Mumbai: Corruption compliant under section 7 and 13 Of PC act 1988 with 199 BNS is filed before Delhi Police ACB Branch to register zero FIR against Bombay High Court Judges Shiv Kumar Dighe and RN Laddha for violating Hon'ble Supreme court order to give advantage to well wishers. As per the Hon'ble SC Order prospective accused cannot challenge is FIR registration order passed by the magistrate under CRPC 156. Hence no revision is applicable for the accused. Inspite of this settled law they are deciding revision on CRPC 156 orders which is bar under law. As Delhi ACB Judges has no influence of Bombay High court jurisdiction so complainant hope justice from them. Soon BNSS 175 complaint will be file before Rouge Revenue court ACB Delhi for order. Complainant says that all the High courts across India are rejecting revision for 156 orders in the line of apex court but the BHC judges are deciding it on merit as per face value of accused and hearing senior councils appearing before them by taking advantage. Complainant informed them about this SC order but they are ignoring and doing judicial adventurism with abusing official position is offence under PC act . Judges have no immunity from corruption cases if it is not part of official duty.
Complainant says:
The Justice Shiv Kumar Dighe and RN Laddha of Hon'ble Bombay High Court is doing corruption in judicial work . The ACB Court Mumbai ordered FIR registration under section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988 against SEBI and BSE officers. Both the judges are granting stay for registration of FIR to accused against SC order that prospective accused has no right to challenge FIR registration order under CRPC 156 . They giving stay by taking bribe of Rs 25 lac Approx against Hon'ble Supreme court order and not deciding the matter on merit .They have full knowledge of SC order then also they are giving relief without jurisdiction . Justice Laddha on 04 Dec 2025 without my consent given 6 Jan 2026 date and with full knowledge of apex court order given stay to accused . Since Last 10 months the judges are giving Stay from FIR by doing corruption and showing disrespect to Hon'ble Supreme court by taking bribe . The accused cheating millions of investors by allowing IPO to list at NSE and BSE without SEBI compliance. Still this is going on. They are violating SC Rakhi trading order .
It is settled in the matter of Union of India & Anr. vs. W.N. Chadha (1993) Supp (4) SCC 260 , that a prospective accused has no right to be heard at the stage of registration of FIR.
Inspite to protect the interest of investors they deny action in Cals refinery IPO scam. Justice Dighe was ex CBI judge and he is well aware of corruption and criminal laws.
| Party Names | Bench | Case Number |
| 1. Pramod Agarwal V/S Sapan Shrivastava | Bombay(Criminal) | REVN/78/2025 |
| 2. MADHABI PURI BUCH V/S SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA | Bombay(Criminal) | REVN/77/2025 |
| 3. ASHWANI BHATIA V/S SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA | Bombay(Criminal) | REVN/76/2025 |
| 4. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V/S SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA | Bombay(Criminal) | REVN/127/2025 |
The accused judges have huge disproportionate assets gathered by corruption in judicial work . Kindly investigate these public servant assets as per SC Charan Singh Vs State Of Maharahtra order 2020 . Also register FIR under section 7 and 13 (1) a,d,e with IPC 166A, 409 equivalent to BNS etc .
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs The State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3154 of 2024)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45769300/
12. The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the said judgment, is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. However, in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. The decision in Lalita Kumari (supra) does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR. Rather, it reaffirms the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.
13. In the present case, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office. Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases. The appellant’s contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the course of investigation and trial. The appellant has adequate remedies under the law, including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate forum.
