected it but Dismissed those Prayers without any Reason, when we have clearly Prayed for Contempt proceedings against the Police and proceedings for filing False Affidavits, Statements, Reports, etc. in High Court and JMFC Vashi Court and doing Forgery and Perjury, THEREBY PROTECTING OUR ACCUSED 4 GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS.

25. CHARGE NO. 7 # EVEN THOUGH 79 YEAR PETITIONER MOHINI KAMWANI MADE CLEAR PRAYERS THAT SHE HAS SERIOUS THREAT OF LIFE FROM HER ACCUSED NAVI MUMBAI POLICE OFFICERS - HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR DID NOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS. That the Petitioner has clearly made SERIOUS Prayers in her Amendment 4 dated 30-3-2013, to Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, that she is 79 year old poor Widow and that she and her family has Serious Threat of Life from her Accused Navi Mumbai Police Officers, as the same Police Officers have been found involved with a Murder Accused Suresh Bijlani, suspected conspirator of Murdered Sunil Kumar Lahoria and that he was also a Complainant like us and our Accused SPI Laxman Kale was the IO in his Police Complaint and he was later MURDERED and that our Accused Relatives Karani Family have Close Relations with the Murder Accused Suresh Bijlani, his neighbors staying in the same Building in Vashi, Bombay Annex, for the past 30 years; BUT STILL Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar took No Prosecution Action against the 4 Guilty Police Officers.

26. CHARGE NO. 8 # CLEAR VIOLATION AND NON IMPLEMENTATION IN OUR CASE OF ILLEGAL ARREST AND JAILING, BY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, OF 1997 HON. SUPREME COURT ORDER OF PUNISHMENT TO GUILTY POLICE OFFICERS WHO VIOLATE D.K. BASU SC ARREST GUIDELINES AS PER PARA 36 OF SC ORDER:

YOUR LORDSHIPS, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE, THAT When clear violation of Supreme Court dierection in D.K.Basu,s case is found then HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR were bound to initiate Contempt proceeding Suo

13

Motu. Same procedure is followed by another Bench of this Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gurudas Gaonkar ..Vs. .. State through P. P. 2012 ALL MR (CRI.) 2280 . As per judicial propriety and as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh it is mandatory to all court/Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction to have consistent opinion on same set of fact and law .Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Shri Srinivasa Cut Pieces Cloth Shop, Rajahmundri, (A.P.) & Anr.Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.2004 ALL MR ( Cri ) 1802 ruled that the court of Co-ordinate jurisdiction should have consistant openion on same set of facts and point of law. If this procedure is not followed then instead of achieving harmony it may lead to judicial anarchy as different person approaching different Judge may get different orders in like matters. But Justice Hardas violated this procedure and there is biasness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. IMPORTANT: OTHER HON. BENCHES HAVE TAEN SUO MOTU ACTION OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IN D.K. BASU VIOLATIONS CASE, BUT IN OUR CASE HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR DID NOT INITIATE SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, NOR EVEN AFTER OUR REPEATED PRAYERS AND PLEADINGS.

FOR THAT the Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar ought to have followed the consequences, laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1997(1) SCC 416 which has categorically stated that in addition to departmental proceedings, contempt proceedings ought to be initiated against the persons guilty of violation of guidelines issued in the said judgment. It is held in para 36 as under: “36. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of Court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.”

That Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar have Clearly PROTECTED our Accused 4 Police Officers by NOT taking the Consequencial action as per Hon. Supreme Court Order for our Illegal Arrest and Jailing.

FOR THAT Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar failed to appreciate that merely granting compensation is not sufficient when there is gross violation of fundamental rights. It is the duty of the Hon. Judges to see that the crime should not go unpunished and the police authorities who have been held guilty of abuse of their police powers and of taking of law in their hands, in total disregard to the basic human values and rights which are guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the constitution, should be punished in accordance with law.

