Supreme Court of India
Bhagwan Singh vs State Of U.P on 20 September, 2024
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
2024 INSC 708 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos…………………..OF 2024
(@ SLP(CRL.)NOs………………..OF 2024 @ DIARY NO. 18885 OF 2024)
BHAGWAN SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J UDGM ENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
PREFACE
3. While the finest of the legal minds and legal eagles on the Bench and in
the Bar of the Supreme Court are busy developing the best of the
jurisprudence and laying down the best of the laws for the country, there
are certain sinister cabal of unscrupulous litigants and a coterie of their
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
counsellors, who are always busy in taking undue advantage of the
Nisha Khulbey
Date: 2024.09.20
11:37:24 IST
Reason:
systemic lacunae and in misusing the process of law, in turn damaging
1
the image of the Courts as also of the entire legal fraternity/legalprofession. The huge quantum of work load in the Courts, limitations of
the human agencies in manning the Justice Delivery System and the
fertile minds of the unscrupulous litigants and their legal counsellors are
some of the factors responsible for not allowing the Justice Delivery
System to work as effectively and efficiently as it is expected to work.
4. The wrongdoers must fear the law that they will be punished, the
innocents must rest assured that they will not be, and the victims must
be confident that they will get the justice. This is what a citizen of the
democratic country like India, governed by Rule of Law would
legitimately expect from the Courts. The Courts are called the ‘Temple
of Justice’. However, often brazen attempts are being made to abuse
and misuse the process of law by committing frauds on Courts. This is
one of such cases where such an attempt has been made to pollute the
stream of justice. With this little Preface let us deal with the facts of the
case.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
5. The instant two appeals were sought to be filed in the name of the
appellant- Bhagwan Singh. One Appeal is filed challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in an Application under Section 482 No. 41533
2
of 2019, filed by the respondent no. 2 – Ajay Katara, whereby the High
Court had allowed the said Application and quashed the entire
proceedings in respect of the Supplementary Chargesheet No. 163A
dated 05.12.2018 in Case No. 410 of 2014, arising out of the Case Crime
No. 443 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC at Police Station
Sehaswan, District Budaun, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun. The other Appeal is filed challenging the
order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Recall
Application No.3/2020, whereby the High Court had rejected the said
application.
6. Vide the order dated 17.05.2024, this Court had issued Notice to the
Respondent nos. 1 & 2 on the application seeking condonation of delay
as well as on the SLPs, making it returnable after eight weeks. The
Registry vide the office report dated 29.07.2024 submitted that a letter
dated 09.07.2024 was received from Bhagwan Singh (in vernacular
language) wherein it was stated that he had not filed any SLP before this
Court and the same was falsely filed in his name. It was also stated in
the said office report that an email dated 29.07.2024 was received from
Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, Advocate that he was appearing on
behalf of the appellant- Bhagwan Singh.
7. When the matter was listed on 30.07.2024, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned
advocate appearing along with the AOR Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam,
3
drew the attention of the Court to the office report dated 29.07.2024 and
the letter dated 09.07.2024 received by the office from the appellant-
Bhagwan Singh and submitted that the appellant was personally present
in the Court and was confirming the contents of his letter dated
09.07.2024. We, therefore called for the original papers from the
Registry to verify the signature of Shri Bhagwan Singh on the
‘Vakalatnama’ filed in the SLP. One Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, an Advocate who
was present in the Court on the said date stated that he had an
instruction to appear on behalf of Mr. Anubhav, Advocate on Record,
who had signed on the ‘Vakalatnama’ identifying and attesting the
signature of Bhagwan Singh as the petitioner-appellant on the
Vakalatnama. Since the AOR Mr. Anubhav was not present in the Court,
the matter was adjourned to the next date i.e. 31.07.2024.
8. On 31.07.2024, the AOR Mr. Anubhav, remained present before the
Court. Since on 30.07.2024, the learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav had
stated that the ‘Vakalatnama’ was signed by the appellant-Bhagwan
Singh in his presence, and on 31.07.2024 he had changed his version
by stating that he had received the ‘Vakalatnama’ with the signature of
the appellant-Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer named Mr. Karan Singh
practicing in the Allahabad High Court, the Court had directed the
Registry to issue notice to the said Advocate Mr. Karan Singh for
remaining present before the Court on 09.08.2024.
4
9. The Court on 31.07.2024 passed the following order recording the
statements of Mr. Anubhav, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav and Mr. Bhagwan Singh.
“1. In continuation of the yesterday’s order, Mr. Anubhav, learned
Advocate-on-Record whose `Vakalatnama’ has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh in the Special Leave
Petition is present in the Court. He states his full name to be
Anubhav Yashwant Yadav. He further states that though on the
`Vakalatnama’ he had identified and attested the signature of the
petitioner, that was not correct, and that he had received the
`Vakalatnama’ with the signature of the petitioner – Bhagwan
Singh from the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, who is also present in
the Court.
2. Yesterday, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav was present in the Court and Mr.
Anubhav was not present, and on our being asked, Mr. R.P.S.
Yadav had stated that the `Vakalatnama’ was signed by the
petitioner – Bhagwan Singh in his presence. Today, he states that
he had received the `Vakalatnama’ already signed by the
petitioner – Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer named Karan Singh
Yadav, who is practicing in the Allahabad High Court.
3. The petitioner – Bhagwan Singh is also present in the Court
and he states that he does not know either Mr. Anubhav or Mr.
R.P.S. Yadav or Karan Singh, and that he came to know about
the present proceedings having been filed in his name only when
the concerned Police Station of his area came to serve notice of
this Court on him in respect of the present S.L.P. proceedings.
4. Today, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned Advocate-on-Record states
that he is also AOR but Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam has filed
`Vakalatnama’ on behalf of the petitioner who states that the SLP
was not filed by the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, before passing any further order, let Mr.
R.P.S. Yadav give the correct name, full address with Phone
Number of Mr. Karan Singh who, according to him, had given the
papers along with the signed `Vakalatnama’ of the petitioner to
file the SLP in this Court.
6. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the Advocate Mr.
Karan Singh at the address furnished by learned Advocate Mr.
R.P.S. Yadav, to remain present in the Court on 9-8-2024 at 2.00
p.m.
The address is as follows: – Chamber 8b, Old Building, High
Court, Allahabad, U.P. Mobile No.9935256980
5
7. Let the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh file an affidavit with regard
to the correct facts in respect of the present proceedings.
8. List on 9-8-2024 at 2.00 p.m.”.
10. On 09.08.2024, the said Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav practicing in
Allahabad High Court remained present before the Court and stated that
he had received the papers of the case along with signed ‘Vakalatnama’
i.e. with the signature of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh from his client
Sukhpal Singh, who happened to be the son-in-law of Bhagwan Singh.
