IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY
CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT
PETITION CIVIL NO. 11165 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
Versus
Alphabet Inc & Others
.. RESPONDENTS
MEMO
OF PARTIES
Ms Seema Sapra
Advocate BCD Enrolment
No. D/1159/1995
R/o rented premises in
Maa Ganga Vidyalaya Lane,
Rajokri, Delhi …Petitioner
Versus
1.
Alphabet Inc.
1600
Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain
View, CA 94043 USA
2.
Google LLC
1600
Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain
View, CA 94043 USA
3, Sundar Pichai
Chief
Executive Officer
Alphabet
Inc and Google LLC
1600
Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain
View, CA 94043 USA
4. Halimah DeLaine Prado
General
Counsel
Google
LLC
1600
Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain
View, CA 94043 USA
5. Google India Private Limited
CIN U72900KA2003PTC033028
No
3, RMZ Infinity - Tower E,
Old
Madras Road, 4th & 5th Floors, ,
Bangalore,
Karnataka, India - 560016.
6. Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
Government
Of India
North
Block Central Secretariat
New
Delhi – 110001
7.
Secretary, Ministry of Electronics
& Information Technology
Government
of India
Electronics
Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi
Road, New Delhi – 110003
8. Commissioner of Delhi Police
Police
Headquarters, Jaisingh Road
New
Delhi India
9. Central Bureau of Investigations
through
the Director, CBI
Plot
No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi
Road, New Delhi 110003. India
10. DCP SOUTH WEST
POLICE
HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH
ROAD N-DELHI
11. DCP, NEW DELHI
POLICE
HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH
ROAD N-DELHI
12 SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
SPECIAL
CELL
POLICE
HEADQUARTERS
JAISINGH
ROAD N-DELHI
13 Registrar General, Delhi High Court
Sher
Shah Suri Marg, New Delhi
14 Lieutenant Governor of Delhi
6
Raj Niwas Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi
15 Hemant Singh
Advocate
BCD Enrolment No. D/107/1982
Express
Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132
Noida
Expressway, Noida 201303
National
Capital Region of Delhi
16 Mamta Rani Jha
Advocate
BCD Enrolment No. D/3007/1999
Express
Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132
Noida
Expressway, Noida 201303
National
Capital Region of Delhi
17 Shruttima Ehersa
Advocate
BCD Enrollment No. D/364/2017
Express
Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132
Noida
Expressway, Noida 201303
National
Capital Region of Delhi
18 Rohan Ahuja
Advocate
Express
Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132
Noida
Expressway, Noida 201303
National
Capital Region of Delhi
19 Yashwant Rai Grover
Advocate
R/o
194 Jor Bagh Delhi 110003
Office
at Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector - 132
Noida
Expressway, Noida 201303
National
Capital Region of Delhi
20 Gitanjli Duggal
Legal
Director
Google
India Private Limited
No
3, RMZ Infinity - Tower E, Old Madras Road, 4th & 5th Floors, Bangalore
Bangalore KA IN 560016
gitanjli@googte.com
21 General Electric Company
Now
operating as GE Aerospace
Headquartered
at 1 Neumann Way
Evendale,
OH 45215
United
States
22 Bar Council of Delhi
2/6,
Siri Fort Institutional Area,
Khel
Gaon Marg, New Delhi-110049
23 Jim Pinter
Present
Grievance Officer for India
Google
LLC
1600
Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain
View, CA 94043
USA
E-Mail:
support-in@google.com
24 Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
New
Delhi - 110 002
25 Mehak Nakra
Advocate BCD enrollment no. D/1729/2012
Chamber
No. 423 Block-I, Delhi High Court,
Delhi
26 Anand Khatri
Advocate
Chamber
No. 422, Block I
Delhi
High Court, Delhi
27 Sanjay Lao
Advocate BCD Enrollment No.
D/362/1994
Chamber No. 422, Block
I
Delhi High Court, Delhi
28 Santosh Kumar Tripathi
Advocate
Chamber
no 423 Block-I,
Delhi
High Court, Delhi
29 Rahul Mehra
Advocate
BCD Enrollment No. D-378/ 1998
52 A Uday Park New Delhi
RESPONDENTS
Filed by Petitioner in
Person
Seema Sapra
Advocate BCD Enrollment
No.
Rajokri, Delhi
9 August 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 11165 OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
Alphabet Inc & Others …Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF
FIR FOR FILING OF A FORGED DOCUMENT IN DELHI HIGH COURT WRIT PETITION CRIMINAL
437/2018 BY LAWYER MAMTA RANI JHA UNDER DIARY NUMBER 431938/2019 ON 10 MAY 2019
AND WHICH HAS BEEN FALSELY DESCRIBED AS ‘A CERTIFICATE OF MS LILY KLEY UNDER
SECTION 65 B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
ISSUED BY GOOGLE LLC’ AND FOR REGISTRATION
OF FIR FOR FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND OTHER CONNECTED OFFENCES
APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS
The Petitioner abovenamed respectfully submits as under:
1. Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 filed by the
Petitioner is pending in the Delhi High Court. It was transferred to the Delhi High Court by
the following order of the Supreme Court dated 29 January 2018.
|
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.4 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1200/2017 SEEMA SAPRA Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA
No.135103/2017-PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) Date : 29-01-2018 These matters were called
on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) The Court made the following O R D E R In the nature of the prayers made in this
writ petition and having heard the petitioner, who appeared
in person, we find no special reason as to why the petitioner should not
pursue the grievances before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Petitioner prays that the petition itself
may be sent to the Delhi High Court for being registered as a
Writ Petition. We see no reason to deny such a request.
Therefore, the Registry is directed to transmit the papers
to the Delhi High Court for being appropriately dealt with. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed
of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR |
2. The relief sought in Writ Petition Criminal
437/ 2018 is reproduced below.
|
(i) Issue
a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to ask Google, i.e.,
Respondents 5 and 6 to immediately remove this anonymous blog from Blogger as
it violates the right to life and other fundamental rights of the
petitioner-whistleblower and complainant of sexual harassment; (ii) Issue
a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate as
to who created and procured the creation of this anonymous blog titled “Seema
Sapra Alert” and published at http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/ (iii) Issue
a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate
into the use of the email address seemasapraalert@gmail.com and its use to target the petitioner who
is a whistleblower against General Electric Company Company and a complainant
of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment and
sexual assault against Soli J Sorabjee; (iv) Direct
the Respondents 3 and 4 to register FIRs against the creators and procurers
of this blog and the associated email ID for the crimes committed against the
petitioner listed hereinabove in the writ petition and to investigate these
crimes in accordance with law and to bring criminal charges against all those
involved in procuring, abetting and committing these crimes against the
petitioner; (v) Direct
the Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to take legal action against the violation of
the Petitioner’s right to life and her other fundamental rights by the
creators and procurers of this anonymous blog; (vi) To
pass such other orders and further orders and to issue such other and further
writs as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case. |
3. Since 2018, a powerful group of lawyers hostile
to the Petitioner who is also a lawyer, have collectively worked to interfere
with the administration of justice in Writ Petition Crl 437/ 2018 and to
prevent the registration of FIRs in order to protect the persons who planned,
created and used this blog to target the Petitioner.