14

27. CHARGE NO. 9 # FRAUD ON POWER PASSING THE ORDER BY IGNORING MATERIAL ON RECORD BY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR: That NONE other than this Hon. Court has itself found the Forgery, Perjury done by my Accused Police Officers vide Orders dated 20-11-2012 and 23-11-2012 and Blatant Violations of D.K. Basu vs. West Bengal 1997 SC Arrest Guidelines and Petitioner has also Prayed for the Suspension and Prosecution of the 4 Guilty Police Officers for filing False Affidavits and Contempt of Courts, but Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar neither allowed our Prayers nor rejected it but Dismissed those Prayers without any Reason. This clearly shows the Misuse of Power by the Hon. Judges TO PROTECT MY 4 ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS.

Hon"ble Supreme Court (3-Judge Bench) in the case of Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union of India 2004 (3) Crimes (SC) 33 held that "Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bonafide for end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith . The former arises when on authority misuses its power in breach of law , by taking in to account bonafide, end with best intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matter that would render the impugned act or order powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengenence of a minister as in S. Pratap Singh - Vs - State (AIR 1964 SC 733) A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motived by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise Use of power for on alien purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is malafide use of power. Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power. It was said by Warangton C. J. in Short - Vs - Poole corporation (1926) 1 ch 66 that: No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives would certainly be held to be inoperative. In Lazarus Estates Ltd - Vs - Beasely (1956) 2 QB 702 at Pp 712-13 Lord Denning L.J. Said "No judgment of a court no order of Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud , fraud unravels everything ".(emphasis supplied See also in Lazarus case at p.722 per Lord Parker C.J. "Fraud" Vitiates all transactions know to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.

15

(Para 10 ) Similar is the view taken by this court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh - Vs Savitridevi and ors. (2003 (8) ) SCC 319) Wherein this court speaking through one of us (Sinha J.) Held thus: "Fraud as is well known vitates every soleman act .Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent representation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudlent misrepresentation is called deceit and in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessy causing him to believe an act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representation which he knows to be false and injury ensues there from. Although the motive from which the representation proceeded may not have been had. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void - ab -intio Fraud and deception is synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any o flair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. 2004 (3)crimes (SC) 33

28. CHARGE NO. 10 # HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR DID NOT FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF HON. SUPREME COURT AND HENCE SAVED MY 4 ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS:

Petitioner and her son Clearly informed the HON. JUDGES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR that my Accused Senior Police Officers then Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner Ahmed Javed, DCP P. Karad, Principal Secretary Home Dept. and the State had NOT filed any Reply Affidavit in 1 year and Hon. Justice P.V. Hardas asked the APP whether any one of them want to File the same and the Learned APP replied Negatively and that the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the Petitioners was neither disputed nor denied by the Accused Police Officers or any of the Accused by filing any counter Affidavit and hence the Hon. Judges were duty bound to accept our contention as final in view of law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court (3-Judge Bench) in the case of Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 All SCR O.C.C. 193 where it has been laid down that, “(Para 115) Where mala fides are alleged it is necessary that the person against whom such allegations are made should come forward with an answer refuting or denying such allegations. For otherwise such allegations remain unrehutted and the Court would in such

16

a case he constrained to accept the allegations so remaining unrebutted and unanswered on the test of probability. That precisely is the position in the present case, in the absence of any counter-affidavit by any of the respondents. One should have thought that the Minister for Works and Housing should have sworn an affidavit accepting or denying the allegations made by the petitioners. At our instance, M. K. Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing has filed a supplementary affidavit ……….”

29. CHARGE NO. 11 # HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR‟S INABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTY EVEN WHEN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE IN A Crim.WP FILED BY A 79 YEAR POOR WIDOW:

The Petitioner has clearly pointed out in her Petition that their Fundamental, Legal, Constitutional and Human rights and the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life were Violated in the matter of Articles 22, 20, 21, 1, 226, and 14, 19; and also, in her Amendments and Rejoinders, clearly Pointed out the Fact that she is 79 and has a Mentally Challenged Daughter and the Police Arrested her Illegally in a False Case by Filing False Affidavits because she Complained to Higher Authorities against Police for their Non Registration of FIR against her Rich and Powerful Accused relatives Karani family Threatening her and she has Serious Threats to her and her family‟s Lives and Liberty and Prayed for Suspension and Prosecution of 4 Guilty Police Officers otherwise they will take More Revenge from her and her family; BUT STILL Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar neither allowed our Prayers nor rejected it but Dismissed those Prayers without any Reason.