He also stated that he had appeared before the High Court in the Recall
Application No. 3/2020 filed on behalf of Ms. Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan
Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh, for recalling of the Order dated
16.12.2019 (which is impugned herein), and since the Sukhpal Singh
wanted to file the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, he
(Karan Singh) had asked Sukhpal Singh to get the ‘Vakalatnama’ with
the signature of either Rinki or Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter the said
Sukhpal Singh gave him the papers along with the ‘Vakalatnama’ signed
in the name of Bhagwan Singh, which he had handed over to the
Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, practicing in the Supreme Court. It may be
noted that the said Bhagwan Singh who was also present in the Court
on 09.08.2024 stated that his daughter Rinki had eloped and married
with Sukhpal Singh in 2013 and since then he had not met either
6
Sukhpal Singh or his daughter Rinki, and therefore he could not have
signed the ‘Vakalatnama’ or the papers of the SLP. At this juncture Mr.
R.P.S. Yadav, learned advocate stated that he had prepared the Memo
of SLP and got it attested through the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and at that
time the appellant-Bhagwan Singh was not present; and that he had
identified the signature of Bhagwan Singh before the Notary, and
thereafter handed over the papers to the AOR Mr. Anubhav for
presenting in the Supreme Court. The learned AOR Mr. Anubhav
Yashwant Yadav also stated that Mr. R.P.S. Yadav having prepared the
SLP Memo and got the papers ready, he had put his signature as an
AOR on the Memo of SLP and also on the ‘Vakalatnama’ stating that he
had attested and identified the signature of appellant – Bhagwan Singh.
In view of the said statements, the Court had directed the Notary Mr. A.
N. Singh to remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing.
Ms. Rinki, the daughter of the appellant and her husband Mr. Sukhpal
Singh were also directed to remain present before the Court on the next
date of hearing i.e. 23.08.2024.
11. The Order dated 09.08.2024 reads as under:
“1. Pursuant to the order dated 31-07-2024 passed by this Court,
Mr. Karan Singh Yadav, Advocate practicing at Allahabad High
Court is present in the Court and states that he received the
papers of the case along with signed `Vakalatnama’ i.e., with the
signature of the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh from his client
Sukhpal Singh, son of Rishi Pal, resident of Raisinghnagar, Post
– Kadar Chowk, District Budaun, U.P., who happens to be the
7
son-in-law of Bhagwan Singh. Mr. Karan Singh also states that
he had appeared before the High Court in the Recall Application
No.3/2020 filed on behalf of Ms. Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan
Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh, in which it was prayed to recall
the order dated 16-12-2019 passed in the Application under
Section 482 No.41533/2019. However, the said application was
dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 02-
04-2024. He further states that after the said dismissal, since the
said Sukhpal Singh wanted to file the Special Leave Petition
before the Supreme Court, he was asked to get the
`Vakalatnama’ with the signature of either Rinki or Bhagwan
Singh. Thereafter the said Sukhpal Singh gave him the papers
alongwith the `Vakalatnama’ signed in the name of Bhagwan
Singh. Mr. Karan Singh further states that thereafter he had
handed over all the papers along with signed `Vakalatnama’ to
the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav practicing in the Supreme Court,
who is today present in the Court.
2. At this stage, the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh, who is present
in the Court, states that his daughter Rinki had eloped and
married with Sukhpal Singh in 2013 and since then he has not
met Sukhpal Singh or his daughter Rinki, and therefore, he could
not have signed the `Vakalatnama’ or the papers of the SLP.
3. On being asked by the Court, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav states that he
had prepared the Memo of SLP and got it attested through the
Notary Mr. A.N. Singh. He further states that at the time of getting
the SLP notarized, the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh was not
present, however as per the practice prevailing in the Supreme
Court, he identified the signature of Bhagwan Singh before the
Notary and the Notary also notarized the said Memo. He
thereafter handed over papers to the AOR Mr. Anubhav for
presenting in the Supreme Court.
4. Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, learned Advocate-on-Record
states that since he knew the learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav,
and Mr. Yadav having prepared the SLP Memo and got the
papers ready, he had put his signature as the AOR on the Memo
of SLP and also on the `Vakalatnama’ stating that he himself had
attested and identified the signature of petitioner – Bhagwan
Singh.
5. From the above, it appears that Mr. A.N. Singh, Notary
Government of India whose registration Number is 16959 and
who sits in front of the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound, is
also involved in notarizing and attesting the papers and
signatures of the petitioner, though he was not personally present
before him. Hence, it is directed that he shall remain present
before the Court on the next date of hearing.
8
6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed an affidavit
before this Court on 06-08-2024, which was also got notarized
before the said Notary – Mr. A.N. Singh.
7. The daughter of the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh i.e., Ms. Rinki
and her husband – Mr. Sukhpal Singh are also directed to remain
present on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the office shall
issue notices to Mr. A.N. Singh, Ms. Rinki and Mr. Sukhpal Singh
on the next date of hearing. On the said date, the petitioner and
all concerned advocates also shall remain present before the
Court.
8. At this stage, the Court informed all the concerned Advocates
and the Petitioner present in the Court that this is a very serious
matter and the Court is going to take a serious view in the matter.
9. List on 23.08.2024.”
12. On 23.08.2024, the matter was directed to be listed on 28.08.2024, on
which date the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukhpal Singh, son-in-law
of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh were present. However, Ms. Rinki was
not present on the ground that she was down with fever. The Court
recorded the statements of the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukhpal
Singh as reflected in the order and directed them to file their respective
affidavits. At this juncture, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-Bhagwan Singh and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2- Ajay Katara submitted that
one Vikas Yadav, son of Mr. D.P. Yadav, Former Member of Parliament,
was convicted in the famous Nitish Katara Case only on the basis of the
testimony of Respondent no. 2 – Ajay Katara, who was the witness in
the said case and therefore number of false cases were filed against him
and this one is filed against respondent no. 2, in the name of Bhagwan
9
Singh . They also drew the attention of the Court to the list of Advocates
shown in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings dated 10.06.2024
of SLP(Crl.) No. 7893 of 2024 filed by said Vikas Yadav before this Court
and submitted that out of 10 Advocates mentioned therein, 08 Advocates
are also shown as appearing advocates in the Order Sheets/Record of
Proceedings dated 30.07.2024 in the present SLP. In view of the said
submissions, the Court had directed the Registry to explain as to on
what basis and why the names of so many advocates are being shown
in the Order sheets/Record of Proceedings though, they would be
neither appearing as an AOR nor as arguing/senior Counsel. The Court
also directed Mr. Sukhpal Singh and Ms. Rinki to be impleaded as party
respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the present proceedings and call for the
original record of the Application under Section 482 No. 41533/2019
from the Allahabad High Court.
13. The Order dated 28.08.2024 reads as under:
“1. This matter was directed to be posted on 23.08.2024 vide the
Court’s Order dated 09.08.2024, whereby, the Notary 2 Mr. A.N.
Singh, Ms. Rinki-daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and her
husband, Mr. Sukh Pal were directed to remain present on the
said date. However, due to paucity of time, the matter could not
be heard on 23.08.2024, and was directed to be listed on
28.08.2024.
2. Accordingly, today, when the matter is taken up, the Notary Mr.
A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukh Pal, son-in-law of the petitioner-
Bhagwan Singh are present before the Court. It is stated by Mr.
Sukh Pal that his wife-Ms. Rinki is down with fever and therefore,
has not come to the Court.
10
3. The Notary Mr. A.N. Singh, states that he had committed a
mistake by attesting an affidavit of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh,
who was not personally present before him, but his signatures
were identified by Advocate, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav on 19.04.2024.
