VIGILANCE CHECK COMPLAINT AGAINST Mr. K G Balakrishnan (CJI), Mr. A.P.Shah (Chief Justice, Delhi High Court and Mr. Swatanter Kumar (Chief Justice, Bombay High Court)


Kindly Quote my Ref. No. M/VigilanceComplaint/0272009

   dated  2nd. SEPTEMBER 2009



1.    The Central Vigilance Commissioner

India,  Central Vigilance Commission

Satarkta Bhawan,

Behind INA Market,

New Delhi 23


2.    The Chief Justice of India

       Vigilance  Department/Vigilance Cell

        Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 110001


2.  The Chief Justice

     Vigilance Cell, Delhi High Court,

      New Delhi


3.        The Chief Justice

Vigilance Cell, Bombay High Court



4.        The Prime Minister, India



5.        President of India

Republic of India

Rashtrapati Bhawan, Judges Appointment Section

Raisina Hill, New Delhi  


 VIGILANCE MATTER COMPLAINT Against Mr. K. G. Balakrishnan (CJI), Mr. A.P. Shah (CJ, DHC) and Mr. Swatanter Kumar (CJ, BHC): ): VIGILANCE CHECK COMPLAINT AGAINST Mr. K G Balakrishnan (CJI), Mr. A.P.Shah (CJ Delhi HC) and Mr. Swatanter Kumar (CJ BOMBAY HC) for "permitting" organanized use of (3rd.) illegal procedure for s. 498A IPC and making 2nd. due procedure established by law as defunct for s. 498A IPC for abetting ulterior motives of living wives.

·        IN CASE THE TYRANNY AND ILLEGAL TERRORISM BY AUTHORITIES IN NAME OF Section 498A I.P.C., IS NOT HALTED IMMEDIATELY AT EARLIEST BY THE CJI, and said Chief Justice of both High Courts, VIGILANCE  CHECK is essential against them (by Name) to restore faith of public in courts by APPROPRIATE PENAL ACTIONS, if any, AGAINST (BY Name) Mr. Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan appointed presently as Chief Justice of India, Mr. Ajit Prakash Shah working as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Mr. Swatanter Kumar working as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court after vigilance Checks of said named Chief Justices and Chief Justice of India.        They are to keep respect of their courts in high esteem before and in eyes of public in this DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLIC INDIA.

·        The judges in Supreme Court and both High Courts at Delhi and Bombay Mumbai are directly responsible for corruption for promoting false procedure cases in large numbers costing Government of India and the concerned State’s exchequer heavily for such corrupt act of promoting THIRD ILLEGAL PROCEDURE not established by law for S. 498A IPC in Criminal (Amendment) Act No.46 of 1983.

·        The factual situation is as follows vis-à-vis in SC judgment in 1994 AIR 268 of 06 October 1993 which is violating basic Constitutional Working  by way of appointment of judges by Chief Justice of India at Present by Mr. K. G. Balakrishnan though such powers are vested Constitutionally in President of India to appoint judges and CJI by his (President of India) own initiative. Judges have no respect of some portion of SC judgments and said SC judgment of 6/10/1993 that do not suit them:-


1.                Criminal Amendment Act No.46 of 1983 shows the options in Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) based upon PRESET naturally  physical DEAD OR LIVING condition of a wife as on pre-approved “condition of being alive or dead” set by Parliament vide Crl. Amendment Act no.46/1983 that created section 498A IPC and the procedures related to it to use procedure for dowry death or living cruelty to wives (as the case may be):        There were 7 sections of the said Act 46/1983 covering IPC -  CrPC - IPC - Indian Evidence Act (IEA) for said purposes. The section 498A IPC cannot be seen, read and followed in isolation from other key Sections 198A of Code of Criminal Procedures (Cr.P.C.) and 113A of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) created by same Act No.26/1983 for S. 498A IPC.