This raises a question that whether a person who can not perform his duty as a Judge can be allowed to continue as a Judge of the High Court and the fundamental legal rights of the citizens be put in to jeopardy. In another landmark judgement in the case of „Dr. „X‟ Vs. Hospital ( Z ‟ 1991 (1) ALL MR 469 (SC) Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that, “(para 43) ………………………… Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, .. Fundamental Right under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for the reason that moral consideration’s cannot be kept at bay and the Judges are not expected to sit as mute structures of clay, in the Hall, Known as Court Room, but have to be sensitive, “in the sense that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day ”

17

(See : Legal Duties : Allen) The totality of above settled law makes it clear that the Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar are unable to perform their duty of Judge and to do the justice and therefore they are liable to be removed from their post and they are also liable for strict punishment which will be deterrent to others also.

The False affidavits filed by my 2 Accused Police Officers were ex- facilely proved. This fact was neither disputed nor denied by the persons filing false Affidavits before Hon‟ble High Court. The accused did not file their apology. The Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar were bound to punish them in view of specific law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme court in the case of U.P. Resident Employeed Co-Op. House Building Society and others Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 586. Also in view of law laid down by Division Bench of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.A. Shelar Vs. M.S. Menon 2002 Cri. L.J. 788 & Manlavak Singh Vs. Rmakirit AIR 1940 Pat 631 etc. But Hon. Justices did not pass any order on that, with ulterior motive to help my 4 Accused Police Officers, EVEN THOUGH THE HON. JUSTICES KNEW THAT THE PETITIONER AND HER SON WERE FIGHTING THEIR OWN CASE AS PETITIONERS IN-PERSON AND THEY DID NOT HAVE AN ADVOCATE. Our Prayers were neither allowed nor rejected. It is settled principle of law that the discretion given to Judge are not unfettered discretion but it has to be guided by sound principles of law. The Judge/Magistrate who exercise discretion are expected to bear in mind that: "Discretion when applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor, it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular" [Tinqley-vs- Dalby, 14 NW 1461 "An appeal to a Judge]s discretion is an appeal to his judicial conscience. The discretion must be exercised, not in opposition to, but in accordance with established principles of law." Gudianti Narsimha -Vs- Public Prosecutor. High Court 1978 Cri. L.J. 502. "The Judge, even when he is free, is stili not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure He is not a Knight - errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to 'the primordial necessity or order in the social life.

18

The Nature of the Judicial Process - Benjamin Cardozo, Yale University press (1921)] But Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar misused their discretion to save my 4 Accused Police Officers.

"Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless ". In another judgment Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Suga Ram -Vs- State 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 546 (SC) held that, “[para 7] Leave much to be desired Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. Vs. Battan and Ors. (2001(10) SCC 607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982 SC1215) the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar Lai Singh Vs. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987(2) SCC 222). Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the highest Court in n State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M. R. in Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971(1) A11E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree (1974 LCR120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphirvc” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi- judicial performance.

19

The conduct of Judge in not following the directions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court amounts to contempt of Supreme Court as has been held by Apex Court in the case of Robindra Nath Singh -Vs- Rajesh Ranjan 2010 (3) SCC Cri. 165.

In fact whenever any offence pertaining to administration of justice is committed and more particularly when it is regarding interpolation of orders by the Judge then in fact is duty of the Government pleader to take effective steps for prosecution of guilty Judge. As every citizen belongs to state and even the permission to end his own life is not granted to any citizen.

In this regard it must be noted that in an identical case in --------AIR 1971 SC 1708 it has been held that,

if the Judge made some interpolation in his order then he is liable to be prosecuted under section 167, 465, 471 etc of I.P.C. and the complaint was in fact filed by the Govt. pleader.

However no such steps were taken by the Govt. pleaders office of High Court, Bombay. This fact requires a thorough investigation because Petitioner Mohini Kamwani sent various Complaints about the Final Judgment to Hon. CJI-SC and CJ-Bombay High Court but no steps were taken which the law makes obligatory for the Govt. Pleader.