According to him, thereafter, the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had
again personally come to him on 06.08.2024 for getting another
affidavit attested.
4. Let the Notary, Mr. A.N. Singh file an affidavit explaining the
procedure of notarizing any document, and also explaining as to
why, and under what circumstances the affidavit of the petitioner-
Bhagwan Singh, in the present case, was attested by him in his
absence on 19.04.2024. The affidavit shall be filed on or before
02.09.2024.
5. Mr. Sukh Pal, son of Rishi Pal, is present in the Court. He is
the resident of Raisi Nagla, Post-Kadar Chowk, Budaun,
Qadarchawk, Uttar Pradesh, as per the Aadhar Card of Mr. Sukh
Pal, bearing No. 6790 1351 1082 submitted before us and has
been identified by the Advocate, Mr. Karan Singh, who is
practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Sukh Pal states that
he and his wife Rinki had met his father-in-law, i.e. petitioner-
Bhagwan Singh, 3-4 years back at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh and at
that time, petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had handed over a signed
vakalatnama to his wife Ms. Rinki. According to him, he had
handed over the said vakalatnama to the Advocate, Mr. Karan
Singh, who was practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. On
being asked by the Court, he states that he had never met his
father-in-law petitioner-Bhagwan Singh before the said incident.
6. Since, Mr. Sukh Pal is making some inconsistent statements,
he is directed to file an affidavit with regard to the whole incident
explaining as to under what circumstances he had met his father-
in-law, i.e. the petitioner herein, also stating the whole
Chronology of dates and events when he met his father-in-law.
The affidavit shall be filed on or before 02.09.2024.
7. On the next date of hearing, Ms. Rinki, the daughter of
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and wife of Mr. Sukh Pal shall remain
present before this Court under any circumstances.
8. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-
Bhagwan Singh and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no.2 Ajay Katara, in the present
proceedings, have drawn the attention of the Court to the Order
passed by this Court on 10.06.2024 in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024
filed by the petitioner Vikas Yadav, arising out of the final
judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the High Court
of Delhi in CRLMA No. 15617/2024. According to them, the said
Vikas Yadav was convicted in the famous Nitish Katara Case,
where in, the respondent no.2-Ajay Katara was the only witness
who had deposed against him and whose testimony was relied
11
upon by the Courts below for convicting Vikas Yadav, and that
was the reason, false case was sought to be made out against
the respondent no.2-Ajay Katara in the present proceedings.
They have also drawn the attention of the Court to the list of
Advocates shown in the Order Sheet/ Record of Proceedings of
SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 dated 10.06.2024 and submitted that out
of 10 Advocates, 08 Advocates are also shown as the appearing
Advocates in the Order Sheet/ Record of Proceedings dated
09.08.2024 in the present SLP.
9. In view of the above submissions, the Registry is directed to
explain as to on what basis and why the names of so many
Advocates are being shown in the Order Sheets/Record of
Proceedings though, they would be neither appearing as an AOR
nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel.
10. Let Mr. Sukh Pal and Ms. Rinki be impleaded as party
respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the present proceedings. Cause title
be amended accordingly.
11. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate practicing in Allahabad High Court
undertakes to appear for Mr. Sukh Pal, son in law of petitioner-
Bhagwan Singh and Ms. Rinki, daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh and make them understand the present proceedings since
he knows Mr. Sukh Pal for years. Though, Mr. Karan Singh is not
an Advocate on Record, he is granted permission to file his
vakalatnama, duly signed by both Mr. Sukh Pal and Ms. Rinki,
and the same shall be taken on record by the Office.
12. Having regard to the seriousness of the case, the Registrar
General of the Allahabad High Court is directed to send the
original Record and proceedings pertaining to the Application
filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing No. 41533 of 2019
to this Court through Special Messenger on or before 02 nd
September, 2024.
13. List the matter on 3rd September, 2024 at 02:00 p.m.”
14. On 03.09.2024, the said Rinki, Bhagwan Singh and the Notary, Mr. A.N.
Singh, were present in the Court, however, the Court was busy in the
Special Bench matter(s), therefore directed the office to list the matter
on 09.09.2024. On 09.09.2024 Ms. Rinki, Mr. Sukhpal Singh, learned
advocates Mr. Karan Singh & Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, Mr. Anubhav, AOR and
the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh were present in the Court. Ms. Rinki stated
12
that she used to talk to her father- Bhagwan Singh very often on
telephone and that five-six months back, she and her husband Mr.
Sukhpal had met her father at Budaun, who had handed over the
‘Vakalatnama’ signed by him to her, which was in turn handed over by
her husband Mr. Sukhpal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate practicing in the
High Court of Allahabad. At this juncture, the appellant-Bhagwan Singh
refuted the said statement made by Ms. Rinki and reiterated that he had
neither met his daughter nor his son-in-law since the year 2013, nor he
had any telephonic contact with her or by way of any other mode at any
point of time. Learned Advocate Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. R.P.S. Yadav,
reiterated their earlier stand. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Notary represented
through the senior advocate Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde tendered apology as
stated in his affidavit. Mr. Anubhav Yadav, learned AOR represented by
the learned senior advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave, also tendered
unconditional apology.
15. The Order passed on 09.09.2024 reads as under: –
“1. Heard the learned senior counsel/ learned counsel appearing
for the parties. We have also perused the explanations tendered
by the Registry pursuant to this Court’s Order dated 28.08.2024.
2. Today, Ms. Rinki, daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, and
the wife of Mr. Sukh Pal, is present in the Court.
3. She states that she used to talk to her father, petitioner-
Bhagwan Singh, very often from the below mentioned numbers;
a. 9027068541- her own mobile number.
b. 6399367927- mobile number of her husband
c. 8077687246- mobile number of her brother-in-law, Dhaalu.
13
4. She further states that, 05-06 months back she and her
husband, Mr. Sukh Pal, met with her father, petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh, at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, who handed over her the
vakalatnama signed by him, and the said vakalatnama was
handed over by Mr. Sukh Pal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, who
is practicing in the High Court of Allahabad.
5. Mr. Sukh Pal, who is also present in the Court affirms/ supports
the statement made by Ms. Rinki, her wife.
6. However, the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, who is also present
in the Court, refutes the said statement made by Ms. Rinki, her
daughter and reiterates that he had neither met his Daughter,
Rinki or his son-in-law, Mr. Sukh Pal since the year 2013, nor he
had any contact with her telephonically or by way of other means
at any given point in time.
7. Learned Advocates, Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. R.P.S. Yadav,
reiterates what they have said in earlier occasions and stand by
it today also.
8. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Notary is represented by Mr. Sanjay R.
Hegde, learned senior counsel, who relies on the affidavits filed
by him and apologies for notarizing the documents produced in
the SLP paperbooks, in the absence of the petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh.
9. Mr. Anubhav, learned Advocate on Record, who is represented
by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel, also reiterates
what he had stated on earlier occasions, and tenders
unconditional apology for attesting and certifying the signatures
of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh on the vakalatnama filed in the
present Special Leave Petition, though petitioner-Bhagwan Singh
was not present before him, nor he knew petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh.
10. Having recorded the above submissions/ statements, the
matter is reserved for orders”.
16. So far as affidavits filed in the present appeals are concerned, the
Respondent No.2- Mr. Ajay Katara has filed his counter-affidavit dated
26.07.2024 resisting the present proceedings on the ground of delay
14
and on merits. While narrating the history of the case to show as to how
he was falsely implicated, he has stated as under: –
“5. That, in order to appreciate the facts of the present case it is
necessary to give a brief background history of the answering
respondent. Pertinently, the answering respondent is the only
independent prosecution witness in the well-known and infamous
Nitish Katara murder case, wherein, pursuant to the answering
respondent deposing truthfully in the court against Vikas Yadav,
Vishal Yadav and Sukhdev Yadav alias Pahalwan, all of them
were convicted under section 302 IPC and were sentenced to
imprisonment for life by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter in
appeal the Honourable High Court ordered that accused Vikas
and Vishal shall not be entitled to any remission till they have
completed 25 years of actual sentence.
6. However, it is pertinent to mention that the accused persons
namely Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, are son and nephew of
DP Yadav, Ex-Minister and Member of Parliament, who is a
known history sheeter having more than 57 criminal cases
registered against him and a copy of the same is annexed
herewith as annexure R-2/1 (Pages 28-30). That it is also
appropriate to mention here that due to continuous intimidation,
cajoling and threats by D P Yadav and his associate, except the
answering respondent all other prosecution witnesses had turned
hostile, but the answering respondent being a responsible citizen
has deposed truthfully and has in this way has significantly
contributed in the administration of justice.
7. Pertinently, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in its
order dated 06.02.2015, had categorically observed the
traumatisation and the pressure put on the answering respondent
to prevent him from deposing against the accused persons, in as
much as the Hon’ble Court has categorically inter-alia observed
that the answering respondent was subjected to continuous
threats and still continues to be under pressure for having
appeared as a witness. The Hon’ble Court has observed as
under: –
“The only public witness Ajay Kumar who could not be
influenced and stood by his statement has needed
court orders for police protection and is being
subjected to multiple criminal complaints by relatives
of the appellants or persons associated to them. The
fact that all these complaints and cases arose only
after he surfaced before the police speaks for itself.”
“…we have noted the traumatization and the pressure
put on Ajay Katara to prevent him from deposing in the
present case. Prior to the case in hand Ajay Katara
15
seems to have been living an ordinary existence…
Post the murder of Nitish Katara and his deposition as
a witness in the case, he is facing multiple cases…..”
8-9….
10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the answering
respondent is paying a heavy price for speaking truth in the court,
in as much as, after appearing as prosecution in the
abovementioned case, the answering respondent, who never
had any civil or criminal case against him has been thereafter
continuously targeted with a campaign of false and frivolous legal
cases and has been since thereafter named as an accused in
around (37)thirty – seven cases including six (6) cases under
section 376 IPC, including the present case all at the behest of
powerful Yadav family and their associates and the answering
respondent. However, the name of the answering respondent has
been cleared in 35 out of 37 cases inter-alia at the stage of
Inquiry/Investigation itself and the proceedings against the
answering respondent have been stayed by the Hon’ble High
Court at the Judicature of Allahabad in the remaining 2 cases.
Pertinently, in none of the cases, the answering respondent has
been put to trial, which is indicative of the fact that answering
respondent has been falsely implicated in false and frivolous
cases.
11-12….
13. Succinctly stated, on 28.06.2013 one Bhagwan Singh i.e., the
father of the alleged victim, lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime
No. 443/13 under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, at P.S Sahaswan, Badaun, against (i) Sukhpal, (ii) Smt.
Chetinya wife of Jaywahan, (iii) Jaywahan and (iv) Shyam Singh
by alleging therein that these four persons have taken his
daughter who was allegedly minor at that point in time. A copy of
the FIR dated 28.06.2013 and identified as Case Crime No.
443/13 under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, at P.S Sahaswan, Badaun is already annexed as Annexure
P-1 in the SLP.
14-15….
16. That it is pertinent to mention that the name of the answering
respondent is nowhere to be seen till this stage i.e. he has not
been named anywhere, (i) either in the FIR filed by the father of
Victim or (ii) in the Writ Petition filed by the victim herself before
the High Court nor (iii) in the statement of the victim when she
appeared in person before the Honourable High Court. However,
very surprisingly, when pursuant to the High Court order, the
statement of the victim was recorded by the police under section
161 CRPC, and also under section 164, CRPC, on 22.08.2013
i.e. after about two months of the alleged incident, then, the victim
for the very first time introduces a new story and says that the
16
answering respondent has did wrong thing on her person when
she reached Ghaziabad for eight days i.e., on 24.06.2023 till
01.07.2023.
17-21….
22. That, on 20.12.2013 after a thorough investigation, the
investigating officer closed the investigation in crime case no.
443/13 qua the answering respondent herein vide supplementary
chargesheet no. 1. At this juncture it is extremely pertinent to
mention that the petitioner or the victim herein did not even file
any protest petition regarding the closure of the case.
23. However, after a gap of more than 5 years i.e., on 20.06.2018
the victim moved an application before the court of the Ld.
A.C.J.M-II class, Badaun praying that the police have not taken
any steps to the accused and therefore S.H.O. Sahaswan be
directed to arrest the accused and put them to trial. That as the
said application of the victim was rejected by the court, therefore,
the victim preferred a Criminal Misc. Application (482 Cr.P.C.)
No.25888 of 2018 (Smt. R. vs. State of U.P. and another) before
the Hon’ble High Court wherein a direction for investigation to be
carried out by the police in this regard was given and the matter
was remitted to the learned court to decide the application of the
victim afresh and directed the Magistrate to ensure that the
investigation against those accused for offence under Section
376 I.P.C. is taken to its logical end strictly in accordance with
law.
24….
25. That the entire proceedings were challenged by the
answering respondent herein by presenting a petition under
section 482 CRPC number 41533 of 2019, before the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, wherein, the Honourable High Court
vide it’s a well-reasoned Judgement and Final Order dated
16.12.2019, was pleased to quash the aforesaid criminal
proceeding against the answering respondent by inter alia,
holding and observing that if the entire material collected during
evidence is assumed to be true on its face value, then also any
commission of cognizable offence under 376 IPC is not made out
against the answering respondent.
26….
27. That it is further to mention that interestingly the above said
order dated 16.12.2019, passed by the Honourable High Court,
thereby quashing the criminal proceedings against the answering
respondent were not challenged before this honourable court by
anyone for more than four years. However, after more than 4
years of passing of the order dated 16.12.2019, a petition bearing
number 41533 of 2019 seeking to recall the earlier order dated
16.12.2019 passed by the High Court was filed before the
17
Hon’ble High Court, but, the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble
High Court on 02.04.2024.”
17. The appellant-Bhagwan Singh pursuant to the order passed by the
Court dated 31.07.2024 filed an affidavit dated 06.08.2024 stating inter
alia the following: –
“3. That the correct facts are that on 03.07.2024, a call was
received by Prem Singh, Former Pradhan of my Village Mudari
from Police Station Sahaswan, Distt Badaun, U.P., who asked
Prem Singh to bring me (Bhagwan Singh) to Police Station
Sahaswan as some notice has to be served upon me.