4. The Petitioner has made whistleblower
complaints against General Electric Company (now operating as GE Aerospace) in her
capacity as former full-time in-house counsel for GE in connection with its
tenders for the Railways diesel locomotive factory project at Marhowra in
Bihar. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High
Court seeking investigation of these complaints and seeking protection. That
Writ Petition was also sabotaged by a group of lawyers. A perverse judgment was
delivered in that writ petition on 2 March 2015 which was also vitiated by
multiple frauds on the Court including the filing of forged and fraudulent
authority documents in that case for General Electric Company and its two
subsidiaries by the lawyers who claimed to represent GE. It is well-settled law
that a court judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and therefore void
ab-initio. It is therefore the Petitioner’s case that the Delhi High Court
decision of 2 March 2015 in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 is null and void on account of
it having been obtained by fraud on the Court. By way of example, a copy of one of the forged authority documents filed for
GE India Industrial Private Limited in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 (Power of Attorney
copy dated 8 December 2014 allegedly signed by Tejal Patil) by lawyer Nanju
Ganpathy then a Partner in AZB & Partners is annexed hereto as Annexure A-1
5. The Petitioner is also being targeted by this
powerful group of lawyers because she has made complaints that she was drugged,
sexually assaulted and sexually harassed by two powerful lawyers. The first
lawyer is Raian N. Karanjawala who owns a powerful litigation law firm and who
claims close friendship with the rich and the powerful including Rupert
Murdoch, Ratan Tata, Gautam Adani etc. In 1995, the Petitioner started working
in Raian Karanjawala’s law firm after he was recommended to her by Arun Jaitley
as his good friend. The Petitioner had lost her father in 1995 while still in
law school and this was perhaps the reason she was viewed by Arun Jaitley and
Raian Karanjawala as an easy target/ victim. During a work trip to then
Calcutta for a court matter for Lufthansa, Raian Karanjawala drugged the
Petitioner over a group dinner (with other guests) in the Taj Bengal Hotel's
Chinese restaurant, and while walking back to their respective rooms close to
midnight, when the Petitioner was staggering and groggy and extremely sleepy, Raian
Karanjawala asked the Petitioner if she wanted to join him in his room for a
night-cap. The Petitioner said - No I need to sleep - and went into her room
and passed out. She does not remember what happened next. Raian Karanjawala
continued to use his employee Hari who handled the kitchen in the Defence
Colony D-10 office to drug the Petitioner because he feared exposure and wanted
to control the Petitioner. On one occasion, Raian Karanjawala told the
Petitioner she would end up in a ditch. Raian Karanjawala then attempted to get
rid of the Petitioner and eventually he is the person who encouraged the
Petitioner who was being drugged by him to join the office of Soli J. Sorabjee
who at that time was the Attorney General for India. It is obvious that Raian
Karanjawala was aware that Soli J. Sorabjee was a sex predator and that is why
Raian Karanjawala made sure that the Petitioner joined Soli Sorabjee’s office
so that she could continue to be controlled. Soli J. Sorabjee (who died in
2021) was the Attorney General of India when he sexually assaulted the
Petitioner by inviting her for dinner to his Neeti Bagh office, drugging her
and then assaulting her by kissing and groping her and putting his tongue
inside the Petitioner’s mouth all without consent, when the Petitioner (who was
40 years younger and then in her twenties) was working as an associate lawyer
in his office as the Attorney General for India. The Petitioner pulled away
from Soli Sorabjee’s grasp and left. Both Soli J Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala
continued to have the Petitioner drugged in 2001 and even in 2002 in the UK
where the Petitioner was pursuing her LLM at the University of Leicester. The Petitioner
was not aware at the time that Raian Karanjawala and Soli Sorabjee were having
her drugged as part of their attempts to control her. It is only recently and looking
back at certain events in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 that the Petitioner has
realised that she was most likely being drugged. A group of lawyers including
Saurabh Kirpal and Anupam Sanghi were also used by Raian Karanjawala and Soli
Sorabjee to control the Petitioner and to prevent her from speaking out. When
the Petitioner was working with Raian Karanjawala, she also worked frequently
with Rajiv Nayar, Arun Jaitley and Mukul Rohatgi who were all close friends.
All of them were aware of Raian Karanjawala’s plan and attempt to sexually
exploit the Petitioner. Soli J. Sorabjee, Raian Karanjawala, Rajiv Nayar, Arun
Jaitley and Mukul Rohatgi have all been involved in the planned hounding of the
Petitioner and in the destruction of the Petitioner’s life, reputation and
career since 2010 and in the attempts to murder her. They have also been
involved in the attempted cover up of the Petitioner’s whistleblower complaints
against GE and in the sabotage of WP Civil1280/2012.
6. The present writ petition is concerned with the
ongoing obstruction of the administration of justice in WP Crl 437/ 2018. The
Petitioner is filing a separate detailed list of dates showing how the
administration of justice has been interfered with and subverted in WP Cr4l
437/ 2018. The modus operandi has been very similar to that used in WP Civil
1280/ 2012 in which case the lawyers involved thought they had gotten away with
the fraud played on the court by using lawyers to falsely impersonate as
lawyers for GE using forged authority documents. In WP Crl 437/ 2018, lawyers
have been used to falsely impersonate as lawyers of Google LLC and to furnish
false information to the Court including going to the extent of filing a forged
document as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC. The present Writ
Petition seeks an FIR for forgery, for fabrication of evidence, and for
unlawful impersonation in court proceedings in respect of this forged document
filed as a Section 65 B Certificate (copy) for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018.
7. Annexed hereto as Annexure
A-2 is a copy of the document (copy) filed by lawyer Mamta Rani Jha in WP Crl
437/ 2018
on 10 May 2019 under diary number 431938/2019. The Index to this filing
bears the signature of Mamta Rani Jha or of someone who has signed for her. The
Index describes this document as Certificate of Ms. Lily Kley under section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed on behalf of Google LLC.
8.
It is submitted that
this document attached hereto at Annexure A-2 filed by lawyer Mamta Rani Jha in
WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 10 May 2019 under diary number 431938/2019 is a forged document. This forged
Section 65-B Certificate was filed to thwart any investigation into the
persons/ entities behind the creation of an anonymous Blogger
Blog created and published in 2014 to target the Petitioner -lawyer. The Blog
which was available at the url http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.com/
until 2018, has now been removed/ deleted.
9. The
Petitioner relies upon the contents of Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018.
9.
Lawyers from the
law-firm Inttl Advocare who have appeared or have entered appearance for Google
LLC in the Writ Petition Criminal 437/2018 include the lawyers listed on the
Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018 and described as Advocates of the law-firm Inttl
Advocare having its Office at Express Trade Tower, B-36, Sector – 132, Noida
Expressway, Noida 201303, National Capital Region of Delhi INDIA Phone +91 120
2470200 - 298 (Extn. 124) inttl@inttladvocare.com
|
The lawyers
listed on the vakalatnama are the following: Mr Hemant
Singh Ms Preetika
Singh Ms Mamta R Jha
Mr Manish
Mishra Ms Shilpa
Arora Mr Pranav
Narain Mr Waseem
Shuaib Ahmed Mr Abhijeet
Rastogi Mr Vipul K
Tiwari Mr Ankit
Arvind Ms Shruttima
Ehersa Ms Akansha
Singh Mr Rohan
Krishnan Ms Saumya
Gupta Ms Shreya
Khandelwal |
10. In
addition to the above Advocates, certain other lawyers have appeared or entered
their appearance in WP Crl 437/ 2018 for Google LLC and their names are
mentioned in various court orders. These include the following:
|
Mr Sajan
Poovayya Sr. Advocate Ms.
Priyadarshi Bannerjee Ms. Roshnara
Rauf Mr. Pratibhanu S. Kharola Ms. Sakshi
Shalini Ms. Sakshi
Jhalani Mr Rohan Ahuja
Mr Vatsalya
Vishal Ms Amishi
Sodani |
11. Despite
the mention of so many names in the Vakalatnama and in Court orders, the three
lawyers who have actually appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 are Sajan
Poovayya Sr Advocate, Mamta Rani Jha and Shruttima Ehersa. Shruttima Ehersa has
been the constant and has argued for Google LLC except when Senior Advocate
Sajan Poovayya appeared.
12. The
filings in WP Crl 437/ 2018 by lawyers Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa on behalf
of Google LLC include the following:
|
A vakalatnama
dated 6 April 2018 signed by Inttl Advocare lawyer Yashwant Rai Grover as
Constituted Attorney of Google LLC filed on behalf of Google LLC on 6 April
2018 under the signature of Shruttima Ehersa as Advocate of Inttl Advocare. A
copy of this document is annexed hereto as Annexure A-3. A copy of
Power of Attorney dated 08.03.2018 in favour of Mr Yashwant Rai Grover,
Constituted Attorney of Google LLC filed on 23 January 2019 under the
signature of Shruttima Ehersa signing for Ms Mamta Jha as Advocate of Inttl
Advocare. This Power of Attorney is executed by Mr Kenneth H. Yi on behalf of
Google LLC and is dated 8 March 2018. A copy of this document is annexed
hereto as Annexure A-4. A
copy of a certificate dated 2 May 2019 of one Ms Lily Kley under Section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed on 9 May 2019 under the name of Ms
Manta Jha Advocate of Intll Advocare but signed for her by another person
whose name is illegible. A
copy of this document is annexed hereto as Annexure A-2. |
13. The
Power of Attorney dated 8 March 2018 that has been produced in favour of Mr
Yashwant Rai Grover (who has signed the vakalatnama in WP Crl 437/ 2018) as
Constituted Attorney of Google LLC is on its own terms valid only for Civil
Proceedings pending before Courts of Civil Jurisdiction. This Power of Attorney
is therefore not valid for Criminal Writ Petition 437/2018 being heard by the
Delhi High Court in its Criminal Jurisdiction. This Power of Attorney therefore
could not have been used in WP Crl 437/ 2018 or relied upon to execute the
vakalatnama in WP Crl 437/ 2018 which are criminal proceedings. Mr Yashwant
Rai Grover had no authority to act as the Constituted Attorney for Google LLC in
WP Crl 437/ 2018. The Vakalatnama dated 6 April 2018
executed by Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is therefore invalid on this ground alone.
|
Relevant
extract from the Power of Attorney “NOW
THESE PRESENTS WITNESS that the Company hereby nominates, constitutes and
appoints Yashwant Rai Grover, Son of Rohit Kumar Grover, resident of 194, Jor
Bagh, New Delhi - 110003 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Attorney") to be the Company's true and lawful attorney, and in
the name of the Company, and on its behalf, to do the following acts, deeds,
matters or things in connection with any civil suit(s), petition(s) or any
legal proceeding(s) initiated and (or) pending against the Company before the
Civil Courts including any authority or tribunal or civil forums (hereinafter
referred to as the "Court(s) of Civil Jurisdiction") in India,” |
14. The
Power of Attorney in favor of Advocate Yashwant Rai Grover dated 8 March 2018
contains the following statement: “I further state that neither the present
Power of Attorney nor any past Power of Attorney or document executed on behalf
of the Company may be deemed to either render the Attorney as an agent for service
on or for receiving any summons or notices or any documents or pleadings in any
manner on behalf of the Company”. The Petitioner submits that neither Mr
Yashwant Rai Grover nor any lawyers appointed under a vakalatnama signed by him
had any authority to accept any notice or document or pleading on behalf of
Google LLC.
15. The
Delhi High Court issued notice in WP Crl 437/ 2018 to Google LLC and Google
India by order dated 12 February 2018.
16. On
21 March 2018, the Petitioner received the following email from Ms Mamta Rani
Jha of Inttl Advocare.
|
----------
Forwarded message --------- From: Mamta
<mamta@inttladvocare.com> Date: Wed, Mar
21, 2018 at 2:44 PM Subject: SEEMA
SAPRA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, W.P. (CRL) 437/2018 PENDING BEFORE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI [Our Ref: HC/2175] To:
sapraconsultants@gmail.com <sapraconsultants@gmail.com>,
seema.sapra@gmail.com <seema.sapra@gmail.com> Cc: Hemant
Singh <hemant@inttladvocare.com>, Pranav Narain
<pranav@inttladvocare.com>, Shruttima Ehersa
<shruttima@inttladvocare.com> Dear Ms.
Sapra, We represent
our client Google LLC, Respondent No. 5, in the captioned matter. For any
further communication, you may please contact us. With warm
regards, Mamta Rani Jha Partner &
Head – Litigation |
17. The
Order passed on 27 April 2018 in WP Crl 437/ 2018 is reproduced below.
|
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL)
437/2018 SEEMA SAPRA
... Petitioner Represented
by: Petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA
& ORS ... Respondents Represented
by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with
Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for
respondent No.3 Mr.Sajan
Poovayya, Sr.Advocate
with Ms.Priyadarshi
Bannerjee, Ms.Mamta R.Jha
and Ms.Shruttinaa,
Advocates for respondent
No.5 Insp.Sanjay
Kumar, PS Saket CORAM: HON'BLE MS.
JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA O R D E R 27.04.2018 No steps have
been taken for service of respondents No.1, 2, 5 and 6. However,
learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 enters appearance. The main
prayer of the petitioner in the present petition is removal of the anonymous
blog from blogger at Google titled as ‘Seema Sapra Alert’ and published at
‘http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/’. Considering
the contents of the blog which are totally uncalled for and unwarranted,
respondent No.5 is directed to remove the anonymous blog as noted above. Learned senior
counsel for respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has
entered appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents
No.5, respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter,
no notice be issued to respondent No.6. In the
meantime, respondents No.1 and 2 be served through the Standing Counsel,
Union of India and respondent No.3 be served through the Standing Counsel
(Criminal), Govt. of NCT of Delhi by the petitioner. Mr. Rahul
Mehra, Standing Counsel, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.3. Copy of the petition be supplied to learned Standing Counsel
within two days. Status Report be filed before the next date. Learned senior
counsel for respondent No.5 assures that any cooperation which is required in
the investigation of the matter, will be rendered to respondent No.3. List on 1st
November, 2018. MUKTA GUPTA,
J. APRIL 27, 2018 |
18. The
Petitioner submits that the lawyers who appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/
2018 on 27 April 2018 did so without authority and without a valid vakalatnama.