30. CHARGE NO. 12 # HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR JOINING CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND OTHER CRIMNAL OFFENCES AND THEREBY COMMITING OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 120-B OF I.P.C:

In the case of Ramanlal –Vs- State 2001 Cri. L. J. 800, it has been held that, the High Court Judge is liable to be prosecuted in view of Sec. 120 (B) of I.P.C. if he supports the conspirators. It has been held that, Conspiracy – I.P.C . Sec. 120 (B) --Apex Court made it that inference of conspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it become difficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from act or illegal omission committed by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator become the act of the other – A

20

conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable – proceeding against accused can not be quashed. In present case Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar misused their power to help my 4 Accused Police Officers and tried to harass the Petitioners hence, they are coconspirator in the main crimes and therefore, liable to be punished as per Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

31. CHARGE NO. 13 # MY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS ARE FILING MORE FALSE AFFIDAVITS IN HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THEIR NEW FALSE CASES – BECAUSE HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR DID NOT INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM:

My Accused Police Officers DCP P. Karad, DGP (Home Guards) Ahmed Javed have AGAIN filed a False Crim.WP 427/2014 in Hon. Bombay High Court on 4-2-2014 and have obtained an adinterim Stay Order by filing a False Affidavit, AGAIN, against Registration of FIR against them as per the Order of JMFC Vashi Court dated 1-2-2014 obtained by me !!! IF Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar HAD INITIATED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, FOR FILING FALSE AFFIDAVITS AND CONTEMPT OF COURT, THEN THE ACCUSED POLICE WOULD NOT HAVE FILED THIS NEW FALSE AFFIDAVIT IN HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND MAYBE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE SAID FALSE CrimWP 427/2014 ALSO – GIVING ME MORE TROUBLE TO FIGHT FURTHER LITIGATION DUE TO STAY ORDER OBTAINED ON FALSE AFFIDAVIT. Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THEM COMMIT MORE CRIMINAL OFFENCES AND MORE CONTEMPT OF COURT.

32. CHARGE NO. 14 # HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SHOULD RESIGN OR BE REMOVED FROM THE HON. HIGH COURT: Your Lordships, 3.5 CRORE CASES are pending in the Courts all over India. Thousands of innocent poor citizens are Arrested by Corrupt Police Blatantly Violating D.K.BASU law everyday and Jailed after taking Bribes from Rich and Powerful Accused/Persons. Millions of Poor and Innocent Victims are Rotting in Jails BECAUSE of Corrupt Police and some Dishonest Magistrates …WHY NO PUNISHMENT to Police as per D.K. Basu 1997 SC Order of Dismissal of Police and HC initiating Proceedings against Police for Contempt of Hon. Supreme Court ? So Police keep minting money

21

& WE THE PEOPLE suffer !!! Your Lordships, when 1 Policeman does Wrong Thousands of Citizens SUFFER; BUT when 1 JUDGE does WRONG, CRORES of Citizens SUFFER Injustice. So Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar should Resign Gracefully or be Removed from the Hon. High Court-The Temple of Justice and the Purity of the Fountain of Justice can be maintained and Not Polluted any further.

But from the above documentary proofs it is clear that Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar acted against the oath and thereby ceased their right to continue as a Judge of Hon‟ble High Court. As per law laid down by 5-Judge Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Veerswami Vs. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 655 it is obligatory on the part of Respondents No.1 and 2 to resign from their post but they are still working. It has been laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in K. Veerswami‟s case (Supra) that, (53) …… The judiciary has no power of the purse or the sword. It survives only by public confidence and it is important to the stability of the society that the confidence of the public is not shaken. The Judge whose character is clouded and whose standards of morality and rectitude are in doubt may not have the judicial independence and may not command confidence of the public. He must voluntarily withdraw from the judicial work and administration. (54) …….. The emphasis on this point should not appear superfluous. Prof. Jackson says "Misbehavior by a Judge, whether it takes place on the bench or off the bench, undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and also damages public respect for the law of the land; if nothing is seen to be done about it, the damage goes unrepaired. This a must be so when the judge commits a serious criminal offence and remains in office". (Jackson's Machinery of Justice by J.R. Spencer, 8th Edn. pp. 369-70. (55) The proved "misbehaviour" which is the basis for removal of a Judge under clause (4) of Article 124 of the Constitution may also in certain cases involve an offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1) of the Act. But that is no ground for withholding criminal prosecution till the Judge is removed by Parliament as suggested by counsel for the appellant. One is the power of Parliament and the other is the jurisdiction of a criminal court. Both are mutually exclusive. Even a government servant who is answerable for his misconduct which may also constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code or under S. 5 of the Act is liable to be prosecuted in addition to a departmental enquiry. If prosecuted in a criminal court he may be punished by way of imprisonment or fine or with both but in departmental enquiry, the highest penalty that could be imposed on him is dismissal. The competent authority may either allow the prosecution to go on in a court of law or subject him to a departmental enquiry or subject him to both concurrently or consecutively. It is not