Accordingly, I accompanied Prem Singh to Police Station
Sahaswan, where I was handed over three papers by the police
and the true copy of the documents given to me by the police on
03.07.2024 at Police Station Sahaswan, District Badaun, Uttar
Pradesh are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A
(Colly). The police also obtained my signature on one form on
which “Petitioner Intimation Letter” was written. The police official
told me that these documents relate to a case titled as ‘Bhagwan
Singh versus State of U.P’ which had been filed by me in the
Supreme Court of India and the same arise out from a First
Information Report lodged by me several years back with respect
to my daughter’s kidnapping.
4. That as I had not filed any Special Leave Petition before
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India therefore, I came to Delhi and
filed my complaint before the Supreme Court of India. A true copy
of the complaint dated 9.7.2024 filed with the office of Secretary
General, Supreme Court of India is being annexed herewith as
Annexure B hereto.
5. I say that I have never instructed any Advocate on Record or
Advocate for filing the present Special Leave Petition, on my
behalf and in my name before this Hon’ble Court. I further say
that I have never visited the office of any of the Advocate or
Advocate on Record either in New Delhi or at Allahabad for the
purpose of signing the vakalatnama, affidavit or for filing the
present Special Leave Petition, in any manner whatsoever.
Further, I have also not travelled to Allahabad since the year 2014
for any purpose.
6. I further say that I was not even aware about the filing,
pendency and disposal of A U/S 482 No. 41533/2019 before the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which passed the judgment dated
16.12.2019, now under challenge in the present Special Leave
Petition.”
18
18. The Advocate/Notary Mr. Amar Nath Singh filed his affidavit dated
31.08.2024 in compliance with the order dated 28.08.2024 stating inter
alia the provisions of Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and Rule 11 of
the Notaries Rules, 1956 and further stated as under: –
“7. That the Deponent has attested the Affidavit dated 19.04.2024
of one Bhagwan Singh only after identifying the signature of
Bhagwan Singh by an Advocate of this Hon’ble Court, namely
Shri R.P.S. Yadav. However, the attested Affidavit was taken
away by the Lawyer, namely Mr. R.P.S. Yadav of this Hon’ble
Court and he did not turn up again, and that is why, the Deponent
was not able to make entry in the Notarial Register.”
19. Mr. Sukhpal newly added Respondent No.3 also filed an affidavit dated
02.09.2024 in compliance with the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by
the Court. He stated inter alia as follows: –
“3. That the after said incident Rinki/Sukhpal regularly met his
father/Father-In-Law Bhagwan Singh at the Badaun District Court
regularly. Bhagwan Singh pushing Rinki/Sukhpal for parivi of
aforesaid case.
4. That the chronology of this present case was as under: –
28.06.2013 – FIR of the said incident was registered under
Section 363, 366 & 376 IPC at Police Station Sehaswan, District
Budaun, U.P.05.12.2018 – That the Charge sheet has been filed by I.O, in
the said FIR No. 443/2013.
03.01.2019 – That the Cognizance was taken by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate in the said FIR.
16.11.2019 – That the Respondent No. 2, i.e. Ajay Katara, filed
an application Under Section 482 before the Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad.
16.12.2019 – That the said application was allowed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
19
01.02.2020 -1st recall application bearing No. 03/2020 was filed
by the Sukhpal and the said applicantion’s affidavit was attested
by the Sukhpal as witness and Rinki gave her signed/thumb
impression on the Vakalatnama.
28.11.2021 – That the Father-In-Law Bhagwan Singh was not
satisfied of merits of the 1st recall application, thereafter
Bhagwan Singh filed 2nd wish to join the recall application as
applicant then he gave the signed Vakalatnama dated
28.11.2021, copy of the Vakalatnama is annexed herewith as
Annexure ‘B’, to Sukhpal to file a fresh recall application bearing
No. 07/2020 and 8/2021 which was filed by the another advocate
at Allahabad.
March 2024 – That the Sukhpal handed over a Vakalatnama to
Mr. Karan Singh for arguing in recall application bearing No.
3/2020 in the High court of Judicature at Allahabad.
02.04.2024 – That the 1st recall application bearing No. 3/2020
was rejected by the Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
arguing by Karan Singh Yadav Advocate, and the other
application bearing No. 7/2020 and 8/2021 was not pressed by
the Ld. Advocate.
April 2024 – That after dismissal of Recall application bearing
No. 3 of 2020, Victim/Rinki wants to file Special leave petition
before this Hon’ble Apex Court and for filing of Special leave
petition Victim Rinki given signed Vakalatnama to Sukhpal for
handed over to Mr. Karan Singh Yadav (Advocate) for further
proceedings.
5. That after taken signed Vakalatnama deponent/Sukhpal came
at the chamber of Mr. Karan Singh Yadav and his bag was
present on his seat but Mr. Karan Singh Yadav was busy in argue
in the case before Hon’ble High court Allahabad, hence he puts
the signed Vakalatnama in the bag/Basta of Mr. Karan Singh
Yadav and informed him by mobile phone.”
20. From the aforesaid affidavits of the concerned Parties and the Notary
and the statements of the concerned Advocates recorded by the Courts
in the orders, the following facts emerge: –
20
(i) The present SLPs (Appeals) proceedings in the name of Bhagwan
Singh were filed by the Advocate on Record, Mr. Anubhav Yashwant
Yadav, with his signatures at the end of the SLP memorandum and
other papers. He also signed the certificate at the end of the SLP
dated 19.04.2024 required to be filed in the prescribed form as per
the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, along with the affidavit dated
24.04.2024 of Bhagwan Singh as notarized by the Notary Mr. A.N.
Singh. The said Advocate on Record, Mr. Anubhav Yadav also
submitted the Vakalatnama identifying and attesting the signatures
of the appellant-petitioner- Mr. Bhagwan Singh. However, during
the course of hearing, he had stated that – “though on Vakalatnama
he had identified and attested the signature of the petitioner, that
was not correct, and that he had received the Vakalatnama with the
signature of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, from the Advocate Mr.
R.P.S. Yadav who is present in the Court.” The said statements
have been recorded by the Court in the order dated 31.07.2024.
(ii) Though the Learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav had stated on
30.07.2024 that the Vakalatnama was signed by the petitioner-
Bhagwan Singh in his presence, on 31.07.2024, he changed his
version and stated that he had received the Vakalatnama already
signed by the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer named
Karan Singh Yadav who is practicing in the Allahabad High Court.
21
(iii) Mr. Karan Singh Yadav, Advocate practicing at Allahabad High
Court was directed to remain present before the Court on
09.08.2024 and he stated that he had received the papers of the
case along with the signed Vakalatnama i.e with the signature of
the petitioner- Bhagwan Singh from his client Sukhpal, son of
Rishipal, who happened to be the son-in-law of Bhagwan Sing. He
further stated that he had appeared before the High Court in Recall
Application No.3/2020 filed on behalf of Ms. Rinki, daughter of
Bhagwan Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh seeking recall of the
order dated 16.12.2019, and after the dismissal of the said
application on 02.04.2024, he had asked Sukhpal to get the
Vakalatnama with the signature of either Rinki or Bhagwan Singh.