These lawyers were Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priyadarshi
Bannerjee, Ms. Mamta R.Jha and Ms. Shruttima Ehersa. The submissions and
statements made by Mr Sajan Poovayya to the Court during this hearing on 27
April 2018 on behalf of Google LLC were
unauthorised.
19. The
following statement was made by Mr Sajan Poovayya on behalf of Google LLC
during the hearing of WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 27 April 2018.
|
Learned senior
counsel for respondent No.5 fairly states that since respondent No.5 has
entered appearance and all necessary details can be provided by respondents
No.5, respondent No.6 is not a necessary party. In this view of the matter,
no notice be issued to respondent No.6. |
20. It
is submitted that neither Mr Sajan Poovayya nor his briefing counsel had any
authority to appear for or speak for Google LLC (respondent 5) in WP Crl 437/
2018, and that this statement made by Mr Sajan Poovayya to the Court during the
hearing on 27 April 2018 was not only unauthorised but also inaccurate. An
incorrect statement was made by Mr Sajan Poovayya that participation of Google
India (respondent 6) was not necessary in the Writ Petition Crl 437/ 2018. Because
of this unauthorised and incorrect statement made by lawyers who had no
authority to make this statement or to represent or make submissions on behalf
of Google LLC, the Court did not issue notice to Google India. The resulting absence
of Google India from the proceedings in WP Crl 437/ 2018 has facilitated the
fraudulent attempted sabotage of that Writ Petition and the filing of a forged
document as a Section 65 B Certificate (copy) of Google LLC.
21. The
Petitioner has in WP Crl 437/ 2018 requested the Court that fresh notice be
issued both to Google LLC and Google India in WP Crl 437/ 2018. The proceedings
in WP Crl 437/ 2018 are pending.
22. Mr
Yashwant Rai Grover, the Constituted Attorney of Google LLC under the Power of
Attorney dated 8 March 2018 is an Associate in the Law-firm Intll Advocare. The
Power of Attorney states that it will terminate once Yashwant Rai Grover is no
longer an employee of the firm or no longer serves in the same capacity at the
firm. It can be assumed that the reference to the “firm” in the Power of
Attorney is to the law-firm Intll Advocare. Mr Hemant Singh is the Founder and
Managing Partner of Intll Advocare. Ms Mamta Jha is Senior Partner in Intll
Advocare. Ms Shruttima Ehersa is an Associate in Intll Advocare.
23. The
Petitioner submits that the law is clear that the same person cannot
simultaneously act as the Constituted Attorney of a Party and also as the
counsel/ advocate of that Party before a Court of Law in India. The word
“person” in this proposition would include a Law Firm Partnership and its
partners/ members as well as all retained/ salaried lawyers, including
non-partner associates of the firm. For this proposition of law, the Petitioner
relies upon (i) the Delhi High Court decision in Anil
Kumar and Anr vs Amit rendered on 17 November, 2021; (ii) the Delhi High
Court decision in Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Baker Hughes
Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (47) PTC 296 (Del); and (iii) on the relevant Bar Council
of India and Bar Council of Delhi Rules. The relevant extract from Anil Kumar
and Anr vs Amit is reproduced below.
|
“6. The
question these petitions was whether Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni, who was acting
as the power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff, Mr. Amit
Ved/Plaintiff/Respondent herein (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and had
verified the plaint on behalf of the said Plaintiff could appear also as a
counsel in the matter. In C.R.P. 75/2020, vide order of the Court dated 13th
July, 2021, Mr. Sahni submitted that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama and
continue as the power of attorney holder and he would no longer act as a counsel
for the Plaintiff. He again assures this Court that he would withdraw his
Vakalatnama in the Trial Court proceedings and he would no longer act as a
counsel for the Plaintiff in this matter. He submits that he shall take steps
within 2 weeks for substitution of the Vakalatnama by a new counsel. 7. It is made
clear that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of
their clients, as also as advocates in the matter is contrary to the
provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Any advocate who is engaged by a
client would have to play only one role, i.e., that of the advocate in the
proceedings and cannot act as a power of attorney holder and verify pleadings
and file applications or any other documents or give evidence on behalf of
his client. This aspect has to be scrupulously ensured by all the Trial
Courts. This legal position has been settled by various decisions. In Baker
Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Baker Hughes Ltd. & Ors., 2011
(47) PTC 296 (Del), the Court held: "Thus as
is manifest from the said rule, it would be a professional misconduct if a
lawyer were to don two hats at the same time. However not only that, the
partnership firms have a hurdle for acting in the said two capacities even
under The Partnership Act, as every partner in a partnership firm is an agent
of another and if one were to be acting as an advocate for a client, the rest
would also be in the same capacity by virtue of agency and the same would be
the situation in case of an advocate acting as a client. However, it cannot
be forgotten by any who has ever been graced with the honour of wearing the
robe that the lawyer is first an officer of the court and his prime duty is
to assist the court in the administration of justice. The rules of conduct as
per the Bar Council Of India Rules may act as a guardian angel for ensuring
the moral conduct of the lawyers but the legacy of the traditions of the Bar
cannot be bedaubed by a few for the lucre of commercial gains. A lawyer
cannot forget that this is called a noble profession not only because by
virtue of this he enjoys an aristocratic position in the society but also
because it obligates him to be worthy of the confidence of the community in
him as a vehicle of achieving justice. The rules of conduct of this
profession with its ever expanding horizons are although governed by the Bar
Council of India Rules but more by the rich traditions of the Bar and by the
cannons of conscience of the members of the calling of justice of being the
Samaritans of the society. Thus the foreign companies and firms must respect
the laws of this land and the solicitors and law firms are equally not
expected to discharge their duties as clients for these foreign
companies/firms. Law is not a trade and briefs no merchandise and so the
avarice of commercial gains should not malign this profession. Hence there
can be no divergent view on the legal proposition that an Advocate cannot act
in the dual capacity, that of a constituted attorney and an advocate." |
24. The
Power of Attorney filed for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 is in favour of Mr
Yashwant Rai Grover as Constituted Attorney. Mr Yashwant Rai Grover is an
associate lawyer in the law firm Intll Advocare. Therefore, other lawyers of
Intll Advocare including its Managing Partner, other Partners, and Associates could
not have appeared and cannot appear as Counsel for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/
2018. The Vakalatnama executed by Intll Advocare Lawyer Mr Yashwant Rai Grover
in favour of his employers and colleagues at Intll Advocare for WP Crl 437/
2018 and filed in that matter is invalid, unlawful and against Bar Council of
India and Bar Council of Delhi rules.
25. All
the lawyers associated with the law-firm Intll Advocare whose name appears on
the vakalatnama or who have appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437 2018 or whose
name appears in Court Orders as having appeared for Google LLC had/ have no
authority to represent Google LLC as Counsel in WP Crl 437/ 2018 before the
Delhi High Court. All Court appearances by them and all submissions/
representations/ filings made by them in WP Crl 437/ 2018 in the Delhi High
Court were made without authorization by Google LLC and therefore cannot be
accepted by the Court.
26. Lawyers
Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa have also filed a forged document
as a copy of what has been described as a certificate dated 2 May 2019 of one
Ms Lily Kley under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for Google LLC
in WP Crl 437/ 2018. This is a forged document, is fraudulent and is an
unauthorised filing which cannot be accepted by the Court.
