- Mumbai Court found Iqbal Chahal, Suresh Kakani & Sitaram Kunte prima facie guilty of criminal offences under Section 52, 166, 167, 304-A, 420, 34 and 120(B) of IPC & Section 51(b), 54,55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 for bringing unlawful vaccine mandates for various places including travelling in local train with ulterior motive to give wrongful profit to vaccine companies and being responsible for vaccine deaths of people like Hitesh Kadwe and others and also responsible for violating citizens fundamental rights. The data proved that the vaccines are having death causing side effects and many vaccinated young people are dying due to heart attacks.
- Due to the first appearance the court did not issued non-bailable arrest warrant and ordered under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and directed the registry to issue summons to the accused.
- Similar action under offences of extortion will be initiated for mask mandates.
- If convicted all the three may be sentenced to maximum punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment.
- Recently Supreme Court & various High Courts in India have taken cognizance of vaccine deaths and issued notice/directions to the government regarding granting compensations to the victim and their family members. Dr. Snehal Lunawat’s father had claimed Rs. 1000 Crore and Hitesh Kadwe’s mother claimed Rs.100 Crores compensation from state which later to be recovered from accused vaccine manufactures Adhar Poonawalla & Bill Gates. [Rachana Gangu v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1125, Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4531, Sayeeda K.A. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 4514, Dilip Lunawat v. Serum Institute of India (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1773.]
- Now all the accused has to apply for bail but the complainant is going to oppose their bail and it will be very difficult for accused to get bail because of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court & Bombay High Court where such mandates are held to be unconstitutional & illegal.
- The complainant is going to file a Writ Petition for adding section 409, 115 etc. of IPC against the accused.
- The Complainant actually prayed for issuance of non-bailable arrest warrant against the three but court said as a first instance summons will be issued.
- The complaint is filed by Shri Ambar Koiri, National Steering Committee member of Awaken India Movement (AIM).
- Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal and other advocates represented the complainant.
There are also cases of side effects of diabetes, paralysis, neurological problems, kidney failure where cases of dialysis are increasing.
The recent study from Harvard University proved that the vaccines are 98 times more dangerous and deadly than the covid vaccines.
This case was earlier reported by Times of India on Dec 23, 2021
Link:- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/mumbai-plea-in-court-seeks-nbw-against-civic-chief-2-others/articleshow/88441058.cms
 |
| Adv. Ishwarlal S. Agarwal |
The summary of charge levelled in the complaint against the accused is as under;
“5.2. That as per Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and more particularly as per law laid down in the case of (i) Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130, (ii) Re Dinthar Incident Vs. State of Mizoram 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1313and other various landmark judgments it is clear that, there is no difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. The vaccinated people can get corona, they can spread infection and they can die due to corona. Vaccinated people can also be a super spreader.
5.3. Thereafter, Honourable High Court has made it clear that no discrimination can be made on the basis of vaccination status of a person.
5.6. That, Shri. Satyendra Kumar Singh, Under Secretary of Health Ministry of India in his affidavit dated08.10.2021 filed before Honourable Bombay High Court at Goa in Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2021, had clarified the Government of India’s policy decision as under;
“9. That, it is further humbly submitted that the directions and guidelines released by Government of India and Ministry of Health and family Welfare, do not entail compulsory or forcible vaccination against COVID-19 disease implying that COVID-19 vaccination is completely voluntary for all citizens of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status.
11. That, as per the existing guidelines, there is no provisions for forcing any citizen to book appointment for Covid Vaccination on Co-WIN or visiting Covid Vaccination Centre for vaccination […….]
[The Copy of the said Affidavit dated 08.10.2021 is herewith Annexed and marked as Exhibit – “B” ]
5.7 But the Accused acted in utter disregard and defiance of the above said legal mandate and passed the following SOP, Orders, directions to discriminate the vaccinated people. The SOP dated 11.08.2021 issued by Accused No. 01 Sh. Sitaram Kunte has following clauses; […………….]
5.8. Hence all the Accused acted in conspiracy with each other and violated the fundamental rights of the Complainant and many other citizen.
5.9. That the only intention in bringing such mandate was to give benefits to the vaccine manufacturing company and thereby enable the vaccine manufacturing company make profit at the cost of citizen’s health and wellbeing.”
Further grievance of the complainant in his complaint dated 11th November 2021 which is exhibited at Exhibit – A to the complaint it is mentioned as under;
“11. Shri Iqbal Chahal, Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai, and Suresh Kakani, Additional Municipal Commissioner are also involved in bringing such unlawful mandates in violation of National Authorities directives.
12. That, due to such unlawful rules many poor people were compelled to take vaccines and many people suffered a loss of life due to side effect of vaccines, A 23 years old Young boy Shri Hitesh Kadwe died within 3 hours of getting a CoviShield vaccine. His mother Smt. Kiran Yadar have filed a Complaint against accused you officials under section 302, 409, 420, 52, 120(B), 34, 109 of Indian Penal Code and section 51(b), 55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005.
13. That the AEFI Committee of the Government has admitted that the death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat was due to side effects of Covishield vaccine.
Link:- https://www.lokmat.com/nashik/death-female-doctor-after-vaccination-a587/
14. That as per law it is the duty of all the officers to publish the side effects of the vaccines before giving it to any person. [Montgomery’s Case [2015] UKSC 11, Airdale NHS Trust Vs. Bland (1993) 1 All ER 821, Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1]
15. That other recent data is available at following link.
The prayers in the complaint reads thus;
a) To take cognizance of the offences under Section 52, 409, 420, 120(B), 34, 109, 167 of IPC and under Section 51(b), 55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 against Accused Shri. Sitaram Kunte, Shri. Iqbal Chahal and Shri. Suresh Kakani.
b) Issue process under Section 204(i)(b) of Cr. P.C. and direct registrar to issue non-baillable arrest warrants against the Accused;
c) Try and punish the Accused as per law;
The relevant sections of the IPC reads thus;
Section 166 of IPC Reads thus;
166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.—Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 167 of IPC Reads thus;
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty- four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub- inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that-
(a) 1 the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
1. subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s, 13, for paragraph (a) (w, e, f, 18- 12- 1978 ).
2. Ins. by act 10 of 1990, s. 2 (w. e. f 19- 2- 1990 )
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]
(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him;
(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police. 1 Explanation I.- For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail;]. 2 Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention.]
(2A) 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub- inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub- section,
Section 304-A of IPC Reads thus;
304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 420 of IPC Reads thus;
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 120(B) of IPC Reads thus;
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
Section 51(B) of Disaster Management Act Reads thus;
“51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.—
(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause— —(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause—”
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences.”
Section 55 of Disaster Management Act Reads thus;
55. Offences by Departments of the Government.—
(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of the Government, the head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of the Government, the head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.”
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a Department of the Government and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any officer, other than the head of the Department, such officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Section 54 of Disaster Management Act Reads thus;
54. Punishment for false warning.—Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine. —Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine.”
Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal represented the complainant and he was assisted by following advocates;
Adv. Meena Thakur, Adv. Sohan Agate, Adv. Pratik Jain Saklecha, Adv. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. Deepika Jaiswal, Adv. Shiv Mishra, Adv. Snehal Surve, Adv. Saurav Khanna, Adv. Vikas Pawar.
You can download a copy of the complaint Here
You can also download a copy of Mumbai Court (Issues Process) Here
Classic case to adduce the fact that no one above the law.
Gud job