Thereafter, said Sukhpal gave him the papers along with the
Vakalatnama signed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, which he
handed over to the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav practicing in the
Supreme Court.
(iv) The Notary Mr. A.N. Singh admitted in his affidavit that he had
attested the affidavit dated 19.04.2024 of one Bhagwan Singh, on
Mr. RPS Yadav, Advocate having identified the signature of
Bhagwan Singh. Meaning thereby, the said affidavit of Mr. Bhagwan
Singh was notarized by the Notary without Bhagwan Singh being
22
present before him and the said affidavit was submitted before the
Court along with the SLP memo.
(v) The Respondent No.3- Sukhpal kept on making inconsistent
statements in the court as stated in the order dated 28.08.2024. He
had made the statements that he and his wife Rinki met his father-
in-law, petitioner- Bhagwan Singh 3-4 years back at Budaun, Uttar
Pradesh and at that time petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had handed
over the signed Vakalatnama to his wife Rinki, which she handed
over to the Advocate Mr. Karan Singh, advocate practicing in the
High Court of Allahabad. In the affidavit dated 02.09.2024 filed by
him he had stated that the first recall application bearing no. 3/2020
was filed by him with his affidavit as the witness, and Rinki had put
her thumb impressions on the Vakalatnama. He further stated that
on 28.11.2021, Bhagwan Singh gave him a signed Vakalatnama to
file a fresh Recall Application bearing No. 7/2020 and 8/2021, which
was filed by another Advocate at Allahabad. In March, 2024, he
handed over the Vakalatnama to Karan Singh for arguing the Recall
Application No. 3/2020 in the High Court. According to him, in April
2024 since Rinki wanted to file SLP before the Supreme Court, she
gave a signed Vakalatnama to him (Sukhpal) which he gave to
Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav for filing further proceedings. He
also stated that since Mr. Karan Singh Yadav was busy arguing a
23
case, he put the signed Vakalatnama in the bag of Mr. Karan Singh
Yadav and informed him by mobile phone.
(vi) On 09.09.2024, Ms. Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan Singh and wife of
Sukhpal Singh stated that she used to talk to her father very often
on mobile phone. She gave numbers of the phones from which she
used to talk which have been recorded by the Court in the order.
She further stated that 5-6 months back she and her husband
Sukhpal had met her father who handed over the Vakalatnama
signed by him to her. The said Vakalatnama was handed over by
Mr. Sukhpal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate. Her husband, Mr.
Sukhpal who was present in the Court supported the said
statements made by his wife Rinki.
(vii) However, the appellant-petitioner Bhagwan Singh all throughout the
proceedings maintained his stand and stated in his affidavit that he
had never met his daughter Rinki or his son-in-law Sukhpal since
2013, nor he had any contact with his daughter telephonically or by
any other means as sated in his affidavit he had not travelled to
Allahabad since 2014 for any purpose. He also stated that he had
neither filed the present SLP proceedings, nor was aware about the
filing, pendency or disposal of the application under Section 482
No. 41533/2019 before the Allahabad High Court.
24
(viii) As transpiring from the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 Mr.
Ajay Kataria that since he was a star witness in the famous Nitish
Katara case, and on the basis of whose evidence the accused Vikas
Yadav and Vishal Yadav, who happened to be the son and nephew
of Mr. D. P. Yadav, Ex- Minister, and M.P. were convicted, he was
falsely implicated in number of cases. This is one of such cases,
filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, at the instance of Respondent
No.3 Sukhpal, Respondent No.2 Rinki, with the help of their
Advocates appearing for them in the High Court and this Court.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
21. The Court vide the order dated 28.08.2024 had directed the Registrar
General of Allahabad High Court to send the original records and
proceedings pertaining to the Application filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C bearing No.41533/2019. From the perusal of the Records of the
said case, it is found that the said Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C
was filed by the present Respondent No. 2- Ajay Katara against the
State of U.P and Bhagwan Singh seeking quashing of the proceedings
of the supplementary chargesheet No.163A filed against him in case
No.410/2014 for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC. It appears
that no Vakalatnama was filed in the said proceedings on behalf of
Bhagwan Singh, who was the opponent No.2 in the said Application,
25
however as recorded by the High Court in the impugned order dated
16.12.2019, Senior Advocate Mr. Anoop Trivedi assisted by the
Advocates Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav and Pradeep Kumar had
appeared for the opposite party No.2 i.e. Bhagwan Singh and argued
the said Application. It is pertinent to note that in the said proceedings
Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav had filed his Vakalatnama for Rinki
on 21.11.2019, though she was not a party to the proceedings. It further
appears that though the said Application under Section 482 was allowed
by the High Court vide the order dated 16.12.2019, a Vakalatnama with
the thumb impression of Bhagwan Singh was sought to be filed by the
Advocates, Mr. Jai Singh Yadav and Mr. P.B. Mishra on 30.11.2023 i.e.
almost 4 years after the disposal of the said Application.
22. From the record of the said Application being No. 41533/2019, it further
appears that a Criminal Miscellaneous Recall Application No.3/2020
was sought to be filed in the name of the applicant- Rinki by Advocates
Arun Kumar Mishra and Hemant Kumar Srivastava, seeking recall of the
order dated 16.12.2019 in the said Application no. 41533/2019. It is very
pertinent to note that in the said Recall Application, Mr. Sukhpal filed an
affidavit on 01.02.2020 in support of the Recall Application though he
was not a party to the proceedings. The Advocate Mr. Karan Singh
Yadav appeared for the opponent No.2 Bhagwan Singh, though in the
record there is no Vakalatnama filed by Karan Singh Yadav for Bhagwan
26
Singh either in the Recall Application proceedings or in the Main
Application under Section 482. As transpiring from the Order dated
02.04.2024, it appears that the main contention raised by Mr. Karan
Singh was that the opponent no.2 Bhagwan Singh was not given
opportunity of filing counter affidavit before passing the judgment on
16.12.2019 in the Main Application under Section 482.
23. It further appears that Criminal Miscellaneous Recall Application Nos.
7/2020 and 8/2021 were also filed by one Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar
Yadav on 20.12.2020 seeking condonation of delay and on 28.11.2020
seeking recall of the order dated 16.12.2019. Along with the said
Applications, one affidavit with the signature of said Advocate Alok
Kumar Yadav, without the signature of Bhagwan Singh on whose behalf
it was sought to be filed and without the signature of the Oath
Commissioner, was sought to be filed. The said Alok Yadav also filed his
Vakalatnama on 28.11.2021 with the alleged thumb mark of Bhagwan
Singh. All the said three Recall applications were argued by the
Advocate Karan Singh Yadav purportedly on behalf of Bhagwan Singh,
who was opponent No.2 in the main proceedings under Section 482 filed
by Ajay Katara. The Recall Application No.3/2020 came to be rejected
by the Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 by observing that the main
case was argued by the two reputed Senior Advocates appearing for the
opponent No.2, as stated in the judgment dated 16.12.2019. The other
27
two Recall Applications being No. 7/2020 and 8/2021 were not pressed
for by the said Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav and therefore were
dismissed vide the said order dated 02.04.2024.
