MUMBAI CORRUPTION COURT REGISTRY NOT REGISTERING FIR COMPLAINT CASES AGAINST THANE COURT JUDGES CORRUPTION ALLEGATION
JUDGES HAVE IMMUNITY FROM INVESTIGATION IN COGNIZABLE OFFENCE ALLEGATION ?
WHICH PROVISION GIVING IMMUNITY UNDER BNSS ?
ALL CORRUPTION LAW AND RULINGS FOR CIVIL SERVANTS ONLY AND JUDICIARY IS ABOVE THE LAW AS "HOLLY COW"?
WHY MATTER NOT HAS BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT?
WHERE IS SC LALITA KUMARI IMPLEMENTATION?
SESSION COURT ADMIN JUDGE HAS NO POWER TO DECIDE CASE ON MERIT...PC ACT CASE CAN ONLY BE DECIDED BY SPECIAL JUDGE.
मुंबई कोर्ट की रजिस्ट्री ने जजों के ऊपर भ्रष्टाचार का केस नंबर देने से इनकार किया। जनता क्या अब रजिस्ट्री की दया के भरोसे रहेगी?
रजिस्ट्री के अधिकारी कल दाऊद के खिलाफ भी नहीं कोई केस दायर करने देंगे?
Admin जज कब से merit decide करने लगा ?
Mumbai: The Mumbai City session court registry denied to list BNSS 175 case to register FIR under PC act with section 7 and 13 against Thane court Judges.In past Complainant Brijesh Sharma has filed criminal revision at Thane court before Principle Judge Shrinivas Brijmohan Agarwal and Amit Muniappa Shete under CRPC 397. Both judges dismissed revision without calling record and issuing notice in first day only. JMFC Gopika Shivaji Bora dismissed crpc 156 in cognizable offence of complainant.
Complainant filed complaint before ACB mumbai to register FIR under section 7 and 13 of pc act with BNS 199 etc for doing corruption in judicial work by taking bribe of Rs 10-15 lac approx with other advantage and favouring accused against rule of law against Thane judicial officers . Later complaint under 156 (3) filed before ACB JUDGE Mumbai court 46 for registration of FIR.
Court 46 ACB judge Mrs Shayana V Patil dismissed complaint of corruption giving reason that no sanction taken under 17 A for preliminary enquiry as taking bribe is official act of duty. She also rejected allegation of bribe in lacs of rs without any FIR and ACB report. She conducted mini trial in pre cognizance stage to save brotherhood against apex court orders .
As per the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme court order complainant filed second crpc 156 complaint before ACB judge by e filing with additional fact and for miss carriage of justice. Judge Shayana V Patil suppressed many rulings of various high courts of Section 17A that any act which is not part of your duty then no protection under law.
Second fact was that judge and police cannot check the genuineness of information. They have to register FIR if any cognizable offence made out .
The registry of session court rejected the complaints to register and place before ACB court after seeing such concrete legal citations. So to protect accuse from FIR they given reason that scrutiny committe judge rejected CRPC 156 OR 175 complaint. Is this committe is of judicial officers or civil servants. Admin judge can go on merit? There is supreme court order that maintainability of petition can be decided by judge only not registry. No hearing was provided by scrutiny committee judges to complainant. Complainant has now oppertunity to file case across India by e filing and appear by VC . Only he has to register complaint to other district ACB offices at Delhi, bhopal , chennai, bangalore , jaipur, chandigarh , jammu, raipur , bhuvneshwar, hyderabad .They also have ACB court and respondents will not get face value there.
Under whom instruction City session court admin registry protecting accused from investigation?
Complainant Brijesh Sharma has also filed perjury against ACB judge Shayana V Patil for suppressing facts in earlier CRPC 156 orders. He also filed compensation of Rs 5 lac each in 3 cases where ACB judge passed wrong orders . As per supreme court provision that public prosecutor to pay compensation if judge passed wrong order. Judge Shayana not called PP report before order. All three perjury and compensation cases are pending in session court of special judge under electric act.
 |
| Case status of Thane judges JMFC GS Bora, SB Agarwal ex principle judge thane. Ex ADJ Amit M Shete |