2.                        HIGHLIGHT: No magistrate has power to abuse his position by ordering u/s. 156(3) of Cr. P. C., a police station officer to register a cognizable case (F.I.R.) u/s.498A IPC to illegally favour a living wife (alive wife) because, amongst others, this special law has dual application of cognizable OR non-cognizable offence provisions set by statute for two different “physical existence state of wives (living or dead)” and this cannot be amended by any magistrate or judge in any manner. The Code (Cr.P.C.) has to be followed strictly. The purpose of a statute has been held “important” by SC. See Schedule “T” herein below as part of this demand.


·        After using 498A IPC by living wife as cognizable case, concerned judge, Magistrate and police officers do not investigate and record the living style of alive wife to know her ulterior motives and unclean hands if any, after she files 498A IPC etc. case in police station as F.I.R. . 

·        The matrimonial laws including penal law requires clean hands including to show that “she is NOT IMMORAL”.  Supreme Court has ruled a person with unclean hands cannot be even entertained by any court.


·        Under garb of F.I.R. by use of 498A IPC for living wives, there is no check upon her, no check upon judge to see the police officer keeps trace of living wives in society what she is doing and what and where she is living after (abusing) criminal process  in name of 498A IPC for ulterior motives as the matrimonial and penal laws lay restrictions, amongst others, of good moral practice by wives to entitled them for relief. 


·        Chief Justices are responsible for failure and collapse of justice delivery machinery under them in respect of S. 498A IPC and not reining police authorities for abusing their powers in matter of living wives using illegally 498A IPC with their help.  Vigilance check to know if judges are abusing powers deliberately to help achieve ulterior motives by wives and her accomplices or have no knowledge of law and depend in and out of court  upon practicing advocates.


3.       1st. due procedure established under law, as per statute  Ss. 198A CrPC and 113A IEA : -  498A IPC is and was FIRST dowry death penal law. So only on death of wife the police can make use of 498A IPC as cognizable in which presumptive section 113A Indian Evidence Act  comes in play to indicate use of 498A IPC as dowry death of wife  being a cognizable offence through Police Officer as per statute. 

                 Important: Judiciary to note - Dowry death u/s. 304B Cr.P.C.  is confined to only dowry death by suicide read with S.113B IEA. SC judgments are tampered by unseen hands and it uses section 113B IEA in relation to s. 498A IPC instead of using 113A IEA.



4.                2nd. due procedure established under same law for S.498A IPC  – Living Wife etc.  can only make complaint to magistrate i.e. accompanied with an affidavit to Magistrate in case of cruelty allegations  against husband or his family members. This will not cause abuse of criminal process.


4A.     Complaint is defined in section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal

           Procedure that reads as –

2. Definitions. *** (d) “complaint” means any allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate  with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.” Unquote.



5.          3rd.   UNDUE procedure not-Established by Law - None such procedure was passed by Parliament of India. Police Officer and Magistrate/Judge cannot treat or "select by choice" the cognizable route through Police Officer making 498A IPC case of living wife as cognizable without s.113A IEA coming into picture because dowry death of wife did not happen. No death of wife is reward for living wife and punishment to husband or his relatives for not harassing the “wife” and let her remain hail, hearty and alive.


5.    Above mentioned 3rd.  procedure is illegal because singularly or collectively police officer and any Judge cannot create any other procedure because the Parliament’s intentions are clear in Crl Act No.46/1983 that the said statute is intended for being acted either through first due procedure established by law (As dowry death) or second due procedure established by law as mentioned above in light of sec 198A CrPC read with section 113A IEAct created for implementation of penal law i.e. section 498A IPC for living/ alive wives.  


                5a. The Third illegal procedure includes illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. In fact the irrationality has relation to unreasonableness.