24. From the said proceedings of the High Court, it clearly emerges that
though there was no Vakalatnama filed on behalf of Bhagwan Singh who
was opponent No.2 in the Application under Section 482 No. 41533 of
2019, two Senior Advocates and other Advocates made their
submissions on behalf of Bhagwan Singh. After the final judgment was
passed by the High Court on 16.12.2019, three Recall Applications
came to be filed one after the other, almost four years after the said
judgment in the name of Bhagwan Singh and Rinki. The concerned
advocates also appeared on behalf of the Bhagwan Singh without his
authority, knowledge or consent.
25. From the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that the
Respondent No.3 Mr. Sukhpal, son of Rishipal and Respondent
No.4 Ms. Rinki, wife of Sukhpal, with the able assistance of a
battery of advocates in the Supreme Court namely AOR Mr.
Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, Mr. R.P.S Yadav, Mr. Karan Singh Yadav
along with the Advocate and notary Mr. A.N. Singh, and a battery of
Advocates in the High Court namely Santosh Kumar Yadav, Jai
Singh Yadav, Alok Kumar Yadav and Karan Singh Yadav and many
other unknown persons had made brazen attempts to falsely
28
implicate the Respondent No.2 Ajay Katara by filing false
proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh in the High Court and
Supreme Court, by filing false and fabricated documents. Though,
the said Bhagwan Singh had never met any of the said Advocates nor
had instructed any advocates to file the proceedings in the High Court
or the Supreme Court and, though he had never met his daughter Rinki
and son- in-law, Sukh Pal since the time they had eloped and married
with each other in 2013, they with the help and assistance of the said
Advocates had tried to misuse and abuse the process of law and malign
the stream of justice.
26. It is also very pertinent to note that as stated earlier, the said Respondent
no.2-Ajay Katara was the star witness in the famous Nitish Katara
Murder Case and on the basis of his evidence along with the other
evidence the accused in the said case namely Vikas Yadav and Vishal
Yadav, (who happened to be the son and nephew of D.P. Yadav, Ex-
Minister and Member of Parliament) were convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for life by the trial court. In the appeal, the High Court had
confirmed the conviction and further ordered that the said two accused
shall not be entitled to any remission till they have completed 25 years
of actual sentence. The said judgment was also confirmed by the
Supreme Court. Mr. Katara is made to suffer for being witness in the
said case. As stated by him in the affidavit, he was subjected to
29
continuous threats and still continues to be under pressure for having
appeared as the witness. He has stated that before the said case, he
had no case civil or criminal filed against him, and after the said case,
he has been continuously targeted with a campaign of false and
frivolous cases and named in around thirty-seven cases, including the
present one at the behest of Yadav family and their associates.
However, he has been cleared in 35 out of 37 cases.
27. It would not be out of place to reiterate that the witnesses play a vital
role in facilitating the court to arrive at a correct findings, particularly in
criminal trials. As rightly said by Jereny Bentham, an English
Philosopher and jurist, “the witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.”
They are the backbone in the decision making process in the adversial
system prevalent in India. In the words of Whittaker Chambers, a
witness is –
“a man whose life and faith are so completely one that when the
challenge comes to step out and testify for his faith, he does so,
disregarding all risks, accepting all consequences.”1
As very aptly said in a book on Witness Protection-
“In search of truth, he plays that sacred role of the sun, which
eliminates the darkness of ignorance and illuminates the face of
justice, encircled by devils of humanity and compassion.2
1 Whittaker Chambers, WITNESS QUOTES (Washington DC, Regnery Gateway,
1952) p. 5
2 Witness Protection in Criminal Trial in India by Girish Abhyankar & Asawari
Abhyankar
30
28. However, the condition of witnesses in the Indian Legal System is very
pathetic. The witnesses are threatened, coerced by using force and
lured by monetary considerations, at the instances of those who are in
power, their henchmen and hirelings, with a view to smother and stifle
truth, and to make mockery of justice. Though the “Witness Protection
Scheme, 2018” has been framed by the Central Government and
approved by this Court in Mahendra Chawla vs. Union of India3 there
is hardly any effective implementation of the same.
29. To create or to assist creating false documents and to use them as
genuine knowing them to be false in the Court proceedings, to falsely
implicate somebody in the false proceedings filed in the name of the
person who had no knowledge whatsoever about the same are the acts
attributable to the offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. They are also acts of frauds committed not only on the
person sought to be falsely implicated and on the person in whose name
such false proceedings are filed without his knowledge and consent, but
is a fraud committed on the Courts. No Court can allow itself to be used
as an instrument of fraud and no Court can allow its eyes to be closed
to the fact that it is being used as an instrument of fraud. As held by this
Court in V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors.4
3
(2019) 14 SCC 615
4 2012 (12) SCC 133
31
“The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression
or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert
justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only
in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public
interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the
same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an
inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose,
amounts to an abuse of process of the court.”
30. The matter assumes serious concern when the Advocates who are the
officers of the Court are involved and when they actively participate in
the ill-motivated litigations of the unscrupulous litigants, and assist them
in misusing and abusing the process of law to achieve their ulterior
purposes.
31. People repose immense faith in Judiciary, and the Bar being an integral
part of the Justice delivery system, has been assigned a very crucial role
for preserving the independence of justice and the very democratic set
up of the country. The legal profession is perceived to be essentially a
service oriented, noble profession and the lawyers are perceived to be
very responsible officers of the court and an important adjunct of the
administration of justice. In the process of overall depletion and erosion
of ethical values and degradation of the professional ethics, the
instances of professional misconduct are also on rise. There is a great
sanctity attached to the proceedings conducted in the court. Every
Advocate putting his signatures on the Vakalatnamas and on the
documents to be filed in the Courts, and every Advocate appearing for
32
a party in the courts, particularly in the Supreme Court, the highest court
of the country is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his/her
appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness. No
professional much less legal professional, is immuned from being
prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds.
32. In the extraordinary facts and circumstances, and considering the
gravity and seriousness of the case, when the High Court and Supreme
Court were sought to be taken for a ride and when the entire justice
delivery system was sought to be put to stake, by the respondent no. 3
Mr. Sukhpal, the respondent no. 4 Ms. Rinki, and their concerned
associates and the Advocates, who helped them in forging and
fabricating the documents to be filed in the High Court and Supreme
Court, and to pursue the false proceedings filed in the name of Bhagwan
Singh without his knowledge, consent or authority, we deem it
appropriate to hand over the investigation of the case to the CBI. The
CBI shall register the regular case, after holding preliminary inquiry if
necessary to do so, against all the persons found involved and
responsible, and shall investigate all the links leading to the commission
of the alleged crimes and fraud on court. The Director, CBI is directed to
do the needful in this regard and to submit the report to this court within
two months. The office is directed to hand over Original Record of the
Application under Section 482 No.41533/2019 and Recall Applications
33
3/2020, 7/2020 and 8/2021 and the Original Record of the instant
Appeals to the Director, CBI in a sealed cover, after retaining the certified
copies of all the records of the said proceedings and instant appeals.
