How to Draft Specimen of Documented Arguments for Criminal Revision before Sessions Judge?

Given below is an example or specimen of  written arguments for Criminal Revision before Sessions Judge:

 

Before the Court of the Hon’ble Sessions / District Judge at Lalaha (PC 7)

                               Revision Petition No. 297 of 2021

                                         Documented Arguments

                                                            In

                                                CC No. 3077 of 2019

 

In the matter of:

**** s/o OR d/o  Shri D******

Aged about __ years, Occ.: ___

Add: ________________

__________________________________________                  ...… Petitioner

                                                            AND

1. _____ s/o Unknown, Occ. Dy SP (Police), Sahaha __

R/o Sahaha

2. ______ s/o Unknown, Occ. Dy SP (Police), Gazaha __

R/o Gazaha

3. __________ s/o Unknown, Occ. Private Company Worker / Govt Servant

R/o Gazaha

                                                                                                         .….. Respondent

 

 

 

The petitioner prays to present the following arguments before the hon’ble Court:

 

The petitioner used to work with ___________ where the accused no. 3 also used to work and hence got acquainted with him during the year 20__ -20__.

After leaving the job accused no. 3 still sometimes used to call and meet the petitioner.

In the year 2017 accused no. 3 started harassing the petitioner by asking him to join his gang of criminals involved in making fake claims from health insurance companies being organized by his handler accused no. 1.

The petitioner denied, yet accused no. 3 continued harassing by making phone calls and also met the petitioner in Lalaha in this regard.

The accused no. 3 tried convincing the petitioner that the work under the gang is safe as accused no. 1 is with him and also showed a duplicate voter ID issued in his name on the address of JJ colony in Delhi.

Accused no. 3 also showed a receipt of a passport with his fake ID which he could not collect and told that all these are being arranged by accused no. 1.

Accused no. 3 started hurling abuses on phone and issuing threats claiming that his master accused no. 1 has ordered him to tell the petitioner that if he does not join the gang then he will be executed in a fake encounter.

The petitioner filed a complaint against this harassment on IGRS portal which was forwarded to Gazaha police to which a sub-inspector replied stating he has talked to both the parties and no one will call each other. Despite this, accused no. 3 kept calling on phone and issuing threats. (copy of sub inspector response attached with the petition)

Petitioner filed another complaint on the government portal, and now the complaint was not handled by the sub-inspector but directly by the Circle Officer, Gazaha i.e. accused no. 1. This time accused no. 1 responded saying that the complainant has taken money from the accused that is why he is calling him.

Now the petitioner filed a complaint again stating if he really owes any money to the accused then he must take legal action and not make threatening calls and hurl abuses. Now this time accused no. 1 again changed his stance saying that the accused is not calling the complainant but complainant himself calling the accused and seeking Rs. ____ else he will make fake police complaints. (copy of accused no. 1’s response attached with the petition)

It is also astonishing that if someone even owes money to anyone they are not entitled to issue threats and hurl abuses but must follow proper legal procedure. And despite being a police officer accused no. 1 closed the complaint by his absurd stance on record and allowed the accused no. 3 to commit crimes of issuing threats and abuses.

Also, to this stance of the accused no. 1 now the petitioner dared him to lodge an FIR against him and take legal action, and asked why he is only closing the complaints just like that. And also, now when he knows that the complainant himself is illegally trying to extract Rs. _____ from the accused and also threatening him to make fake police complaints it is a serious crime. Now, it is prime duty of the accused no. 1 being a Circle Officer of police to lodge an FIR (First Information Report) against the complainant himself and put him behind the bars.

The petitioner also asked him to take out telecom operator records before they expire to establish the fact whether accused is calling the complainant or complainant is calling the accused, else it will be ‘destruction and concealment of evidence’. This would also prove if complainant is seeking Rs. ___ from the accused no. 3 or not, as if he is seeking then the telecom operator records must show that the complainant is making outcalls to the accused no. 3 and not that accused no. 3 is always making calls to the complainant. 

Now, despite mentioning in the complaint that evasion of telecom operator records will be treated as punishable offence of destruction and concealment of evidence as under the IPC, the accused no. 1 never took telecom operator records on file and let the evidence elapse, and summarily evaded telecom operator records in his actions and responses.