22

objectionable to initiate criminal proceedings against public servant before exhausting the disciplinary proceedings, and a fortiori, the prosecution of a Judge for criminal misconduct before his removal bu Parliament for proved misbehaviour is unobjectionable. “……….But we know of no law providing protection for Judges from criminal prosecution. Article 361(2) confers immunity from criminal prosecution only to the President and Governors of States and to no others. Even that immunity has been limited during their term of office. The Judges are liable to be dealt with just the same way as any other person in respect of criminal offence. It is only in taking of bribes or with regard to the offence of corruption the sanction for criminal prosecution is required. (61) For the reasons which we have endeavored to outline and subject to the directions issued, we hold that for the purpose of clause (c) of S. 6(1 of the Act the President of India is the authority competent to give previous sanction for the prosecution of a Judge of the Supreme court and of the High court. (79) Before parting with the case, we may say a word more. This case has given us much concern. We gave our fullest consideration to the questions raised. We have examined and reexamined the questions before reaching the conclusion. We consider that the society's demand for honesty in a judge is exacting and absolute. The standards of judicial behaviour, both, on and off the bench, are normally extremely high. For a Judge to deviate from such standards of honesty and impartiality is to betray the trust reposed in him. No excuse or no legal relativity can condone such betrayal. From the standpoint of justice the size of the bribe or scope of corruption cannot be the scale for measuring a Judge's dishonour. A single dishonest Judge not only dishonours himself and disgraces his office but jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system. (80) A judicial scandal has always been regarded as far more deplorable than a scandal involving either the executive or a member of the legislature. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in the court is a cause for great anxiety and alarm. "A legislator or an administrator may be found guilty of corruption without apparently endangering the foundation of the State. But a Judge must keep himself absolutely above suspicion" to preserve the impartiality and independence of the judiciary and to have the public confidence thereof. Let us take a case where there is a positive finding recorded in such a proceeding that the Judge was habitually accepting bribe, and on that ground he is removed from his office. On the argument of Mr Sibal, the matter will have to be closed with his removal and he will escape the criminal liability and even the ill-gotten money would not be confiscated. Let us consider another situation where an abettor is found guilty under S. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and is convicted. The main culprit, the Judge, shall escape on the argument of the appellant. In a civilized society the law cannot be assumed to be leading to such disturbing results.

23

33. CHARGE NO. 15 # HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR HAVE DONE GRAVE INJUSTICE TO ME A 79 YEAR OLD SENIOR CITIZEN WIDOW OF A FREEDOM FIGHTER, BY SAVING MY ACCUSED 4 POLICE OFFICERS – SO THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM HON HIGH COURT AND PROSECUTED; What about Senior Citizens Protection Laws in my case ? What about VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Laws in my case ? After the Nirbhaya Case, today there is JAIL TERM FOR TOUCHING A WOMAN; BUT because Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar did not Initiate Proceedings against my 4 Accused Police Officers and SAVED them, the Guilty Police Officers have got PROMOTIONS AND MEDALS EVEN AFTER ILLEGALLY ARRESTING AND JAILING A 79 YEAR WIDOW, Filing False Affidavits and doing Contempt of Courts, BECAUSE OF HON. JUDGES LIKE Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar !!! This is, like, Encouraging and Rewarding the Criminals – To do More Crimes against the Poor and Old Victims like me !!!

IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE HONEST HON. JUSTICE SHRI A.S. OKA JI, WHO WAS „DEPUTED‟ BY THE ALMIGHTY AS „ANGEL OF GOD‟ TO HEAR MY CASE AND CATCH THE FORGERY DONE BY POLICE IN THE STATION DIARY ENTRY NO. 26 – ON HIS OWN HONEST JUDICIAL INITIATIVE, WITHOUT ME OR MY THEN NGO ADVOCATE (WHO LATER TOOK A „DISCHARGE‟ FROM MY CASE) EVEN ASKING FOR OR MENTIONING IT; I DOUBT WHETHER Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, WOULD HAVE EVEN GRANTED ME RS. 3 LACS !!! BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE CLEARLY PRAYED TO Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar, AS PETITIONERS IN-PERSON WITHOUT AN ADVOCATE, BUT THE HON. JUDGES DID NOT INITIATE ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MY 4 ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS, EVEN AFTER THEIR CRIMINAL OFFENCES OF FILING FALSE AFFIDAVITS AND CONTEMPT OF COURTS WERE PROVED BEYOND DOUBTS BY NONE OTHER BUT THIS HON. COURT VIDE THE HONEST HON. JUSTICE SHRI A.S. OKA‟S 2 ORDERS DATED 20-11-2012 AND 23-11-2012, BUT EVEN THEN HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SAVED MY 4 GUILTY ACCUSED POLICE OFFICERS !!! Your Lordships, it is Pertinent to Note here that I am Not Blaming all the 11 Hon. Judges who heard my case; Rather I am Appreciating the HONESTY of the Hon. Justice A.S. Oka ji who did Justice to me. HE DID HIS JUDICIAL DUTY OF A HONEST HC JUDGE; BUT I AM SEEKING REMOVAL AND PROSECUTION OF ONLY HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR – WHO DID NOT PERFORM THEIR JUDICIAL DUTY AS HON. HC JUDGES, EVEN AFTER SEEING A HELPLESS 79 YEAR OLD SENIOR CITIZEN WIDOW OF A FREEDOM FIGHTER VICTIMIZED BY CORRUPT POLICE OFFICERS, LIKE HONEST HON. JUSTICE SHRI A.S OKA JI SAW AND DID HIS DUTY.

24

I BLESS HONEST HON. JUSTICE LIKE SHRI A.S OKA JI AND THAT HONEST JUDGES LIKE HIM SHOULD BE MADE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND JUDGES LIKE HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR SHOULD BE REMOVED – TO DO JUSTICE TO 1000s OF POOR LITIGANTS/VICTIMS LIKE ME.

34. THE 79 YEAR OLD PETITIONER IS NOT DOING ANY CONTEMPT BY FILING A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE HON. JUDGES – RATHER I AM FULFILLING MY DUTY AS A CITIZEN UNDER ART. 51-A (H)- FAIR CRITICISM OF A JUDICIAL FUNCTIONING IS NOT CONTEMPT. [(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 841 Indirect Tax Pratitioners Association – Vs- R. K. Jain] Constitution of India Arts 19 (1) (a), 51 –A (h), 129 and 215 – Highlighting irregularities in wrong orders passed by a Bench and frunctioning of CESTAT – Respondent fulfilled his duty as a citizen under Art. 51-A (h)- fair Criticism of a judicial functioning is not a Contempt – (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 841

35. THE LAW REGARDING PROSECUTION OF JUDGES ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW: "However, apart from the absence_ of jurisdiction the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate released the accused persons on bail on the face of verdicts successively given by me Higher
COLITIS.