WAY FORWARD TO CORRECTIVE MEASURES
33. This is the opportune time to remind the Advocates about the Standard
of Professional misconduct and Etiquettes as contained in Chapter II
Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. As stated in the Preamble
thereof, an Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner
befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the
community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful
and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member
of the Bar in his non-professional capacity, may still be improper for an
advocate. Though an Advocate is expected to fearlessly uphold the
interests of his client, his conduct must conform to the Rules of Conduct
and Etiquettes laid down in the said Chapter, both in letter and in spirit.
34. The role and the duty of the Advocates particularly Advocates-on-
Record are contained in Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The relevant part of Rule 7 Order IV of the said Rules reads as under:
“7. (a). ……….
(b) (i) Where the vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the
Advocate-on-Record, he shall certify that it was executed in his
presence.
(ii) Where the Advocate-on-Record merely accepts the
vakalatnama which is already duly executed in the presence of a34
Notary or an advocate, he shall make an endorsement thereon
that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the
vakalatnama.”
35. The Special Leave Petitions civil or criminal have to be filed in the
Supreme Court in compliance with the Rules contained in Order XXI and
XXII of the said Rules.
36. As observed by this Court in Saumya Chaurasia vs. Directorate of
Enforcement5 –
“13. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court
seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of
material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the
court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to
assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the
justice. It hardly needs to be emphasised that a very high
standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from
the advocates particularly designated senior advocates
appearing in the highest court of the country so that their
professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates
practising in the High Courts and the District Courts. Though it is
true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in
the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their
duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using
their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be
obliviated.”
37. Similarly, the Notaries Act 1952 regulates the profession of Notaries. The
functions and duties of Notaries are enumerated in Section 8 thereof.
The transaction of business by a Notary is contained in Rule 11 of the
Notaries Rules 1956. Any acts or omissions thereof, on the part of the
5 (2024) 6 SCC 401
35
Notary would tantamount to misconduct, and the person complained
against would be unfit to be a Notary.
38. Having recorded above, the Registry is directed to send a copy of the
order to the Bar Council of India and to the Government of India for
necessary perusal and action as may be deemed necessary.
39. So far as the listing of the names of the Advocates in the Order Sheets
is concerned, in response to the order passed by the Court on
28.08.2024, directing the Registry to explain as to on what basis and
why the names of so many Advocates are being shown in the Order
Sheets/Record of Proceedings though, they would be neither appearing
as an AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel, it has been submitted by the
concerned officers i.e. AR-cum-PS/Court Masters inter alia that the
Advocate on Records have been authorized to put in appearance of the
Advocates appearing with or on his/her behalf on the portal for filing on-
line appearance slips in view of Office Circular dated 30.12.2022. It is
further stated that it is not possible for the Court Masters to recognize
every Advocate appearing in the Court rooms by face and therefore,
they have to rely upon the appearance put in by the Advocates-on-
Record. In case a Senior Advocate is appearing but his/her name is not
reflected in the appearance slip, the Court Masters include their names.
The said Circular/Notice dated 30.12.2022 relied upon by the AR-cum-
PSs/Court Masters reads as under:
36
“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
F.No.5/Judl./2022
Dated: 30th December, 2022NOTICE
Re: Activation of Portal of Filing Online Appearance Slips
Take Notice that an Online Module has been developed to
facilitate procedure of marking appearances of the Advocates in
the Record of Proceedings, which is going to be activated from
02.01.2023.
Take Notice that the Advocates-on-Record may mark the
appearances of the Advocates appearing in the Court through the
link provided on the website http://main.sci.gov.in and on the
Office Mobile App of the Supreme Court of India. The said facility
shall be available for the duration spanning from the publication
of the Cause List on the website till 11.30 a.m. on the date of
hearing of the matter. The User Manual for the same is available
on the website.
In case of any query, the Advocates-on-Record may contact the
concerned Court Masters, whose contact details are available on
the website on daily basis.
Take further Notice that the existing practice of submitting
appearance slips on Court-wise e-mail IDs shall stand dispensed
with w.e.f. 02.01.2023.
Sd/-
(Puneet Sehgal) (Chirag Bhanu Singh)
Registrar (J-III) Registrar (J-I)”
40. From the bare reading of Notice, it clearly transpires that the Notice only
permits the Advocate-On-Record to mark the appearances of the
Advocates appearing in the Court, through the link provided on the
website or on the office mobile app of the Supreme Court. Meaning
thereby, the Advocate on Record may mark the appearances of those
Advocates who are actually appearing in the case i.e. the Advocate-on-
37
Record and the Advocates who are going to appear and argue the case
on a particular day of hearing. The Advocate on Record is expected to
know before 11:30 a.m. on the date of hearing as to which
Advocate/Advocates is/are going to appear/argue the particular case,
and is accordingly required to mark their appearances as instructed in
the Notice. The Notice nowhere permits the Advocates-on-Record to
mark appearances of the Advocates who are not authorized either to
appear and argue the case.
41. Recently the Coordinate Bench on interpretation of the said Circular
dated 30.12.2022 vide the Order dated 29.08.2024 in Contempt
Petition(C)No. 1188/2018 in C.A. No. 2703 of 2017 observed and
directed as under:
“4. We have perused circular of the Supreme Court Registry
dated 30th December, 2022 by which a portal for online
appearance was activated w.e.f. 02.01.2023. In terms of the said
circular, the Advocates-on-Record are permitted to mark
appearances of the “advocates appearing in court.” Meaning
thereby, sch instruction casts onerous responsibility on the
Advocates-on-Record to furnish information of the advocate
appearing online or physically in the case. Apparently, it would
mean that the advocate who is either present in the case or
assisting them in the Court, the presence of only those is to be
marked. It would not mean that the advocate, who is neither
present personally nor online, may be allowed to mark his
presence by furnishing online information. We cannot loose sight
of the fact that furnishing such information may have bearing on
the sanctity of the Court proceedings in the case.
5. We may hasten to observe that on the basis of the presence
of the counsel in the proceedings, the advocates may be entitled
to get certain benefits such as allotment of chamber, designation
of senior advocates and other. In the long run, if the advocates,38
who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their
presence, it may have adverse impact on those Bar members
who are appearing regularly. Therefore, for sanctity of the
proceedings and for betterment of the Institution, online
information ought to be submitted of only those advocates who
are either appearing or assisting during hearing, personally or
online.
6. In view of aforesaid, we forthwith direct that in this Court,
online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be
marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as
indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but
may be associated in office of the advocates.
7. As observed, we request the member of the Supreme Court
Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates
as indicated, and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit.
We also request the Presidents of respective Bar Associations of
the Supreme Court to look into the issue and notify the members
for taking corrective steps.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the President of the Supreme
Court Bar Association and of Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association for information and acknowledgment.”
42. In view of the said Notice/Circular dated 30.12.2022 and in furtherance
of the afore-stated order passed by the Coordinate Bench, it is directed
that the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those
Advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on the
particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate
on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice.
If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be
duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned
39
Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The
concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly.
43. The Appeals stand disposed of in terms of this Order. However, the
same be listed for the submission of the Report by the CBI on 25th
November, 2024.
……………………………………J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
.……………..……………………. J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 20th, 2024
40