The accused forged the government records every time he got a chance and persisted with his stances despite after several complaints and notices and provided all chances to the accused no. 3 to issue threats under his absolute guidance, control and protection.

The accused no. 1 also created forge police records via his reports dated 01.02.__, 31.12.__ and other responses as well by stating that according to his findings the complainant was doing bad work and was expelled from the company where he was working with accused no. 3, and that he has always been asking money from him. The fact is that the complainant himself left the company due to health conditions and the company duly accepted his resignation letter. The company has only issued him letter of commendations for the good work he had done there and was always praised there are only good records of the petitioner in the company and there can be no chance that out of nowhere accused no. 1 findings can find him bad and expelled from the company. 

Now, to save his skin the accused no. 3 in response to the complaint forwarded to him by the State Human Rights Commission uses the term ‘due to his busy schedule’. 

Now while saying ‘due to his busy schedule’ he still does not apologize or accepts his fault yet claims that the complainant was not picking up his calls and the address given by the complainant does not exist. Still he does not bring any evidence to back his claim that the complainant was not picking up his calls, and regarding his stance that the ‘address does not exist’ is also a lie. To prove that the address does not exist he claims that:

i. He sent a person called Athhu from Gazaha to meet the complainant but he could not find the address.

ii. He sent local police who also informed him that the address does not exist.

The fact is there was no such call from accused no. 1 and the address also very much exists and when the complaint was forwarded to the same local police by the CJM court, the local police well found it and met the petitioner and furnished its report to the CJM court. Besides this, all correspondences of the petitioner always reach the same address and many people live at the same address in the building and nearby areas who use the same building address.

The petitioner’s complaint was dealt by accused no. 2 who also fully cooperated with accused no. 1 and created a forged police report dated January 20__ upholding the same stance of the accused no. 1 meticulously, calmly and very clearly, as his report shows. The report of accused no. 2 is merely a copy of the report of accused no. 1 under his own endorsement, paving the way to protect the accused no. 1 and 3 and endangering life of the petitioner. As accused no. 1 subconsciously adds an expression ‘due to he being busy’ which his psychology is naturally encouraging him to do so, so as it may be used as a protection or excuse of his crimes. But here we see accused no. 2 also upholds the same thing. The petitioner assumes while committing crimes this gang has always reasons.

Now when the Lalaha local police says that the matter is of Gazaha when the petitioner worked with the accused no. 3, it must know that if accused no. 3 asked the Lalaha local police to find the address of the complainant in the past, the matter is of Lalaha itself under one and all circumstances.

Besides the previous complaints made online also show the response of accused no. 1 that the ‘complainant was expelled from the company’ this expression itself means that the accused had already worked and left the company there and is not there now. And now, when the matter is going on now and the address given is always of Lalaha, the crime against the petitioner is deemed to have taken place in Lalaha only.

Besides, when the Lalaha local police met the petitioner to handle the complaint forwarded to them by the CJM court, the petitioner clearly told them that the accused no. 3 met him in areas around Cantt. Road, Lalaha twice on behalf of his handler accused no. 1, and issued threats. While over the phone the tone was much harsher with filthier abuses. And as the accused no. 3 has also met the petitioner on behalf of the accused no. 1 and issued threats the crime place is Lalaha only, and hence Lalaha jurisdiction. Thus, this seems to be a great ploy where the accused no. 1 under his influence might be trying to somehow bring the petitioner to the areas of his control where he can easily create a fake encounter as he threatened through his handled accused no. 3.

The impugned order dated 07/10/20__ by the CJM court is based on the local Lalaha police’s bogus report which says matter is of Gazaha and on the assumption that the entire episodes occurred in Gazaha while the petitioner was working there merely as the petitioner gave introduction as how he got acquainted with the accused, while the records show the matter is of Lalaha under all considerations.

