'Fraud Committed On Court' : Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe Into 'Fake' Petition Filed Without Petitioner's Knowledge
The Supreme Court today ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out a probe into a case where the petitioner denied filing any special leave petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him.
Notably, the order impugned in the SLP had put an end to criminal proceedings against the only witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case. However, as informed by respondents during court proceedings, the SLP was filed in an attempt to continue the false case against him (without the petitioner's knowledge).
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had heard the matter and reserved verdict on September 9, indicating that it would not take what happened in the case lightly. Today, the judgment was pronounced, which is authored by Justice Trivedi.
Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Trivedi said, "Considering the gravity and seriousness that the High Court and Supreme Court were sought to be taken for a ride, and that the entire judicial system was sought to be put to stake by respondent Nos.3, 4 and their concerned associates and advocates, who have been forging and fabricating the documents to be filed in the Courts and to pursue false proceedings filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, without his consent, knowledge and authority, we deem it appropriate to hand over investigation of the case to CBI. CBI shall register regular case after preliminary enquiry, if deemed necessary, against all persons found involved and responsible. It shall investigate all the links leading to the commission of the alleged crime and fraud on the court. The Director, CBI shall submit a report to this court in 2 months."
On advocates' responsibility towards the court, the judgment records that no professional is immune from prosecution for criminal deeds. "Every advocate putting his signature on vakalatnama and on the documents to be filed in the Court, and every advocate appearing for a party in Courts, particularly in Supreme Court, the highest court of the country, is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his/signatures and appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness...no professional, much less legal professional, is immune from being prosecuted for his/her criminal deeds."
With regard to the Notary (who attested affidavit in absence of petitioner), the Court said, "Any acts or omission on the part of notary will tantamount to misconduct and person accused of this would be unfit to be a notary". In this view, the Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Bar Council and Govt of India to take appropriate action.
Notably, the bench remarked that the false proceedings not only defrauded the person (petitioner) in whose name the SLP was filed, but also the Court.
Background
To recap, Nitish Katara was a Delhi businessman who was murdered in 2002 by one Vikas Yadav, son of politician DP Yadav. The trial court had found it to be a case of honor killing and convicted Vikas Yadav, giving him a life sentence in 2008. In 2016, the Supreme Court had sentenced Vikas Yadav to 25 years' imprisonment without remission.
One AK was a witness in the case, who testified to seeing Nitish Katara with the accused on the fateful night. Apparently, the witness was tried to be poisoned on one occasion and implicated in as many as 37 criminal cases.
The present case began with the petitioner filing an FIR against one SS and others, alleging that they kidnapped his daughter R and took her away. Subsequently, R made a statement that she married SS willingly, however, she was raped by AK, who met the two of them when they eloped.
On an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against AK. An application for recall of this order was filed by R, however, the same was dismissed. Against this dismissal, the present SLP was filed in the name of the petitioner (R's father).
The matter was first listed on May 17, 2024, when notice was issued by a bench of Justices Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal. Thereafter, on July 9, 2024, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the SC Registry stating that on July 3, he was called to a police station in Buduan, UP, where he was given notice of the present case and his signatures were obtained on a form.
In his letter, the petitioner clarified that he had neither engaged any advocate to file the instant SLP, nor signed any vakalatnama or affidavit in that regard. He also claimed that someone else filed the petition under a conspiracy and sought strict action against such person(s).
After that, an office report was placed by the Registry before the bench of Justices Trivedi and Sharma, where it was mentioned that the petitioner claimed to not have filed the SLP.
On July 31, the bench considered the issue of the petitioner's signatures on a vakalatnama. When it was informed by an AoR that he received the petitioner's signed vakalatnama from another advocate (Advocate C), and did not witness the petitioner sign it himself, the bench expressed serious displeasure.
When the matter was taken up subsequently, the concerned Notary entered appearance and admitted the mistake of attesting the petitioner's affidavit in his absence, based on identification of his signatures by Advocate C. SS, on the other hand, stated that he and and his wife R met the petitioner 3-4 years back, when he gave R a signed vakalatnama. The same, he claimed, was given to Advocate E.
On September 9, orders were reserved in the matter, with the bench indicating that it would not take what happened in the case lightly. While Justice Sharma called it "very unfortunate", Justice Trivedi came down heavily on Advocates-on-Record for their callous approach in practicing before the Supreme Court (especially insofar as filing of vakalatnamas and appearing before the court was concerned).
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title : BHAGWAN SINGH v. STATE OF UP | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 18885/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722