Allahabad HC Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On Lawyer For Unauthorisedly Filing Plea On Behalf Of Absconding IPS Officer & Misleading Court

The Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal also asked the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action against the advocate in accordance with the law.

The plea before the Court

By filing the instant petition, advocate Verma had sought directions to Hazratganj in Lucknow and Colonelganj Inspector of Prayagraj to register his FIR and provide a copy of the FIR. Along with this, he also sought directions to the CBI to investigate both the FIRs to provide adequate security to meet absconding officer Mani Lal Patidar.

Considering it an abuse of judicial process, the court imposed 5 lakhs fine on the petitioner lawyer.

The facts in brief

A petition had already been filed by Dr. Mukut Nath Verma, Advocate with a prayer that direction be issued for the production of his alleged client Mr. Mani Lal Patidar, IPS, Ex-Superintendent of Police, Mahoba, U.P.

He had also urged to court to order a probe into this matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

It was submitted that Mani Lal Patidar, a 2014 batch IPS Officer had been conducting operations against the mining mafia and in connection therewith his relations with certain sections in the administration got sour and thus, as a result, he was falsely implicated in a few cases.

It was further stated that on November 15, 2020, Patidar made a WhatsApp call to the petitioner (his Advocate) to inform him that he would be coming to meet him on November 27, 2020, in connection with pending legal matters, however, he did not come.

Thus, the petitioner had alleged before the Court that high-ranking officials in the State Administration might have done something foul as a consequence whereof Mani Lal Patidar has gone missing and is not traceable.

Read more about the plea here: IPS Officer Missing- A High Ranking Officer Having Gone Missing A Serious Issue: Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt's Response

Court's observations

At the outset, the court noted that in his writ plea, Advocate Verma had not disclosed as to how he has personal knowledge of the allegations made in the plea, which related to the accused Mani Lal Patidar personally and at best maybe within his (Mani Lal Patidar) knowledge.

Thus, the Court found that swearing of the paragraphs of the writ petition by the petitioner on personal knowledge was without foundation as well a conscious attempt to mislead this court.

The Court also concluded that the accused Mani Lal Patidar (Absconding IPS Officer) is absconding and against him proceedings under Section 82, Cr.P.C. has also been initiated and whose criminal misc. writ petitions have been dismissed and anticipatory bail applications have been rejected.

In this backdrop, the Court remarked thus:

"From perusal of the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioner herein has been continuously filing various applications at different forums and has also filed the present writ petition. But he has not disclosed the source of finance of the litigation for his alleged client, i.e. the accused Mani Lal Patidar. Non-disclosure of this fact itself indicates some hidden motive in filing the present writ petition."

Underscoring that Advocate Verma had unauthorisedly filed the instant writ petition, the Court said that there is nothing on record to show that the accused employee Mani Lal Patidar or any of his family members has authorised the petitioner herein to file the present writ petition for the relief sought.

Regarding the allegations made against the state/police officials in his plea, the Court opined that the allegations have been levelled without any supporting document and no material is available on record to believe the contention.

Lastly, imposing 5 lakh cost on him, the Court concluded thus:

"Serious allegations have been made against the respondents, which appear to be mala fide in order to malign the image of the State -respondents. The petitioner is expected to disclose true and correct facts before making any allegation against respondents. The petitioner in person, being a practising lawyer, is also expected to verify the same, himself and then levelled such allegations against the respondents. It is also expected that source of such information as well as material, if any, must be brought on record and in the absence thereof, the allegations made in the writ petition cannot be accepted."

Case title - Dr. Mukut Nath Verma v. Union Of India, Through Home Secretary

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order