Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To Curb Practice Of 'Fraud On Courts' For Securing Bail

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh issued the following guidelines while rejecting the application filed by accused Nanjappa, who had filed multiple proceedings before various courts seeking anticipatory bail:

1. The registry and also to the District Courts all over the State to evolve mechanism with modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on the Court and verify every application for being filed for regular or anticipatory bail as to whether such similar petitions for bail has been made before any other Courts and issue necessary circulars with the approval of Hon'ble Chief Justice.

2.The Director of the Prosecution of the State shall instruct the Public Prosecutors of their respective States that they are duty bound to supply necessary information to the concerned Court regarding pendency or the decision of the earlier bail application of the accused in the same offence after taking information from the concerned Investigating Officer/Police official.

3. The registry and District Courts are directed to insist for vakalat when a bail petition is filed seeking for an anticipatory bail since the accused is not in custody in order to avoid fraud on the Court since the petitioner denies the very instructions given to the counsel and it is safer on the counsel also.

4.The registry is directed to issue a circular to the said effect and also make endeavour to identify the number of petitions being filed and make it clear that the first petition is maintainable and subsequent petitions are not maintainable to avoid bench hunting/bench hopping/bench avoiding.

The bench went through the documents filed by the accused before the courts and noted, "In the present petition, in paragraph 26, the petitioner has suppressed the filing of the earlier bail petition before this Court as well as approaching the Courts at Tumkur and Mysuru. Hence, it is nothing but a fraud on the Court and stooped into the level of suppressing all the facts before the Court and an attempt is made to get the bail order by hook or crook at the hands of this Court."

Relying on the judgements of the Apex Court and the chronology of events the bench said,

"Here is a case of suppression of true facts and also committed fraud on the Court approaching the different forum furnishing the fake address and an attempt is made to get the bail order by hook or crook invoking the provisions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and an attempt was made to pollute the stream of justice."

It added, "The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of process of Court, Court would be duty bound to impose heavy cost. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants."

On the query made to the counsel for the petition by the court it was informed that this petitioner has not given any instructions to the respective counsel to file a petition before the Tumkur Court as well as Mysuru Court.

Following which the court observed, "Hence, it is a fit case to refer the matter to the jurisdictional police to investigate since there is a fraud on the Court suppressing the facts during the pendency of the petition before this Court, the bail petitions filed before the Tumkur Courts as well as Mysuru Court by making a false submissions and also giving fake addresses."

It directed the Registrar General to file a complaint before the jurisdictional police i.e., Vidhana Soudha police to investigate the matter with regard to fraud on this Court and other Courts. The jurisdictional police are directed to investigate the matter based on the complaint to be filed by the Registrar General as directed and submit a report within three months from the date of registration of the case.

The bench observed,

"It is directed to register the case and investigate the matter as who have all indulged in committing the fraud on this Court as well as Courts at different districts by seeking a relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and investigate that whether this petitioner has given instructions to the respective advocates who have filed the petition before the Tumkur and Mysuru Courts or not and if no such instructions are given to the respective advocates, array the advocates as accused since this type of fraud on the Court has to be curbed with an iron hand and also to be dealt with identify the persons who have indulged in doing mischief and fraud also the black sheep involved in committing the offence of fraud."

It added, "If such persons are allowed to continue this type of practice of committing fraud on the Court, the same will disrepute the institution and hence, the matter has to be investigated and it is a high time to initiate appropriate action to curb the unethical practice."

Court rejected Anticipatory Bail application

The bench observed, "Having considered the allegations made in the complaint, it is clear that the sale agreement is created in the name of the person who is no more and apart from that the complainant is also made as party in the said sale agreement but the sale agreement is executed by the fictitious persons and this petitioner is also a confirming party in the sale agreement which has been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Malleshwaram."

Further it said, "When the allegations of impersonation, fraud and forgery are concerned, this type of person who has indulged in such acts is not entitled for exercising the discretion in his favour who seeks the relief of anticipatory bail."

Apart from that this petitioner also committed fraud on the Court by filing the petitions one after another during the pendency of the petition before this Court and also made an attempt to get the order by filing the petition before the Tumkur Court as well as Mysuru Court furnishing the fake address. When such persons stooped into the level of committing fraud on the Courts, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and the same should be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Accordingly it dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000. The cost is payable within four weeks. If not paid, the registry is directed to recover the same in accordance with law.

Investigating officer to be changed

The court said, "Though the case was registered long back making an allegation of fraud, impersonation, forgery, the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps either to apprehend the petitioner or investigate the matter. Instead, allowed the petitioner to approach the different forums. This Court, District and Sessions Court at Tumkur and District and Sessions Court at Mysuru and had the knowledge of the same and till date even not investigated the matter and allowed him to play fraud on the Courts. Hence, it shows that he is also hand in glove with the petitioner."

Accordingly it directed, "The Director General of Police is directed to change the Investigating Officer immediately who has not taken any steps when the serious offence of impersonation, fraud and forgery is alleged and appoint a new Investigating Officer to investigate the matter."

Case Title: NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1653/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 101

Date of Order: 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

Appearance: Advocate MANDAVI PANDEY, a/w Advocate MANJUNATHA M for petitioner; Advocate RASHMI JADHAV for respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order