In the light of the criminal revision petition and the above arguments the petitioner hereby prays this Hon’ble court:

i. Set the impugned order aside, and order filing a complaint against the accused under CrPC 200 or order the state to lodge a report against the accused and carry out proceedings.

ii. Order any other remedy to the petitioner, and penable measures against the accused no. 1, 2 and 3.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             _______________

                                                                                                           (Petitioner-in-Person)

 

Written Arguments before Judicial Magistrate Court of Law Specimen Drafting 

Written Arguments before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court of Law Specimen Drafting:

Before The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate

In the matter of:

 

 Shri <Name> s/o <Name> R/o <Address>

    Vs

1.    Rakesh Mishra s/o Unknown, then Circle Officer Ghaziabad Police

2.    Ravi Kumar s/o Unkown then Asstt. Police Superintendent / Area Officer

3.    Deepak Sinha s/o Unkown

 

Case No. ****/2019

 

This has the reference of the order dated 13.01.2021 of this Hon’ble Court where the situation of the complaints filed by the petitioner at the PMOPG portal, NHRC, IGRS(UP) was sought.

The petitioner hereby prays to say that regarding the complaints that were made though all these portals ultimately went to Shri Rakesh Mishra who was initially Circle Officer Ghaziabad police and was later transferred to Sahibabad, UP, where he responded in his favour making excuses and diverting the matter rather than responding to the point. He had contrarily accused the complainant but when confronted by the complainant and asked to lodge and FIR against him if he is in fault he simply ignored the appeal and diverted the matter citing that the address did not exist. He had stated that the address given by the complainant did not exist.

The prime accused no. 1 viz. Rakesh Mishra has been changing stances and making excuses every now and then accordingly.

Accused no. 2 seems to have ignored the complaint and upheld the stance of the accused no. 1 creating an unholy nexus as he was destined to only believe him and close the complaint.

The petitioner has got no relief till date in any of the complaints, made to any of the authorities and is in extreme fear.

 

Some important plaints filed by the petitioner:

To get relief the complainant filed a petition vide IGRS(UP) dated 25-09-2017 to which response came on IGRS dated 08/10/2017 where the police report said that both the parties have agreed not to converse on phone any further. But the accused no. 3 kept calling and threatening in the name of Rakesh Mishra.

There were many complaints filed but on record again a complaint was filed on which came the response of the same officer Rakesh Mishra instead of the previous police officer who said that in his report dated 01-Feb-2018 that the petitioner himself always asks money from the accused Deepak Sinha who gave him money and now petitioner again asked Rs. 30000 from the accused no. 3 and threatened him if he did not pay the complainant will file fake police plaints. Here, the accused no. 1 himself proves that he is the kingpin of the criminal nexus as:

i.                    He firstly comes out of nowhere in picture and nothing is asked from the previous police officer who said both agreed not to call each other.

ii.                 He on words of the accused no. 1 straight away believed and contrarily accused the complainant.

iii.              Even on demand of the complainant he never lodge an FIR against him despite knowing that he is making threat calls and has lodge fake police complaint against accuse no. 3 and let the matter go off.

iv.              After this also the accused no. 3 remained calling telling he is helpless and accused no. 1 has bound him to get the complainant in the gang and not leave as now he knows things about the gang.

v.                 In the fabricated report the accused no. 1 also maligned the image of saying that the complainant’s conduct was bad and was ejected from job, but the fact is that accused himself left the job due to health conditions and was praised by the company and have won awards and certificates for good work.

vi.              He did not even check the call details and evaded request and not even made a single comment on call details as they would show that all calls were coming to the complainant which accused no. 1 was making to him and if the complainant would seek money from the accused ten he would make calls to the accused. Accused no. 1 let the time pass so that the call details from everywhere get exhausted and become un-recoverable. So this was the matter of destruction and concealment of evidence.

The complainant also filed a petition with the Prime Minister’s Office vide online grievance redressal system which was received dated 08-11-2018 and was clubbed with the IGRS (UP). To this PMO complaint also now accused no. 1 responded dated 31-12-2018 claiming that he had shortage of time during the complaints dealt by him in the past against the accused no. 3 to save the skin but still upheld his deeds and said that complainant is accusing him as he aggrieved because his report talks adverse of him. Here also, he still protected his ally accused no. 3.

The complainant again filed plaint against accused no. 1 with the Prime Minister’s Office which was received by it dated 08-01-2019.

The complainant also filed a plaint with the National Human Rights Commission against accused no. 1 which was transferred to State Human Rights Commission, Uttar Pradesh and was again sent to the Police. Then Asstt. Superintendent of Police, Traffic wrote on report addressing Human Rights Wing Incharge of police that the complainant never attended the calls made by the police towards his complaint redressal. The fact is that many calls came from police department and the accused attended all. This is proved by the response of the first complaint where the police report said that both the parties agreed not to call each other on phone.

