My sister and I, as power of attorney holder for my mother, filed Writ Petition No.19222/2022 in the High Court of Karnataka. We filed this seeking the quashing of a 13 year criminal trial instituted on a fabricated order of cognisance. The Constitution of India, under Article 21, guarantees the right to a fair trial. Yet, what I have experienced is the compromise of this right. Respondent No.2 [N.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy] and Respondent No.3 [M.Amaranatha] in this Writ Petition are advocates working for G.A.Srikante Gowda. One of the grounds we stand on is the violation of Article 21 since a fake advocate prosecuted this criminal trial. The problems I detail below is the result of allowing fake advocates to practice in the courts. I detail the nuanced ways in which complicity allows for the infringement of the right to a fair trial.
| PETITIONERS | RESPONDENTS |
|---|---|
| 1. SHILPA MUNIKEMPANNA | 1. NAGARAJ S/O DODDANNA |
| 2. SUSHEELA V [Represented by Rashmi Munikempanna] | 2. N.S.VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY |
| 3. M.AMARANATHA |
Beginnings of Writ Petition No.19222/2022
| COMPLAINANT | ACCUSED |
|---|---|
| NAGARAJ S/O DODDANNA | SUSHEELA V |
On 18th March 2010, N.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy [KAR/3540/2005], on behalf of Nagaraj, filed a private criminal complaint (P.C.R) against my mother. The complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. They filed this complaint in the court of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [A.C.M.M.], Mayo Hall, Bangalore. This resulted in a conviction on 02.05.2019. Subsequent to which my mother filed a Criminal Appeal. The City Civil and Sessions Court Bengaluru, in January 2022, appointed me as her pleader to argue the case in person.
In April of 2022 my sister and I stumbled on a series of investigative articles. The Presiding Officer Dr.A.Gurumurthy of the XIV A.C.M.M, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru unearthed a 15,000 crore “scam”. The image above, on the left, is the cover page of the court order sheet of the complaint. On the right a Central Information System printed court order sheet. A mere juxtaposition evidences fabrication. Coupled with a lot of other anomalies which point to the fact that this criminal case was instituted fraudulently.
Moreover what we found was evidence of fraud committed lis pendens. These included inter alia forging of Judge’s signatures, fabrication of depositions, evidence tampering, insertion of false documents into records. This criminal case was prosecuted by M.Amaranatha, a fake advocate. Hence we filed Writ Petition No.19222 of 2022, in the High Court of Karnataka seeking the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings.
Our Legal Representation
Legal Counsel represented my mother for 10 years in this 13 year trial.
2020 onwards: I represent her in person in Appellate Proceedings. Additionally my sister represents her in person in the High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court of India
Problems in Writ Petition No.19222/2022 in the High Court of Karnataka
Scrutiny Objections
Scrutiny objections were raised twice in violation of High Court of Karnataka Rules. Moreover, the Office raised these new objections after compliance had been done. Consequently the Writ Petition was not posted to Party-in-Person committee. We had to make several complaints before the Writ Petition could be posted in front of a Bench. And because of the new office objections – interim relief of stay of proceedings of the Criminal Appeal was held up for nearly two months.
Court Office Refuses to Follow Judicial Orders
AMENDMENT
The Pending Branch (GM-RES) refused to follow judicial orders dated 02.11.2022 allowing us to amend the Writ Petition. Consequently, the Hon’ble Court called in Officers from the Pending Branch for an explanation. There was no explanation, but there was an apology to the Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice finally facilitated the amendment in open court.
NOTICE
The Pending Branch (GM-RES) refused to follow judicial orders dated 15.11.2022 to post the Writ Petition after service of notice to Respondents. Respondent No.1 appeared on 06.01.2023, Respondent No.2 on 04.02.2023 and Respondent No.3 on 15.02.2023. Therefore we moved the court for listing. Hence listed on 18.04.2023. Nearly 5 months for notice!
Lawyers not on record appearing for Respondents
APPEARANCE
7 Advocates have entered appearance for the Respondents cumulatively. But at any given point there are advocates present and arguing who are not on record. For instance, one such advocate is Gagan Srikante son of G.A.Srikante Gowda.
The Court also allowed a meddlesome interloper to address it on 06.10.2023 after vacating the stay order. Who then went on to congratulate the court on the denial of relief since we had made “reckless allegations” against advocates!
LAW
Rules 1 & 3(2) Chapter V The High Court of Karnataka Rules 1959:
1. Subject as hereinafter provided no Advocate or Practitioner shall be entitled to appear and act in any civil matter before the High Court unless he files into Court a vakalatnama in prescribed from duly executed by or on behalf of the party for whom he appears.
3(2). Where an Advocate, who has filed a vakalatnama, engages another to appear and argue his client’s case but not to act for the client, the Court may permit such other Advocate to appear and argue, either without filing a vakalatnama or on filing a memorandum of appearance, instead of a vakalatnama.
Statement of Objections without Verifying Affidavit
AFFIDAVITS
All three Respondents filed statement of objections without verifying affidavit. Ironically, this in spite of practicing High Court advocates representing all three Respondents! Thereafter the Court Office raised an objection regarding the same. All the Respondents then filed affidavits as separate documents. But the Pending Branch never put up the affidavits for the court to decide on. But removed the scrutiny objection concerning the statement of objections. Hence we made an application for enquiry into this which is pending.
LAW
Rules 5 & 21 of The Writ Proceeding Rules 1977:
5. Objections to a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution and a reply thereto, if filed, and every interlocutory application in a writ petition, shall be in the same manner as specified in rule 2 to the extent applicable, shall be signed in the same manner as specified in rule 3 and shall be supported by an affidavit.
21. (1) Answer if any to the rule nisi showing cause against such petition shall be made by filing into Court objections supported by an affidavit within fourteen days after the expiry of the time fixed for appearance or such earlier time as the Court may direct, and reply to the objections supported by an affidavit, may be filed by the petitioner within one week of service of a copy of the objections on him or such earlier time as the Court may direct. The reply shall not raise any new ground in support of the writ petition.
Refusal to Provide Certified Copy of M.Amaranatha‘s affidavit
CERTIFIED COPY
The Certified copying branch has refused to provide a certified copy of the affidavit filed by M.Amaranatha (the fake advocate). Hence we filed an application seeking a direction to provide the same which is still pending.
LAW
Rule 1(1) Chapter XVII The High Court of Karnataka Rules 1959:
1.(1). Parties to a proceeding in the High Court shall be entitled as of right to apply for and receive certified copies of all pleadings, judgments, decrees or orders and all documents and depositions of witnesses made or exhibited in the said proceeding.
Applications (3) under S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Applications filed under S.340 of the CrPC seeking institution of criminal proceedings against all Respondents under Sections 183 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code. On account of Respondents’ false claims and for misleading a public authority. These applications are still pending for consideration.
LAW
Rule 10(1) Chapter XV The High Court of Karnataka Rules 1959:
10.(1) Interlocutory Applications shall be posted for preliminary or interim orders ordinarily within a week of their presentation.
Vacating of Stay of Appellate Proceedings
Interim Order dated 06.10.2023
On 06.10.2023 the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka presided over by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar suo motu vacated the stay of appellate proceedings. Earlier, we had been granted a stay on 15.11.2022 by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Natarajan. Consequently, we are currently assailing the interim order in a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) in the Supreme Court of India if it gets listed before becoming infructuous. Additionally, my sister is litigating in person. Read more on that here: