DELHI POLICE AN ORGANISED GANG?

LET YOU BE JUDGE

>
> GIVEN BELOW ARE FALSE STATEMENT GIVEN IN DELHI HIGH COURT BY EOW-
> DELHI POLICE AND INTENTIONAL LAPSES TO FAVOUR ACCUSED.
>
> DCP-EOW SAYS THERE ARE NO LAPSES IN POST FIR REGISTRATION
> INVESTIGATIONS
>
> A. Page-2 of Status report, line 2-3- Complainant also gave details
> of some payments made by him from time to time towards purchase of
> shares.
>
> Page-8, In response to our request the NSE informed vide letter No
> NSE/IG/08558/ GM/02200300027 dt 13.11.04---- ---- He did not furnish
> proof of payments.
>
> Above two statements are contradicting, What action has been taken
> against NSE officials for false information to police, as I have
> evidence that I provided NSE with details of payments. IS THIS NOT
> LAPSE IN INVESTIGATIONS?
>
> Page-2 Last Para :- He could not tell how many shares were purchased
> by him out of amount of Rs 5.65 lacs and how many shares were sold
> as the broker has not given him computerised statement. FALSE
> STATEMENT, I HAD SENT STATEMENT THROUGH MESSENGER, WHICH WAS NOT
> ACCEPTED BY INSPECTOR MR DHANVIR DUT, INSTEAD HE ABUSED MESSENGER,
> AND THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT INTO NOTICE OF ACP/DCP-EOW. THESE
> DOCUMENTS WERE SENT BY POST.
>
> DCP-EOW SAYS NOT ACCEPTING DOCUMENTS, ABUSING MESSENGER, FABRICATING
> STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED TO FAVOUR ACCUSED IS NO OFFENCE
> AND THERE ARE NO LAPSES IN INVESTIGATIONS
>
> Page-3 2nd -- he is client of M/S Sunglow. DCP-EOW, FAILED TOM GIVE
> DOCUMENTS BASED ON WHICH EOW-Delhi Police concluded that Mr Anil
> Thukral was "client" of M/S Sunglow.
>
> Now, it has come to light that m/s sunglow sold shares transferred
> by me in account of some MR. MOUZ MALIK.
>
> If there was no lapse in investigations why EOW-Delhi Police could
> not in status report to DELHI HIGH COURT point out that shares of
> complainant were sold in name of MR MOUZ MALIK. EOW-POLICE CLAIMS
> THAT I OPTED FOR TRNSACTIONS IN NAME OF MR ANIL THUKRAL OF MY OWN,
> THEN WHY THERE ARE NO TRNSACTIONS IN NAME OF MR ANIL THUKRAL?
>
> MR ANIL THUKRAL WAS DEALING WITH DOZENS OF OTHER PERSONS, DID ALL OF
> THEM OF THEIR OWN VOLUNTEERED TO CONDUCT TRNSACTIONS IN NAAME OF MR
> ANIL THUKRAL? WHY EOW-DELHI POLICE DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE COPY OF
> STATEMENT OF ALL PERSONS WHO OF THEIR OWN GAVE CONSENT TO MR ANIL
> THUKRAL TO TRANSACT IN HIS NAME.
>
> AS PER DCP-EOW THERE IS NO LAPSE IN INVESTIGATIONS.
>
> Para-3 line 9, (Statement of Mr Anil Thukral) Mr Kapoor suffered
> losses during first 3/4 months.
>
> Page-4 (Statement of Mr B.R.Arora ), It was May/June 2002 that all
> of sudden Mr Kapoor suffered losses.
>
> These above two statements are contradicting, Mr Anil Thukral says
> Mr Kapoor suffered loses in first 3-4 months, it means during March-
> 2001 to June/July-2001, whereas Mr B.R.Arora says, Mr Kapoor
> suffered loses in May/June 2002.
>
> AS PER DCP-EOW, THERE ARE NO LAPSES IN INVESTIGATIONS.