He had a conscience Knowledge of those orders. This venture of the Chief judicial responsibility. It lacks

Judicial Magistrate is certainly derogatory to well defined

both good faith and bona fide. It is well intended deliberate and tainted with suspicion also. It tends to exhibit utter disregard to the judicial authority of the Courts in high rank. From the narration of events in the reference which are not controverted the act of the respondent is explicitly well calculated with a design to undermine the authority of the Higher Court. We, therefore, hold the contemnor Shri R.A. Khan guilty of having committed the contempt. 1993 Cri. L.J. 816 (1) 2003 (1) B.Cr.C.268 (Bom (DB)

"Cr.P.C. S.344 on Scrutiny High Court found that accused tried to escape on basis of forged dying declaration - High Court issued show cause notice to advocate for accused, Special Judicial Magistrate etc. calling explanation as to why they should not be tried summarily for giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence ( I.P.C. 466,193, 471, 109) (2) AIR 1971 SC 1708 "I.P.C. 167, 465,466 ,471 - A first class Magistrate was alleged to have made some

interpolation in the order sheet of a case in after sanction under section 197 by the state

25

Govt. a complaint was filed in a competent court of Magistrate against the said first class Magistrate. Action is legal". (4) LL.R. 1928 (52) Mad 347

"I.P.O. 466 - A Judge fabricating any record in a pending case commits an offence a under this section. (5) Wrong interpretation of Supreme court's order is contempt of court.

2008 ALL SCR 2320 (6) Civil Judge Sessions Division acted in violation of Supreme Court order

Supreme Court issued severe reprimand - copy of order forward to disciplinary authority for further action. AIR 2001 S.C. 197. (7) Serious while taking doubt if procedure required under Cr. P.C. was followed by magistrate taken in complaint including issuance of bailable

cognizance - Fradulent act even injudicial proceeding could not be

allowed to stand - All actions

warrant was liable to declared void ab initio. 2004 Crimes 33 SC (8) Contemnor not only violated Supreme Court’s order but also Air Act -Sentence

of one week simple imprisonment and Rs. 1 Lac as cost imposed on contemnor. Sessions Judge acted in violation of Supreme Court order -Supreme Court issued Severe Reprimand - Copy of order forwarded to disciplinary committee for further action against said Judge. AIR 2001 SC 1975 M.C. Mohata - Vs - Union of India (9) No complaint form that court is necessary where it is alleged that the subordinate

Judge before whom a suit was proceeding has himself abated an offence under section 193 - And has also committed offence under section 465 and 466"

36. HENCE CBI DIRECTOR BE DIRECTED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE AND INITIATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HON. JUSTICES MR. P.V. HARDAS AND MS. MRIDULA BHATKAR. 37. PRAYERS: It is therefore, humbly prayed that,

26

i]

C.B.I Director be directed to register F.I.R. against Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms.

Mridula Bhatkar u/s. 217, 218, 201, r/w. Sec. 120-B of Indian Penal Code. ii] Till the enquiry/investigation of the matter Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms. Mridula

Bhatkar be transferred out of the State of Maharashtra. iii] A copy of this complaint be forwarded as reference to Hon‟ble supreme court for taking

action against Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas and Ms. Mridula Bhatkar under contempt of court act as per law laid down in Spencer & Company Ltd –Vs- Vishwadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd (1995) 1 Scc 259 for their willful disregard and disobedience of law laid down by hon‟ble supreme court iv] Since the misbehavior, Criminal offences, incapacity, illegality, malafides and biasness of

Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms. Mridula Bhatkar are ex-facially proved therefore, they be directed to resign from their posts in view of law laid down by 5-Judge Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Veerswami –vs- Union of India 1991 (3) S.C.C. 655. v] If Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms. Mridula Bhatkar fail to resign within 7 days then

appropriate direction be issued for the forwarding reference for impeachment proceeding against Hon. Justices Mr. P.V. Hardas And Ms. Mridula Bhatkar for their proved misbehavour, incapacity to act as High Court Judge and biased treatment to 79 year old senior citizen widow of freedom fighter petitioner and also violating the mandate of article 14 of the constitution about equality before law and equal protection of the law. Vi] vi] vii] Or Sanction be given to the Complainant to file a Private Complaint; Registrar General be directed to seize the records of the case. The C.B.I. will be directed to collect the mobile phone details of all the accused involved in

the conspiracy. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONER WILL ALWAYS REMAIN GRATEFUL. Mohini Naraindas Kamwani MOB - 9920412577 – RES. TEL - 022-27823443 EMAIL - mohini.kamwani@gmail.com Address – 101, Mauli, 1st Floor, A-Wing, Plot No. 29-C, Sector 4, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 Maharashtra - INDIA.