·        Out of the three decisions Wednesbury, Padfield, Anisminic atleast three propositions emerged that are applicable to fraud upon court through THIRD illegal procedure not established by law for s. 498A IPC;

(1) there is no unfettered discretion in any statutory or public authority ;  (3rd. illegal procedure shows use of unfettered and unjust discretion)

        (2). the discretion vested in the authorities should have been exercised lawfully and as there is contravention of law, the authorities are acting in excess of its powers by using the Third illegal procedure for S.498A IPC (in ‘alive’ wives’ F.I.R.cases);

(3) in rendering a decision, the public authority fails to take into account a relevant matter or takes into account an irrelevant matter, or misdirects himself on a point of law or otherwise act unreasonably (amounting to an absurd decision to use third illegal procedure for S.498A IPC), the resultant decision is one beyond or without jurisdiction. 


6(a). Illegal Procedure for ALIVE wives are being illegally

followed by police officers because those are not reined by Magistrates (Judges) when police officer registers FIR u/s 498A IPC for  ALIVE wives as cognizable offence. SC has ruled that dowry death case attracts provisions like 498A IPC as relevant presumptive section 113A of IEA provides .

         In view of nature of legislation in Criminal Amendment Act No.46 of 1983: Any attempt of even unsuccessful “attempted” suicide by alive wife comes under category of Section 498A IPC  and she has to make  complaint to Magistrate as and by alive wife etc. for which such complaint (accompanied with affidavit).  


6(b) Thus making the 2nd. Due process inoperative under S. 198A Cr.P.C. at the wish of police officer and/or magistrate (Judge) by conspiracy, abetting to promote ulterior motives for alien purposes of wives, her relatives and her paramour, if any, as per circumstances in each case.    Such ulterior motives are be stringently punished for illegal terrorism by way of using, 1st., 2nd or third illegal procedure. It has been ruled by Supreme Court of India, that persons found to abuse criminal process in 498A IPC, shall be punished under existing statute.


          Despite large scale abuse of criminal process by and for living wives, the judges of courts are rewarding living wives by granting divorce / mutual divorce by abuse of powers of a judge by terrorizing husband for making of false criminal allegations that can be possible with abuse of  corrupt judges’ powers.


6(c) Such act of police officer and judiciary (judge) is not only shameless corruption by abuse of authority by police officer or judges or both when an ALIVE wife is allowed to abuse criminal process and the justice delivery is tricked to name it as u/s 498A IPC through deliberate consent of judges / magistrates to promote and follow 3rd. illegal procedure illegally in practice by corrupt magistrates/judges instead of restraining ab-initio police officer to not use such 3rd. illegal procedure for s. 498A IPC.    This 3rd. illegal procedure for 498A IPC is repeated in large scale under the very nose of the senior Judges of High Court and Supreme Court who help and cause increase number of criminal cases through their “negligence”.   


·        The 3rd. illegal Procedure for 498A IPC  is not permitted by law even then it is being used openly showing illegal judicial terrorism to suppress human rights as well as basic guaranteed fundamental rights of husband and his female relatives of any age for making extortion of choice by wives by forcing husbands illegally to give divorce etc. under fear ands threat of abuse of criminal process.   


·        Making wives to be enticed by her accomplices and/or relatives for destruction of family ties with present husband and her marital duties with aid of State's illegal terrorism and illegal Judicial terrorism by organized group of authorities permitting such 3rd. undue procedure being used for S. 498A IPC by ignoring legislative intentions in s.198A Cr.P.C. and S. 113A of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) for matrimonial law – cruelty u/s 498A IPC. 


6(d) Any wrong by one or more judges or all judges and/or police officer cannot justify legality of the 3rd. illegal procedure for s. 498A IPC because it is intentional product of corrupt mind / inefficient mind solely for promoting corruption with malafide intentions for achieving ulterior motives of “alive wives and her accomplices” and retaining corruption in judiciary through dictatorship and abuse of judicial powers under garb of spirit of TEAM-WORK by judges being condition for recommending appointment in High Courts and Supreme Court of India.