27. The
lawyers from Intll Advocare Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa have not only
appeared for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018 without a valid vakalatnama or legal
authorization, thereby falsely impersonating as counsel for Google LLC, but
they have also attempted to scuttle any investigation, have misdirected the
Court and the Police, and have participated in the fabrication and filing of
false evidence.
28. Points
to note about the document (annexure A-2 to the present Petition) described as Section
65 B Certificate (copy) filed for Google LLC in Delhi High Court Writ Petition
Criminal 437/ 2018 which establish that it is a forged document.
|
A. The document is filed in Writ
Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 pursuant to Order dated 20 March 2019 passed in
WP Criminal 437/ 2018. The document/ certificate however
incorrectly states in paragraph 3 that the information has been extracted
pursuant to the order passed In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
civil suit number 437/2018. This factual error alone is
sufficient to make this document/ certificate suspect. This is a material factual
error going to the root of the authenticity of this document. The Petitioner submits that it is
incomprehensible that Google LLC which would only issue a Section 65 B
certificate after multiple vetting by several in-house and external legal
counsel would make such a basic factual error. |
|
B. The document refers to attached
documents in the plural in several places but only a single page is attached. In para 4, the words “attached
documents” and “copies” appear. In para 5, the words “attached
documents” and “records” appear. In para 6, the word “printouts”
appears. |
|
C. The Certificate is neither notarised
nor apostilled even though it has been executed outside India. All documents executed outside India
are required by law to be apostilled. Further what has been filed is a
photocopy. |
|
D. The place of execution is shown as
Google LLC instead of a geographic location. |
|
E.
This document has been filed by lawyers who have and had no legal authority
to represent or appear as counsel for Google LLC in Writ Petition Criminal
437/ 2018 and whose vakalatnama is defective for the reasons indicated
hereinabove, and who were/ are falsely impersonating as authorized counsel
for Google LLC for WP Crl 437/ 2018. |
29. Section
65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced below.
|
Section
65B. Admissibility of electronic
records. (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in
an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied
in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to
as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the
conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the
information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any
proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence
or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct
evidence would be admissible. (2)
The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output
shall be the following, namely:-- (a)
the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer
during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or
process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on
over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the
computer; (b)
during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic
record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was
regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said
activities; (c)
throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating
properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not
operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period,
was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its
contents; and (d)
the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived
from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the
said activities. (3)
Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for
the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by
computers, whether-- (a)
by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b)
by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c)
by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that
period; or (d)
in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in
whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of
computers, all
the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for
the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and
references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4)
In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by
virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that
is to say, -- (a)
identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the
manner in which it was produced; (b)
giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that
electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the
electronic record was produced by a computer; (c)
dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in
sub-section (2) relate, and
purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position
in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the
relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any
matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it
shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge
and belief of the person stating it. (5)
For the purposes of this section, (a)
information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied
thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or
(with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
-- (b)
whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information
is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of
those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those
activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be
taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c)
a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether
it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by
means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.
-- For the purposes of this section any reference to information being
derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived
therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process. |
30. Lawyers
from the lawfirm Inttl Advocare Hemant Singh, Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa,
Rohan Ahuja, and Yashwant Rai Grover have been used to sabotage the
Petitioner’s efforts to obtain justice and to obstruct the administration of
justice in Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 instituted by the Petitioner. They
have falsely impersonated as authorised counsel for Google LLC in WP Crl 437/
2018. They have deceived the Court. They have produced an invalid vakalatnama
and an invalid power of attorney. They have filed a forged document as a Section
65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC in WP Criminal 437/ 2018.
31. This
Blog titled Seema Sapra Alert was created in 2014 to target the Petitioner even
while Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 was being heard in the Delhi High Court.
From the contents of what was posted on the Blog, it is clear that the intent
of the persons who procured and created this Blog was to smear and target the Petitioner. They had
detailed information on the Petitioner and her complaints and a highly distorted
version was published on the blog. They had legal knowledge. It is clear that
GE Executives, Montek Singh Ahluwalia and some lawyers including A S Chandhiok,
Soli Sorabjee, Arun Jaitley, Rajiv Nayar, Zia Mody, Raian Karanjawala, Mukul
Rohatgi and others were behind the creation of this blog. The Blog invited
people to connect on an email seemasapraalert@gmail.com
to conspire on how to target the Petitioner. The blog used a picture of the
Petitioner.
32. After
Writ Petition Crl 437/ 2018 was registered in the Delhi High Court, a group of
lawyers entered into a criminal conspiracy with other persons to sabotage this
case and to obstruct the administration of justice. Rahul Mehra who was then
Standing Counsel Criminal GNCTD was a part of this criminal conspiracy. The
Petitioner has reason to believe that the lawyers involved in the creation,
publication and use of this blog to target the Petitioner entered into a
criminal conspiracy with lawyer Hemant Singh to obstruct the administration of
justice in WP Crl 437/ 2018. Hemant Singh who is the Managing Partner of Inttl
Advocare and who regularly appears for Google in cases before the Delhi High
Court was roped in to falsely impersonate as the counsel for Google LLC in WP
Crl 437/ 2018 with the intention of furnishing false information to the Court
so as to scuttle any investigation. Hemant Singh used his colleagues Mamta Rani
Jha and Shruttima Ehersa to impersonate Google LLC’s lawyers in WP Crl 437/
2018, to file an invalid vakalatnama, to file an invalid power of attorney, to
furnish false information to the court, to file this forged document as a
Section 65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC, and to otherwise obstruct the
administration of justice in WP Crl 437/ 2018.
33. This
forged Section 65 B Certificate was filed to obstruct the administration of
justice in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 and to obstruct
the investigation into the persons/ entities responsible for creating the
anonymous Blogger Blog at url http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.com/ which was
used to target and destroy the Petitioner’s life and career and to facilitate
physical attacks on the Petitioner and to facilitate the poisoning of the
Petitioner;
34. This
forged Section 65 B Certificate establishes a pattern showing that lawyers are
being used to sabotage the legal proceedings instituted by the Petitioner and
to obstruct the administration of justice in her cases with the intent to
prevent the Petitioner from accessing justice, and establishing that the threat
to the life of the Petitioner also issues from a powerful lobby of lawyers
acting in concert and who are using other lawyers to target the Petitioner.
35. The
filing of this forged document as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) not only
further establishes the gravity of the threat to the life of the Petitioner but
has also become the source of an independent threat to the Petitioner’s life as
the lawyers behind this forgery are also targeting the Petitioner.