>
> EOW-Delhi Police should provide me copy of evidence given by Mr Anil
> Thukral and Mr B.R. Arora that I suffered loses as stated by them.,
> If there are no lapses in Investigations.
>
> Page-5 Para-2 Mr S.K.Kapoor during further examination- ----- However
> he opted for trading through I.D. of Mr Anil Thukral.
>
> Page-6 The complainant admitted that earlier he had client IDs with
> three brokers and was also having four d-mat accounts.
>
> He voluntary agreed to trade through client ID of Mr Anil Thukral.
> This is false statement, DID ALL PERSONS, WHO WERE DEALING WITH M/S
> SUNGLOW VOLUNTEERED TO TRADE IN ID OF MR ANIL THUKRAL?
>
> DID IOs INVESTIGATED AND CHECKED WHETHER ANY DEAL IS IN NAME OF MR
> ANIL THUKRAL? SURPRISINGLY ALL MY SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD IN ACCOUNT
> OF MR MOUZ MALIK & NOT MR ANIL THUKLRAL
>
> I have alleged that this statement has been fabricated by concerned
> police persons to favour accused. Inspite of repeated requests DCP-
> EOW failed to provide me copy of the statement. STILL DCP-EOW SAYS
> THERE ARE NO LAPSES.
>
> Page-6 The complainant has stated that the alleged persons used to
> pay him less amount than the rate at which the bid was struck, but
> there is no evidence to prove fact.
>
> Who has to investigate and collect evidence, Police or complainant?
> WHAT EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED FROM COMPLAINANT? WHO WAS TO SEIZE
> COMPUTER RECORDS OF TRANSACTIONS TO PROVE THIS ALLEGATION, POLICE OR
> COMPLAINANT?
>
> Why transactions statement of NSE computer terminal were not seized
> and compared with hand written statements provided by accused?
>
> Did in case of complaint of Mr Roy Chaudhry, Mr Roy Chowdhry
> provided Police collected evidence or evidence? ALL THESE ARE NOT
> LAPSES IN INVESTIGATIONS? BECAUSE ACCUSED HAVE BRIBED IN LACS?
>
> Page-7 There is no evidence on records to show that complainant has
> been induced by alleged persons for trading with them in illicit
> manner
>
> The statement of Mr Anil Thukral and Mr B.R.Arora is sufficient
> PROOF, Copies of handwritten statements for the month of Feb-2001 to
> April-2001 give on top of page, settlement number, Name: -
> S.K.Kapoor, WHAT THIS MEANS?
>
> Inspite of seeking information under RTI act requesting to Please
> provide me copy of document, which were provided by other
> complainants to prove that accused induced them. DCP-EOW, refused to
> provide the same. IT CLEARLY MEANS THAT OTHER COMPLAINANTS ALSO GAVE
> SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AS GIVEN BY ME.
>
> Is circumstantial evidence not sufficient?
>
> Page-7 Para-2, accordingly, the complaint of Shri S.K.Kapoor was
> referred to NSE to ascertain as to whether any fraudulent means were
> adopted or otherwise.
>
> This is again false statement in status report to Delhi High Court,
> I had requested under RTI act to Please provide me with copy of
> letter with enclosures sent to NSE and SEBI asking them to ascertain
> as to whether any fraudulent means have been adopted as otherwise
> BUT DCP-EOW REFUSED TO GIVE COPY OF LETTER. WHICH CLEARLY
> ESTABLISHES THAT FALSE STATUS REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO DELHI HIGH
> COURT.
>
> Is to ascertain as to whether any fraudulent means were adopted or
> otherwise. Work of NSE/SEBI or Police?
>
> Page-8, allegations of complainant are not supported by documentary
> evidence.
>
> False statement, all documents required as per law were provided,
> rest police had to seize from accused, which police to favour
> accused intentionally did not do.
>
> Page-8 Further Ld APP has expressed that if the NSE finds any thing
> to be dealt with by the police, then NSE may make complaint in this
> regards. Ld Sr Prosecutor and Chief Public Prosecutor have also
> concerned with the opinion of Ld APP.