The accused no. 2 also stated that he sent a special messenger to see the complainant but could not find it, and a local police station officer also stated that the address does not exist. The fact is the address exist and all correspondence is received by the complainant at the address and many people live at and around Sarvari Apartment as it’s a tall residential building with many apartments. This shows that the accused no. 2 is annexed with this nexus and hence prepared a fabricated police report to harass the complainant and let the accused no. 3 threaten him on behalf of accused no. 1 for fake police encounter and death.

This response of accused no. 2 seems to be clubbed with the response to the plant filed with the Prime Minister’s Office dated 08-01-2019 and served response to both the plaints.

Thus, it is seen that the whole police department is being corrupted along with the entire system and at least accused no. 1 and 2 are destroying the law and order with themselves carrying out criminal activities despite working for the state police and the government giving disutility to the exchequer.

 

 

 

                                                                                       <Name>

Counsel for the petitioner

 

                                                                  

Petitioner

Written Arguments in Hindi before Court of Law - न्यायालय के समक्ष हिंदी में लिखित बहस तर्क 

मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट के न्यायालय के समक्ष मामले में:

 

 श्री <Name> पुत्र श्री <Name>

बनाम

1. राकेश मिश्रा पुत्र अज्ञात, तत्कालीन सर्कल अधिकारी गाजियाबाद पुलिस

2. रवि कुमार पुत्र अज्ञात सहायक पुलिस अधीक्षक / क्षेत्र अधिकारी

3. दीपक सिन्हा पुत्र अज्ञात

 

केस संख्या ****/2019

 

इसमें इस माननीय न्यायालय के दिनांक **.01.2021 के आदेश का संदर्भ है, जहां याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा पीएमओपीजी पोर्टल, एनएचआरसी, आईजीआरएस (यूपी) में दर्ज शिकायतों की स्थिति मांगी गई थी।

याचिकाकर्ता ने यह कहते हुए प्रार्थना की कि इन सभी पोर्टल्स को अंततः श्री राकेश मिश्रा को सौंप दिया गया था, जो शुरू में सर्कल ऑफिसर गाजियाबाद पुलिस थे और बाद में उन्हें साहिबाबाद, यूपी स्थानांतरित कर दिया गया, जहां उन्होंने अपने पक्ष में जवाब दिया और बहानेबाजी की। बात का जवाब देने की बजाय दूसरी बात की। उन्होंने शिकायतकर्ता पर विपरीत आरोप लगाया था, लेकिन जब शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा सामना किया गया और यदि वह गलती में है  तो उसके खिलाफ एफआईआर लॉज दर्ज करने के लिए कहा  पर उसकी अपील को नजरअंदाज कर दिया और यह कहते हुए मामले को रद्द कर दिया कि शिकायत में दिया गया पता मौजूद नहीं था। उन्होंने कहा था कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा दिया गया पता मौजूद नहीं था।

प्रधान ने आरोपी संख्या 1 अर्थात, राकेश मिश्रा बदलते रुख और हर बार के हिसाब से बहाने बनाते रहे हैं।

अभियुक्त सं. 1 तथा 2 ने शिकायत को नजरअंदाज कर दिया और आरोपी  संख्या. 1 एक अपवित्र आपराधिक सांठगांठ पैदा कर रहे हैं क्योंकि वह केवल विपक्षी संख्या 3 का विश्वास करने और शिकायत को बंद करने के लिए नियत थे।

याचिकाकर्ता को अब तक किसी भी शिकायत में कोई राहत नहीं मिली है, जो की समस्त अधिकारियों से की गई थी, और वह अत्यधिक भय में है।

 

इस सन्दर्भ में याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा दायर कुछ महत्वपूर्ण शिकायतें इस प्रकार हैं:

राहत पाने के लिए शिकायतकर्ता ने IGRS (UP) दिनांक 25-09-2017 को एक याचिका दायर की, जिसके जवाब में IGRS दिनांक 08/10/2017 को जवाब आया, जहां पुलिस की रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि दोनों पक्ष किसी भी तरह से फोन पर मना नहीं करने पर सहमत हुए हैं। लेकिन आरोपी संख्या.3, आरोपी संख्या.1 के हवाले से पर फोन और धमकी देता रहा।