26. The
following provisions of the Indian Penal Code are attracted for forgery and
fabrication of evidence by the filing of this forged document in WP Crl 437/
2018 falsely described as a Section 65 B certificate (copy) for Google LLC and
for false impersonation in Court proceedings.
|
Relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code 463. Forgery.—3[Whoever makes any false
document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any
person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to
commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 464. Making a false document.—3[A person is
said to make a false document or false electronic record— First.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a
document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic
record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any 4[electronic signature] on
any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution
of a document or the authenticity of the 4[electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be
believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or
4[electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or
affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he
knows that it was not made, singed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.—Who without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document
or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made,
executed or affixed with 4[electronic signature] either by himself or by any
other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such
alteration; or Thirdly.—Who dishonestly or fraudulently
causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic
record or to affix his 4[electronic signature] on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication
cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know
the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the
alteration.] 465. Punishment for forgery.—Whoever
commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 466. Forgery of record of Court or of
public register, etc.—3[Whoever forges a document or an electronic record],
purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a
register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a
public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by
a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or
defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or
a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine. 1[Explanation.—For the purposes of this
section, "register" includes any list, data or record of any
entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of
subsection (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of
2000).] 470. Forged document.—A false 5[document or
electronic record] made wholly or in part by forgery is designated “a forged
5[document or electronic record]”. 471. Using as genuine a forged document or
electronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any
5[document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to
be a forged 5[document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same
manner as if he had forged such 5[document or electronic record]. 191. Giving false evidence.—Whoever, being
legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the
truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes
any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be
false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation1.—A statement is within the
meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the
belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a
person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a
thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing
which he does not know. 192. Fabricating false evidence.—Whoever
causes any circumstance to exist or 1[makes any false entry in any book or
record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record
containing a false statement,] intending that such circumstance, false entry
or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a
proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an
arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so
appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form
an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any
point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false
evidence”. 193. Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or
fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or
fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.—A trial before a
Court-martial2***is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by
law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a
judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a
Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for
the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes
on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of
a judicial proceeding, A as given false evidence. Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by
a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a
Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that
investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed
by a Court of Justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes
on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of
a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. 196. Using evidence known to be
false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence
any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in
the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence. 197. Issuing or signing false
certificate.—Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be
given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law
admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false
in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave
false evidence. 198. Using as true a certificate known to
be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a
true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall
be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 199. False statement made in declaration
which is by law receivable as evidence.—Whoever, in any declaration made or
subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public
servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence
of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or
believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point
material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 200. Using as true such declaration knowing
it to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such
declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be
punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. Explanation.—A declaration which is
inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration
within the meaning of sections 199 and 200. 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of
offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or
having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any
evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention
of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives
any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be
false, if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence
which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for
life.—and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’
imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term
not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the
description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to
one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the
offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B
to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is
liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to
fine. 202. Intentional omission to give
information of offence by person bound to inform.—Whoever, knowing or having
reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to
give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to
give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 203. Giving false information respecting an
offence committed.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an
offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence
which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both. 1[Explanation.—In sections 201 and 202 and
in this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place
out of 2[India], which, if committed in 2[India], would be punishable under
any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395,
396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460.] 204. Destruction of document to prevent its
production as evidence.—Whoever secretes or destroys any 3[document and
electronic record] which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence
in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public
servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part
of such 3[document or electronic record] with the intention of preventing the
same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public
servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or
required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both. 205. False personation for purpose of act
or proceeding in suit or prosecution.—Whoever falsely personates another, and
in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses
judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or
does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.. Ins. by Act 2 of 2006, s. 2 (w.e.f.
16-4-2006). |
27. The corresponding relevant provisions of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are also reproduced below. Some of the Offences that
are made out on the facts are continuing offences and the relevant sections of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita will also apply.
|
Relevant Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita 2024 335. A person is said to make a false
document or false electronic record— (A) Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (i) makes, signs, seals or executes a
document or part of a document; (ii) makes or transmits any electronic
record or part of any electronic record; (iii) affixes any electronic signature on
any electronic record; (iv) makes any mark denoting the execution
of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom
or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed
or affixed; or (B) Who without lawful authority,
dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document
or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made,
executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any
other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such
alteration; or (C) Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes
any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record
or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that
such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that
by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of
the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. 336. (1) Whoever makes any false document
or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with
intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or
to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud
or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. (2) Whoever commits forgery shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Whoever commits forgery, intending that
the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (4) Whoever commits forgery, intending that
the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any
party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 337. Whoever forges a document or an
electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court
or an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or
Aadhaar Card, or a register of birth, marriage or burial, or a register kept
by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be
made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to
institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess
judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this
section, “register” includes any list, data or record of any entries
maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1)
of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 339. Whoever has in his possession any
document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged and intending
that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if
the document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in
section 337 of this Sanhita, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and if the document is one of the description mentioned in
section 338, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine. 340. (1) A false document or electronic
record made wholly or in part by forgery is designated a forged document or
electronic record. (2) Whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record
which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic
record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such
document or electronic record. 227. Whoever, being legally bound by an
oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by
law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is
false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe
to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation 1.—A statement is within the
meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the
belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a
person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a
thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing
which he does not know. 228. Whoever causes any circumstance to
exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or
makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement,
intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear
in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before
a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may
cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the
evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to
the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”. 229. (1) Whoever intentionally gives false
evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence
for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to ten
thousand rupees. (2) Whoever intentionally gives or
fabricates false evidence in any case other than that referred to in
sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine
which may extend to five thousand rupees. Explanation 1.—A trial before a
Court-martial is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by
law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court, is a stage of a judicial
proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court. Illustration. A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for
the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes
on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of
a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by
a Court according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court, is a
stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place
before a Court. Illustration. A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed
by a Court to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a
statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a
judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. 233. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to
use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or
fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated
false evidence. 234. Whoever issues or signs any
certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of
which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing
that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in
the same manner as if he gave false evidence. 235. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to
use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false
in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave
false evidence. 236. Whoever, in any declaration made or
subscribed by him, which declaration any Court or any public servant or other
person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact,
makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to
be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the
object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the
same manner as if he gave false evidence. 237. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to
use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any
material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false
evidence. Explanation.—A declaration which is
inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration
within the meaning of section 236 and this section. 238. Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information
respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false shall,— (a) if the offence which he knows or
believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; (c) if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, be punished with
imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which
may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment
provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration. A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B
to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is
liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to
fine. 239. Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any
information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees,
or with both. 240. Whoever, knowing or having reason to
believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting
that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both. Explanation.—In sections 238 and 239 and in
this section the word “offence” includes any act committed at any place out
of India, which, if committed in India, would be punishable under any of the
following sections, namely, 103, 105, 307, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of
section 309, sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 310, 311, 312,
clauses (f) and (g) of section 326, sub-sections (4), (6), (7) and (8) of
section 331, clauses (a) and (b) of section 332. 241. Whoever secretes or destroys any
document or electronic record which he may be lawfully compelled to produce
as evidence in a Court or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public
servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part
of such document or electronic record with the intention of preventing the
same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public
servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or
required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. 242. Whoever falsely personates another,
and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses
judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or
does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.- |
28. Since 2018, lawyers from the law-firm called
Inttl Advocare headed by Hemant Singh have appeared in WP Crl 437/ 2018 without
a valid vakalatnama and have falsely claimed to represent Google LLC. These
lawyers have included Ms Mamta Rani Jha, Ms Shruttima Ehersa, and Mr Rohan
Ahuja. Mamta Rani Jha and Shruttima Ehersa in particular have misled the Court
and have made multiple false statements to the Court. The intent has been to shield
the offenders who created and used the blog to target the Petitioner and to prevent
the Petitioner from obtaining appropriate relief in the matter. As part of the
fraud committed on the Court by lawyers Hemant Singh, Mamta Rani Jha and
Shruttima Ehersa, a forged document falsely described as a Certificate (copy) of
one Ms Lily Kley under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was filed
purporting to be on behalf of Google LLC under the purported signature of Mamta
Rani Jha in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Criminal 437/ 2018 on 10 May 2019
under Diary No 431938/2019. A copy of this document is annexed hereto as
Annexure A-2. This document is a forged and fabricated document.