>
> APP has no role to play in complaints and registering FIR, Police
> cannot be judge. There is every possibility of unfair practices
> being adopted by Police/APP to favour accused. WHY NSE SHOULD MAKE
> COMPLAINT? UNDER WHICH LAW?
>
> WHO IS TO DECIDE, WHETHER ANY CRIMINAL ACT HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR
> NOT, POLICE OR COURT OR NSE?
>
> There are several judgements of Delhi High Court, Supreme Court,
> indicating that once complaint regarding cognizable offence is made,
> Police has to register FIR, Police cannot sit as Judge. EVEN THEN
> DCP-EOW SAYS THERE ARE NO LAPSES IN INVESTIGATIONS.
>
> Page-8, In response to our request the NSE informed vide letter No
> NSE/IG/ 08558 /GM/02200300027 dt 13.11.04 that they had conducted
> enquiry into complaint of Sh S.K.Kapoor who has also made separate
> complaint dt 21.08.03. It has been mentioned that the complainant
> was requested to furnish documentary evidence of transactions
> executed, contract notes/ sale purchase notes, bills, statement of
> accounts, certificate from bankers giving details of cheqes/payorder
> nos, however complainant provided copies of transaction, statements
> showing transfer of securities from four different accounts to
> trading member account. He did not furnish proof of payments.
>
> The trading member informed that complainant is not and not traded
> through them.
>
> FALSE STATEMENT MADE BY NSE, AT. Page-2 of Status report, line 2-3-
> Complainant also gave details of some payments made by him from time
> to time towards purchase of shares.
>
> He also stated that complainant failed to furnish any proof of
> transactions with Anil Thukral.
>
> STATEMENT OF MR ANIL THUKRAL & MR B.R.ARORA IGNORED.
>
> The NSE vide letter dt 29.05.04 informed the complainant that
> disputes/ matters arising out of trades executed on exchange through
> a trading member/registered sub-broker of trading member are taken
> up for rederssal. On perusal of complaint and then trading member's
> replies, it appeared that he had dealt with Mr. B.R.Arora/ Mr Anil
> Thukral, who are neither trading member nor a registered sub-broker
> of a trading member of the exchange. The complainant was informed
> about their inability to intervene in the matter. The NSE did not
> inform about commissioning of any cognizable offence in the matter.
>
> DCP-EOW, DELHI POLICE FAILED TO GIVE THE COPY OF LETTER BY WHICH
> DELHI POLICE ASKED NSE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER ANY COGNIZABLE OFFENCE
> HAS BEEN COMMITTED.
>
> IS INVESTIGATION IS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY NSE OR DELHI POLICE?
>
> As per NSE circular No 163 Broker is responsible for all acts
> of omissions & commissions of his unregistered sub-broker, whether
> contract notes issued or not. WHY THEN NSE GAVE THIS REPORT?
>
> THERE IS CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BETWEEN NSE, SEBI AND DELHI POLICE
> OFFICIALS TO SAVE ACCUSED AS THEY ARE SUSPECTED TO HAVE RECEIVED
> HUGE AMOUNT RUNNING INTO SEVERAL LACS AS BRIBE.
>
>
> I HAVE DECIDED TO HIGHLIGHT CORRUPTION IN HIGHER LEVEL IN DELHI
> POLICE AT RISK AND COST OF MY LIFE AND LIBERTY,IN CASE OF MY UN-
> NATURAL DEATH, DELHI POLICE ALONG WITH ACCUSED AGAINST WHOM I HAVE
> COMPLAINED, SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. IT IS NOT ONLY THAT
> INSPECTORS/SUB- INSPECTORS ARE CORRUPT, BUT MY CASE SHOWS THAT EVEN
> HIGHER RANKED OFFICERS TO THE RANK OF DCP RE INVOLVED IN CORRUPTION.
>
> S.K.KAPOOR
> 3,SUNSHINE APARTMENT
> A-3, PASCHIM VIHAR
> NEW DELHI-110063