याचिकाकर्ता में कई शिकायतें दर्ज कराई, जिस से  रिकॉर्ड पर फिर से एक शिकायत दर्ज की गई, जिस पर पिछले पुलिस अधिकारी के बजाय उसी अधिकारी राकेश मिश्रा की प्रतिक्रिया रिपोर्ट आई जो की 01-फरवरी -2018 दिनांकित है, जिसमे उन्होंने कहा कि याचिकाकर्ता स्वयं विपक्षी संख्या 3 से हमेशा पैसे के बारे में पूछता है और याचिका कर्ता ने फिर से विपक्षी संख्या 3 से 30000 रुपये की मांग की है और उसे धमकी दी कि अगर उसने शिकायतकर्ता को भुगतान नहीं किया तो वह पुलिस में फर्जी शिकायत करेगा। इधर, यह स्वतः साबित हो रहा है कि संख्या 1 ही इस सारे अपराध का सूत्रधार है:

i. शिकायतों की प्रतिक्रिया में विपक्षी संख्या 1 अचानक कहीं से दृश्य में सामने आ जाते हैं और पिछले पुलिस अधिकारी से कुछ नहीं पूछा जाता है जिन्होंने कहा कि दोनों एक-दूसरे को फोन करने के लिए सहमत नहीं हैं।

ii. उन्होंने आरोपी सं. 3 का सीधे विश्वास किया और शिकायत के विपरीत शिकायतकर्ता पर ही  आरोप लगाया।

iii. विपक्षी संख्य १ के अनुसार  शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत फ़रज़ी है, और वह अवैध वसूली कर रहा है, तथा स्वयं शिकायतकर्ता की माँग पर भी उन्होंने स्वयं उनके खिलाफ कोई एफ.आई.आर. दर्ज नहीं की है, और बात को टाल दिया।

iv. इसके बाद भी विपक्षी सं. 3 यह कहते हुए रह गया कि वह असहाय है और विपक्षी सं. 1 ने ही उसे शिकायतकर्ता को गिरोह में पाने के लिए बाध्य किया है और अब  शिकायतकार्ता  को नहीं छोड़ा क्योंकि अब वह गिरोह के बारे में जानता है।

v. विपक्षी सं. 1 ने कूट रचिट रिपोर्ट में यह कह के शिकायतकार्ता की छवि को भी खराब कर दिया कि शिकायतकर्ता का आचरण खराब था और उसे नौकरी से निकाल दिया गया था, लेकिन तथ्य यह है कि आरोपी ने स्वास्थ्य स्थितियों के कारण खुद से नौकरी को छोड़ा, और कंपनी द्वारा उसकी प्रशंसा की गई और अच्छे काम के लिए पुरस्कार और प्रमाण पत्र भी दिए ।

vi. विपक्षी सं. 1 ने  अनुरोध पर भी कॉल डिटेल्स की जांच तक नहीं की और कॉल डिटेल्स पर एक भी टिप्पणी नहीं की, क्योंकि उस से  यह साबित होगा कि सभी कॉल शिकायतकर्ता के पास आ रही थीं और शिकायतकर्ता से कोई भी कॉल आरोपी नहीं जा रहा था। अगर शिकायतकर्ता आरोपी से पैसे मांगेगा तो वह आरोपी को फोन करेगा। विपक्षी सं. 1 ने समय बीतने दें ताकि हर जगह से कॉल विवरण समाप्त हो जाए और पुनः प्राप्त ना हो पाए। तो इस तरह उन्होंने सबूतों को छुपाने एवं नष्ट करने का कार्य किया।

 

शिकायतकर्ता ने प्रधानमंत्री कार्यालय में ऑनलाइन शिकायत निवारण प्रणाली के साथ भी एक याचिका दायर की, जो दिनांक 08-11-2018 को प्राप्त की गई थी और जिसे IGRS (UP) के साथ जोड़ा गया था। इसको लेकर पीएमओ की शिकायत पर अब आरोपी संख्या 1 ने दिनांक 31-12-2018 को दावा किया कि आरोपी के खिलाफ पूर्व में उनके द्वारा निपटाई गयी शिकायतों के दौरान उनके पास समय की कमी थी, जो की स्वयं को बचाने के लिए ही प्रतीत होता है। लेकिन फिर भी अपनी पिछली रिपोर्टों को बरकरार रखा और कहा कि शिकायतकर्ता उन पर फर्जी आरोप लगा रहा है क्योंकि वह क्षुब्ध है क्यूंकि उनकी रिपोर्ट उसके खिलाफ थी। यहाँ भी, उन्होंने अभी भी अपने सहयोगी अभियुक्त सं. 3 का बचाव किया ।