29. The actions of the lawyers from Inttl
Advocare Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa and their unknown co-conspirators
in filing a forged document as a Section 65 B Certificate (copy) for Google LLC
in WP Crl 437/ 2018 amount to serious criminal offences attracting the
following provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita -
463 IPC Forgery, 464 IPC Making a false document, 465 IPC Punishment for
forgery, 466 IPC Forgery of document used in Court proceedings, 470 IPC Forged
document, 471 IPC Using as genuine a forged document, 191 IPC Giving false
evidence, 192 IPC Fabricating false evidence, 193 IPC Punishment for false
evidence in a judicial proceeding, 196 IPC Using evidence known to be false,
197 IPC Issuing or signing false certificate, 198 IPC Using as true a
certificate known to be false, 199 IPC False statement made in declaration
which is by law receivable as evidence, 200 IPC Using as true such declaration
knowing it to be false, 201 IPC Causing disappearance of evidence of offence,
or giving false information to screen offender, 202 IPC Intentional omission to
give information of offence by person bound to inform, 203 IPC Giving false
information respecting an offence committed, 204 IPC Secretion or Destruction
of document to prevent its production as evidence, 205 IPC False personation
for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution, 335 BNS Making a false
document, 336 BNS. Forgery for Making a false document with intent to cause
damage or injury, to the public or to any person or with intent to commit
fraud, 337 BNS forgery for misuse in judicial proceedings, 339 BNS Knowingly
possessing forged document and intending its fraudulent use as genuine, 340 BNS
dishonest use as genuine of forged document, 227 BNS Giving false evidence, 228
BNS Fabricating false evidence, 229 BNS Giving false evidence and fabricating
false evidence for use in judicial proceeding and intentionally giving false
evidence and intentionally fabricating false evidence, 233 BNS corruptly using
as genuine evidence known to be false or fabricated, 234 BNS Issuing or signing
false certificate to be used as evidence, 235 BNS Giving false evidence by
corrupt use of false certificate as true certificate, 236 BNS Giving false
evidence by making false declaration, 237 BNS Giving false evidence by
corrupting using false declaration as true, 238 BNS Causing evidence of offence
to disappear and giving false information concerning offence with intent to
screen offender, 239 BNS Intentionally omitting to give information concerning
offence despite being legally bound to do so, 240 BNS Giving false information
respecting an offence known to have been committed, 241 BNS Secreting or
destroying evidence to prevent its production as evidence, 242 BNS False
personation for legal proceeding.
30. It is imperative that FIRs be registered for
these offences which have been committed and which continue to be committed to
thwart the administration of justice in WP Crl 437/ 2018 and to shield the
persons who created and used the Blog Seema Sapra Alert to target the
Petitioner and to incite and engineer the use of violence against the
Petitioner.
31. Hence the present writ petition. Since the
present writ petition is being filed in grave urgency and in circumstances of
an ongoing threat to life and ongoing poisoning, the Petitioner will supplement
with a more detailed list of dates and with additional documents at a later
date.
32. The Petitioner is a citizen of India. She has
a fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Article 21 reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.” The Petitioner is a
whistleblower and a victim. She is entitled to whistle-blower protection and to
witness protection. The Petitioner is entitled to the guaranteed fundamental
right to equal protection under the law under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India which reads – “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.
33. It is evident that lawyers appearing for
Delhi Police in WP Crl 437/ 2018 have colluded with lawyers who have falsely
impersonated and appeared in that case as lawyers for Google LLC and have
facilitated the obstruction of the administration of justice in WP Civil 437/
2018. These lawyers include Rahul Mehra who appeared in 2018 and 2019 in WP Crl
437/ 2018 as the lawyer for Delhi Police in his capacity as then Standing
Counsel Criminal for GNCTD. Also included in this conspiracy are lawyers who have
appeared for Delhi Police in WP Crl 437/ 2018 in 2023 and 2024. These include
Standing Counsel Criminal for GNCTD Sanjay Lao, Additional Standing Counsel
Criminal for GNCTD Anand Khatri, Additional Standing Counsel Criminal for GNCTD
Nandita Rao. These lawyers appearing as Counsel/ agents of the GNCTD constitute
State agents and they have been party to the violation of the Petitioner’s
fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by their active
and intentional participation in the ongoing attempted sabotage of WP Crl 437/
2018 and in the conspiracy carried out to shield the offenders who created the
Blog to target the Petitioner, and in
their acts in facilitating the filing of the forged document as a Section 65 B
Certificate (copy) for Google LLC and in facilitating the false personation by
Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha and Shruttima Ehersa as lawyers authorised to represent
Google LLC in WP Crl 437/ 2018. These lawyers who have appeared for the Delhi
Police in WP Crl 437/ 2018 have also facilitated the filing of four false
Status Reports on behalf of Delhi Police in WP Crl 437/ 2018.
34. On 1 June 2023, Justice Vikas Mahajan passed
the following protection order in WP Crl 437/ 2018 for the Petitioner Ms Seema
Sapra. This protection order has not been complied with till date. The
Petitioner continues to be stalked, followed, hounded and poisoned. Poisonous
chemical fumes and gases and poisonous smoke, pesticides, nerve agents,
neuro-toxic fumes, solvent fumes, and fumes causing loss of consciousness and
incapacitation continue to be released into the premises the petitioner is
renting in Rajokri.