7. Based upon: citations of Supreme Court of India  amongst others   that 498A IPC is for 1. dowry death and 2. cruelty:

i.                   Noorjahan Vs. State through DSP  

              Citation:  2008 AIR 231 / 2008(6)SCR903 / 2008(II)SCC55/2008(6)SCALE423/ 2008(6)JT220 rules in Para 8, 9, 12 about section 498A, 113A, (113B is misprint in judgment), that 498A IPC  is the dual cruelty offence law for (1) dowry death and (2) cruelty.


ii.       Using a wrong platform for making complaint to Police Officer by Alive wife and avoiding, under abetment of police officer, to not submit complaint to magistrate for making allegations supported with her affidavit, is by itself proof of abuse of criminal process by wives for ulterior motives for alien purposes for which statutes were not enacted. According to Supreme Court’s ruling they have to be stringently punished under existing statutes.


iii.     When any judge (Presiding Officer) at JMFC level or at revision level or appeal level in District Courts or High Courts do   not prima facie reject/dismiss the 3rd. undue procedure not established by law for s. 498A IPC, such judges creates illegal judicial terrorism to destroy matrimonial homes by deliberately disobeying two alternate procedures in statute for 498A IPC for reasons best known to them.

Thus also deliberately violating Internationally accepted Fundamental Human Rights to “life with respect and pride (dignity)”.

Fundamental rights are also infringed of husband and his female relatives like his grandmother, mother, sisters and niece etc. in organized disobedience by authorities of statute for criminal intentions by police officers/government, judges for abetting alive wives and her accomplices  against humanity as well as in violation of Constitutional Rights in “name of S.498A IPC” through illegal procedure.


        iv.      Using S. 498A IPC for false allegations is abuse of

criminal  process for ulterior motives for alien purposes which is punishable under existing laws as said organized authorities cannot be pardoned such open organized crimes. SC rulings be seen for punishing abusers of criminal process for ulterior motives in matter of matrimonial homes.


v.  By applying the 3rd illegal procedure, the said third illegal procedure violates ruling of SC as well as  judges deliberately do not punish wives when it come to their knowledge about third illegal procedure being deliberately followed by ignoring deliberately two alternate procedures established in statute for living wives for their genuine allegations to be made as complaint to magistrate (with her affidavit) under intentions of legislation in Criminal (Amendment) Act No.46 of 1983.


vi.          As per SC rulings from time to time abuse of criminal process like that of 498A IPC has to be punished under existing laws and by not punishing such wives because they are abetted by police officer under patronage of magistrates and judges, it is gross open corruption of blocking proper, pure and natural justice delivery.  


vii.Judges (includes Chief Justices and Chief Justice of India) cannot behave corruptly as dictators for any purpose including to get favours from government or superior judges for PROMOTION, placement                    (re-employment) for their expertise act of illegalities.


9.               Thus it is illegal terrorism created by authorities that has to be ended immediately or by taking action against present Chief Justice of India (By Name) and present Chief Justice (By Name) of Delhi High Court and Chief Justice (By Name) of Bombay High Court if they do not with immediate effect pass administrative order to stop such menace in all courts under them or order that the concerned judges and magistrates of any court shall face vigilance action and penal action if found going ahead with THIRD ILLEGAL PROCEDURE for s.498A IPC by registering F.I.R. for living wives. There should be no glorification of illegal terrorism by JUDGES. (Illegal) Terrorism is always illegal including for destroying sacred sanctity of institution of marriage. 


·        Using of judicial powers rewarding alive wives in any manner (granting forced consent divorce in disguise) and then making use of section 482 CR.P.C. for QUASHING F.I.R. u/s. 498A I.P.C. 'created' for LIVING WIVES [created through 3rd. (illegal)  procedure based F.I.R. in name of u/s.498A IPC incoprated in F.I.R.] without stringently punishing alive wives/living wives because the judges are involved in conspiracy under the umbrella of Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of High court string down to courts of magistrates.


·        The mockery of s. 482 Cr.P.C. on one side is said to be used sparing by High Courts and Supreme Court but in cases of alive wives s. 482 Cr.P.C.  is used as and for mandatory deal of “divorce to wives” first and then “quashing criminal case u/s. 498A IPC” without punishing concerned authorities because all concerned authorities are hand in glove corrupt in matter before whom s.498A IPC case through police officer is created for alive wives, is examined.


