कैसे Judicial officer पुलिस के साथ मिलकर Public को बेवकूफ बनाते है!

 Raisen : There was huge blast in Satrang steel Raisen of Madhya Pradesh in Jan 2022. Factory was not having Fire NOC , OC as per Municipal law. 3 person got greivious hurt in the blast  Satlapur Inspector did not registered FIR

The Madras High Court directed DLSA secretary to ensure FIR registration across India for Every Citizen . When Complaint was given to DLSA Secretary Ms Sangeeta Yadav then she forwarded complaint for action to Satlapur SHO Rajesh Tiwari . SHO replied that the complainant is third party. When affected party will complaint then only we will register FIR. The Corrupt SHO Rajesh Tiwari is also not registering FIR of the complaint done by died worker Rahul  family . The Puneet Bansal director of Satrag Steel  Handled the police in proffessional way . The Judicial officer is well trained and also sitting in bench for justice. Either she dont know the basic concept that any body can do FIR or she is also hand in the gloves of SHO. 

Such corrupt or uneducated judicial officers are sitting in court and doing injustice with people of India. They are not aware of SC Orders or ignoring them. Such corrupt judicial officer are tendering justice as per the knowledge of complainant. Taking huge salary of Rs 1.5 Lac are not fit for peon post in the court and doing injustice with constitutuion without application of mind . 

 It cited A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & ANR, 1984 Latest Caselaw 31 SC and observed:

"It is the settled proposition of law that criminal law can be set in motion by any person. Here, on the ground that after sustaining grievous hurt, her husband is unable to move out and hence, she has taken initiative to prefer the complaint. The principle of locus standi is alien to criminal  ."

COPY OF COMPLAINT

 

To

Hon'ble Smt Sangeeta Yadav

DLSA Secretary cum Addl Session Judge

Raisen

Police Station Satlapur

Respected Madam ,

Due to Blast in the Satrang steel Pvt Ltd, Raisen three person got injured. Recently one person Rahul got died due to grievous injury caused by explosion and fire. The factory has no compliance of furnace fitness, Fire NOC, Structure Stability, Building OC etc The TI Vijay Kumar tripathi has taken bribe to disobey SC Lalita Kumari Guidelines. 

Accused No.1-2 are the owner/ Directors of Satrang Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd There are total 2 directors in company . Complainant says accused no.1-2 has done crime in association with. The accused no.1-2 is operating factory without safety as per Factory rules . No compliance has been done by accused no.1-2 till date. Due to non compliance there was huge blast and Fire Incident at boiler of Satrang steel  Plant on 27 Jan 2021 approx . As per information 3 workers was highly burnt and admitted at Bansal hospital , Bhopal .Accused 1-2 has endangered the life of hundreds of people and 3 people got grievous hurted in this fire incident.    Industrial department awarded Factory license without Fire NOC as per NBC rules and MP Bhoomi Vikas Niyam 2012 which is mandatory under law. The fake fire NOC and building Occupation certificate (Section 191 Of MP Municipal Act ) was submitted on record for issuance of license by taking monetary benefit.  

The accused no.1-2 with industrial department had misused his official position and power and committed fraud, conspiracy and cheating in a pre-planned manner and awarded licence to trident factory which is unable to do compliance. Accused has been perpetrating a deep fraud since beginning and adopting different modusoperandi caused a huge setback to law abiding people.  The act is  to endanger human life and personal safety of the others. 

Accused List 

A. PUNEET BANSAL       

Age 50 Approx, Male , Occp: Partner 

 

Satrang Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd, Plot No:-7, New Industrial Area-IInd Mandideep, Raisen-462046, Cell 9425017094, info@satrangsteel.com 

 

B. MUKESH KUMAR BANSAL 

Age : 50 approx  , Female , Occp: Patner,  

Satrang Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd, Plot No:-7, New Industrial Area-IInd Mandideep, Raisen-462046, Cell 9425017094, info@satrangsteel.com 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

Criminal Appeal No 1184 of 2022 

(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 1674 of 2022) 

XYZ Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors ...Respondent(s) 

 

18. Whether or not the offence complained of is made out is to be determined at the stage of investigation and / or trial. If, after conducting the investigation, the police find that no offence is made out, they may file a B Report under Section 173 CrPC. However, it is not open to them to decline to register an FIR. The law in this regard is clear - police officers cannot exercise any discretion when they receive a complaint which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence 

Supreme Court of India 

Superintendent Of Police, C.B.I. ... vs Tapan Kr. Singh on 10 April, 2003 

In paragraph 20 in the case of Tapan Kumar Singh (supra), it is observed and held as under: 20. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to suspect, on the basis of information received, that a cognizable offence may have been committed, he is bound to record the information and conduct an investigation. At this stage it is also not necessary for him to satisfy himself about the truthfulness of the information. It is only after a complete investigation that he may be able to report on the truthfulness or otherwise of the information. Similarly, even if the information does not furnish all the details he must find out those details in the course of investigation and collect all the necessary evidence. The information given disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence only sets in motion the investigative machinery, with a view to collect all necessary evidence, and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The true test is whether the information furnished provides a reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which the police officer concerned is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. If it does, he has no option but to record the information and proceed to investigate the case either himself or depute any other competent officer to conduct the investigation. The question as to whether the report is true, whether it discloses full details regarding the manner of occurrence, whether the accused is named, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support the allegations are all matters which are alien to the consideration of the question whether the report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the information does not give full details regarding these matters, the investigating officer is not absolved of his duty to investigate the case and discover the true facts, if he can.” 

ROLE OF DLSA IN FIR REGISTRATION 

Madras High Court,Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd vs 2 The Inspector Of Police on 17 August, 2016

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189175776/

95 Last but not the least, we have the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, under which, in the State of Tamil Nadu, a viable mechanism for providing access to justice to anyone in need of it, has been put in place. In every Taluk in the State, a judicial officer in the rank of Civil Judge or Senior Civil Judge (Munsif cadre/Sub Judge cadre) has been appointed as the Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee. Likewise, in every District, a judicial officer in the rank of Senior Civil Judge (Principal Sub Judge) has been appointed as the District Legal Services Authority. Under Article 144 of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of these authorities also to act in aid of the Supreme Court and therefore, they should also ensure that the mandates of Lalita Kumari-IV and V are implemented. Any person who is aggrieved by refusal of the police to register an FIR on his complaint or issue a CSR receipt, can approach the local Legal Services Authority and on being approached, the Authority shall entertain the complaint and ensure the implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari IV and V.

99. xvi The aggrieved party can also approach the local Legal Services Authority and the Authority shall take immediate steps to ensure that an FIR is registered or CSR receipt issued to the complainant.

Bombay High Court 

The Maharashtra Government vs Shri Rajaram Digamber Padamwar on 8 April, 2011 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168243998/ 

43 Moreover, while making submissions before the learned  

Trial Judge, learned A.P.P. also cited Ruling in the case of Rambhai vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Reported in Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases) at 1991 (1) P. 6, as stated in para 34 of the impugned judgment, but the learned Trial Judge, after considering the said ratio laid down in the said Ruling, observed in para no.35 of the impugned judgment that : 

"After going through the observations made by Their Lordships in the above case law, I am of the opinion that though the Ruling is applicable to the present case, however, according to me, with great respect the view taken in the observations of the Ruling is not correct." 

44 It manifestly appears from the text and tenor of the observations made by the learned Trial Judge in para nos. 31 and 35 of the impugned judgment that same do not conform with the judicial discipline and propriety, and apparently amount to disrespect, and therefore, the Registrar General is directed to take suitable action against the concerned Judge, if he is in Judicial Service. 

45 In the result, present appeal, which is sans merits, stands dismissed and office to take necessary steps to initiate suitable action against the learned Trial Judge, if he is in Judicial Service, as per the afore said directions. Office to send a copy of the impugned judgment, dated 14.3.2000 and also copy of the present judgment to the Registrar General for the necessary compliance. 

PRAYER:

Kindly ensure police to register FIR in Cognizable offence under IPC 308,420,120B,218,467,etc and submit action taken report to DLSA  Office.