|
$~34 * IN
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +
W.P.(CRL) 437/2018 SEEMA
SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through:
Petitioner in person. versus UNION
OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
Ms Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr Yash
Tyagi and Mr Subhrodeep, Advocate
for CGSC. Ms
Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State with SI
Pramod Kumar, Cyber Cell, Crime
Branch. CORAM: HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E
R %
01.06.2023 1. The
petitioner appearing in person has been heard for sometime. 2. She
also submits that she faces threat to her life. Let DCP (South West) look
into it and shall provide all possible protection to her in accordance with
law. 3. List
for further arguments on 16.08.2023, the date already fixed. VIKAS
MAHAJAN, J JUNE 1,
2023 MK |
35. Subsequent to the Order dated 1 June 2023
passed in WP Crl 437/ 2018, Lawyers Anand Khatri Additional Standing Counsel
Criminal for GNCTD and Mehak Nakra Additional Standing Counsel Civil for GNCTD
have both dishonestly facilitated the filing of false Status Reports of DCP
Manoj C. in WP Crl 437/ 2018 falsely claiming that the Police is protecting the
Petitioner and also falsely claiming that there is no threat to the
Petitioner’s life. Both Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra have knowingly filed a
forged document in WP Crl 437/ 2018 dishonestly describing it as a Police
Threat assessment report. The Petitioner filed WP Civil 13604/ 2023 for FIR for
forgery and fabrication of evidence in respect of this forged document
described as a Police Threat assessment report. Mehak Nakra acting in collusion
with Anand Khatri and the powerful group of lawyers targeting the Petitioner
obstructed the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 for 8 months,
to counter which the Petitioner filed 7 Contempt of Court cases against various
Police Officers. An order was passed on 8 May 2024 in these 7 Contempt cases
directing the DCP Special Cell SR to respond to the forgery charge and to
produce another copy of this document described as a Police Threat Assessment
Report. Mehak Nakra has on 20 July filed in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 what looks is
a defective affidavit of DCP Amit Kaushik producing another forged document
which is described as a fresh copy of the Police threat assessment report. (It
is entirely possible that the signature of DCP Amit Kaushik on this affidavit
is forged.) The copy of this Police threat assessment report produced by Mehak
Nakra with DCP Amit Kaushik’s affidavit in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 (attached as
annexure 7 hereto) does not match the copy earlier produced by both Anand
Khatri and Mehak Nakra with DCP Manoj C’s Status Reports filed in WP Crl 437/
2018 (attached as Annexure 8 hereto). There are now two differing copies of
what is supposed to be the same original. Forgery stands established. This
establishes beyond doubt that both Anand Khatri and Mehak Nakra have produced
forged documents described as a Police Threat assessment report purportedly
signed by DCP Alok Kumar. Contempt Case 1177 / 2024 filed by the Petitioner on
26 July 2024 against DCP Amit Kaushik pursuant to his alleged affidavit dated
20 July 2024 filed in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 producing this second forged
document as a fresh copy of the Police threat assessment report was listed for hearing in the Delhi High Court on 7 August
2024 and has been adjourned to 21 August 2024 to come up with WP Civil 13604/
2023.
36. The present writ petition also seeks Z+ security
for the Petitioner. The Petitioner seeks directions to the Home Ministry to
provide Z+ security to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also seeks a specific
direction that the Commissioner of Police and the Government of India be
directed to provide full protection to the Petitioner and to ensure that she is
not harmed in any manner by anyone including by policemen.
37. The present Writ Petition is in the interest
of justice. No other similar petition seeking similar relief has been filed by
the Petitioner in any Court or forum.
38. A brief petition is being filed due to
urgency because of the clear and present danger to the Petitioner’s life. More
detailed facts will be placed on record at a subsequent date.
39. Google LLC is a 100% subsidiary of Alphabet
Inc.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the
aforesaid circumstances this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i)
Direct
the registration of an FIR against lawyers Hemant Singh BCD Enrolment No.
D/107/1982, Mamta Rani Jha BCD Enrolment No. D/3007/1999, Shruttima Ehersa BCD
Enrollment No. D/364/2017, and other unknown co-conspirators for forgery of the
document annexed to this Writ Petition at Annexure A-2
which was filed by lawyer Mamta Rani Jha Advocate BCD Enrolment No. D/3007/1999
in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 10 May 2019 under diary number
431938/2019 and which has been falsely described as Certificate of Ms. Lily
Kley under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed on behalf of
Google LLC;
(ii)
Direct
the registration of an FIR against lawyers Hemant Singh BCD Enrolment No.
D/107/1982, Mamta Rani Jha BCD Enrolment No. D/3007/1999, Shruttima Ehersa BCD
Enrollment No. D/364/2017, and other unknown co-conspirators for fabrication of
evidence in respect of the document annexed to this Writ Petition at Annexure
A-2 which was filed by lawyer Mamta Rani Jha Advocate BCD Enrolment No.
D/3007/1999 in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018 on 10 May 2019 under diary
number 431938/2019 and which has been falsely described as Certificate of Ms.
Lily Kley under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed on behalf of
Google LLC;
(iii)
Direct
the registration of an FIR against lawyers Hemant Singh BCD Enrolment No.
D/107/1982, Mamta Rani Jha BCD Enrolment No. D/3007/1999, Shruttima Ehersa BCD
Enrollment No. D/364/2017, and other unknown co-conspirators for filing a
forged document in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018 falsely described as
Certificate of Ms. Lily Kley under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
filed on behalf of Google LLC for Offences committed and attracting the
following provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita -
463 IPC Forgery, 464 IPC Making a false document, 465 IPC Punishment for
forgery, 466 IPC Forgery of document used in Court proceedings, 470 IPC Forged
document, 471 IPC Using as genuine a forged document, 191 IPC Giving false
evidence, 192 IPC Fabricating false evidence, 193 IPC Punishment for false
evidence in a judicial proceeding, 196 IPC Using evidence known to be false,
197 IPC Issuing or signing false certificate, 198 IPC Using as true a
certificate known to be false, 199 IPC False statement made in declaration
which is by law receivable as evidence, 200 IPC Using as true such declaration
knowing it to be false, 201 IPC Causing disappearance of evidence of offence,
or giving false information to screen offender, 202 IPC Intentional omission to
give information of offence by person bound to inform, 203 IPC Giving false
information respecting an offence committed, 204 IPC Secretion or Destruction
of document to prevent its production as evidence, 335 BNS Making a false document,
336 BNS. Forgery for Making a false document with intent to cause damage or
injury, to the public or to any person or with intent to commit fraud, 337 BNS
forgery for misuse in judicial proceedings, 339 BNS Knowingly possessing forged
document and intending its fraudulent use as genuine, 340 BNS dishonest use as
genuine of forged document, 227 BNS Giving false evidence, 228 BNS Fabricating
false evidence, 229 BNS Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence
for use in judicial proceeding and intentionally giving false evidence and
intentionally fabricating false evidence, 233 BNS corruptly using as genuine
evidence known to be false or fabricated, 234 BNS Issuing or signing false
certificate to be used as evidence, 235 BNS Giving false evidence by corrupt
use of false certificate as true certificate, 236 BNS Giving false evidence by
making false declaration, 237 BNS Giving false evidence by corrupting using
false declaration as true, 238 BNS Causing evidence of offence to disappear and
giving false information concerning offence with intent to screen offender, 239
BNS Intentionally omitting to give information concerning offence despite being
legally bound to do so, 240 BNS Giving false information respecting an offence
known to have been committed, 241 BNS Secreting or destroying evidence to
prevent its production as evidence;
(iv)
Direct
the Commissioner of Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately
provide full protection to the Petitioner so as to ensure that the
Petitioner is not harmed in any manner including by Policemen;
(v)
Enforce
the Petitioner’s fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India by directing the Government of India through the Ministry
of Home Affairs to immediately provide Z+ security to the Petitioner;
(vi)
To pass
such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts
and in the circumstances of the case.
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA, PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
FILED ON: 9 August
2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Seema Sapra … Petitioner
Versus
Alphabet Inc & Others …Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, D/o Late Amolak Raj Sapra, age 52 years presently
living on rent in premises in Rajokri in Maa Ganga Vidyalaya Lane, Delhi do
hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner and am familiar with the
facts and circumstances of the case and am competent and authorized to swear
this Affidavit.
2. That I have drafted, read and understood the
accompanying Writ Petition and I state that the contents of the Petition are
based on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I believe to be true
and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.
Verified at New Delhi on this 9th day of August
2024.
DEPONENT