10.                       This 498A IPC under objects of Act No.46/1983  was the first dowry death law.


11.                       This (Crl. Amendment Act No.46/1983) is special law that cannot be used  at drop of the hat and needs no change in law except the changes in the mind of  police officer sand magistrates/judges working as per intention of legislation i.e.  Crl Act No.46/1983 within its frame work.


12.           It is also mentionable that foresaid special law S. 498A IPC (two ‘alternate’ offence(s) in one penal law) inserted in penal law book cannot be used with any other penal law etc. as the malafide intention is to abuse s.155(4) of Cr.P.C..


13.           It is sufficient further additional proof of (illegal) terrorism at cost of public money by police officer(s) and/or judicial magistrate and judges who do not stop such illegal procedure for living women(wives) burdening courts with frivolous F.I.R. cases costing Government in Rupees Several Crores per month from public money.


14.        SCHDULE “T” –




                                                  SCHEDULE “T”

Precautions and safeguards laid in S. 198A Cr.P.C. and S.113A of Indian Evidence Act (Crl. Amendment Act No.46/1983) have become as equivalent of being “non-existent” because Parliament enacted such law: Over-ridden by illegal 3rd procedure with abetment of  above named persons (CJI) and named 2 chief justices of  Delhi HC and Bombay HC by way of looking the other way, amongst other illegal ways in practice.    

   Ref: Supreme Court of India ruling in Judgment: 1963 AIR 358, 1964 (3) SCR 485:

      In  Nazir  Ahmed's case(2) the Judicial Committee  observed

that the  principle  applied in Taylor v.  Taylor(3)  to  a Court, namely, that where a power is given to do a  certain thing  in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or  not at all and that other methods of  performance are necessarily forbidden, applied to judicial officers making a record under  s. 164 and, therefore, held  that  magistrate could  not give oral evidence of the confession made to him which  he had purported to record under s. 164 of the  Code.

It  was said that otherwise all the precautions  and  safe-guards laid down in ss. 164 and 364, both of which had to be read together, would become of such trifling value as to  be almost idle and that "it would be an unnatural   construction to  hold  that any other procedure was permitted  than that which  is  laid down with such minute particularity  in the sections themselves."

The  rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor(3) is well  recognized and is founded on sound principle.  Its result is

(1)  I.L.R. [1960] 2 All. 488.

(2)  L.R. 63 IA. 372.

(3)  [1875] 1 Ch.  D.  426, 431.


that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid  down  the   method       in  which  that  power       has  to  be exercised,  it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act  in any  other manner than that which has been prescribed.         The principle  behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.  Xxxxx  xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

       Relying  upon  Nazir  Ahmad's   case  and  applying  the principles  laid  down in Taylor v.  Taylor [(1876)  1   Ch.D 426] this Court in Singhara Singh's case (supra) held:    "The  rule adopted in Taylor v.  Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D 426]  is well recognized and is founded on sound  principle. Its  result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an  act and has laid down the method in which that power has to  be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The  principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.”  Unquote


15.     Under the circumstances after vigilance check take appropriate action against the said judges to show that in democracy they do not have unbridled discretion or unbridled judicial power and have to respect the Constitution.

      And at least for sake of justice, they be deprived of their working and made to sit idle till the vigilance check etc. against them is not complete to find them guilty or not of showing disrespect to our Constitution of India by even neglecting to stop abuse of court powers through above described illegal “3rd. procedure for s.498A IPC”  ,


After considering factual situation of  anarchy created by judges in name of s. 498A IPC, the President of India may cancel their appointment warrants for working contrary to oath taken by them to abide and work within frame of  Constitution  of India.

Kindly inform action taken for vigilance check against judges. Kindly acknowledge.

        SSharma  02/9/2009

Sushilkumar Sharma

Social Worker

Post Box No. 9306 Delhi 110092

Correspondence in case through email:

“SShaarma” <>

TF: 09891780147