शिकायतकर्ता ने फिर से आरोपी सं. 1 के विरुद्ध  प्रधान मंत्री कार्यालय में शिकायत की जो की वहां दिनांक 08-01-2019 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

शिकायतकर्ता ने आरोपी के खिलाफ राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग के पास भी एक याचिका दायर की जिसे राज्य मानवाधिकार आयोग, उत्तर प्रदेश को हस्तांतरित किया गया, और फिर से पुलिस को भेज दिया गया। इसके बाद विपक्षी संख्या 2 ने पुलिस के मानवाधिकार विंग प्रभारी को संबोधित करते हुए रिपोर्ट में लिखा है कि शिकायतकर्ता कभी भी पुलिस द्वारा उसकी शिकायत निवारण के लिए किए गए कॉल में उपस्थित नहीं होता है। जबकि तथ्य यह है कि पुलिस विभाग से कई कॉल आए और आरोपी सभी में शामिल हुए। यह पहली शिकायत की प्रतिक्रिया से साबित होता है जहां पुलिस रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि दोनों पक्ष एक-दूसरे को फोन पर नहीं बुलाने के लिए सहमत थे।

आरोपी संख्या 2 ने यह भी कहा कि उन्होंने शिकायतकर्ता को देखने के लिए एक विशेष संदेशवाहक को भेजा, लेकिन उसे पता नहीं मिला और एक स्थानीय पुलिस स्टेशन अधिकारी ने भी कहा कि पता मौजूद नहीं है। तथ्य यह है कि पता मौजूद है और सभी पत्राचार शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा पते पर प्राप्त किए जाते हैं और कई लोग सरवरी अपार्टमेंट में और उसके आसपास रहते हैं क्योंकि यह कई अपार्टमेंट के साथ एक लंबा आवासीय भवन है। इससे पता चलता है कि विपक्षी संख्या 2 इस अपराध में सुनियोजित तरीके से शामिल है और इसलिए शिकायतकर्ता को परेशान करने के लिए एक मनगढ़ंत तरीके से कूट रचित  पुलिस रिपोर्ट तैयार की है जिस से विपक्षी संख्या 3 को मौका दिया गया की वह विपक्षी संख्या 1 की ओर से शिकायतकरता को फर्जी मुठभेड़ और जान से मरने की धमकी दे सके जिस से की वह के गैंग में जबरदस्ती शामिल किया जा सके। आरोपी संख्या 2 की यह प्रतिक्रिया को प्रधानमंत्री कार्यालय के दिनांक 08-01-2019 को दायर की गई शिकायत की प्रतिक्रिया के साथ क्लब की गई।

 

इस प्रकार, यह देखा गया है कि पूरे पुलिस विभाग के साथ-साथ पूरे सिस्टम को दूषित किया जा रहा है और कम से कम आरोपी संख्या 1 और 2 राज्य पुलिस और सरकार के लिए काम करने के बावजूद आपराधिक गतिविधियों को अंजाम देने वाले हैं  और  कानून-व्यवस्था को नष्ट कर रहे हैं।

विपक्षी संख्या १ का कहना है की उसके पास व्यस्तता थी पर हर शिकायत पर वही पहले वाला जवाब दिया और साथ ही विपक्षी संख्या २ ने भी वही किया. इस से स्पष्ट होता है की विपक्षी १ एवं २ पुलिस विभाग में होते हुए गंभीर आपराधिक गतिविधियों में लिप्त हैं इसलिए शिकायकर्ता पर बोहोत भरी खरता है. अतः निवेदन है की दोषियों के विरुद्ध सख्त कार्यवाही की जाये.

 

 

<Name>

(याचिकाकर्ता के लिए वकील)

 

याचिकाकर्ता