Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal appeals against separate judgments and orders of the Allahabad High Court, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. expressed utter shock when it came to notice that the appellant present in person before the Court did not know either of the advocates/ AORs who were representing him and that he came to know about the present proceedings filed in his name only when the Police Station of his area came to serve Court notice upon him. Hence, considering the seriousness of the matter, the Bench handed over the investigation of the case to the CBI. The Court directed the CBI to 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.
Genesis
The present appellant/ father had lodged an FIR on 28-06-2013 alleging that his minor daughter aged 12 years was kidnapped by her cousin brother A, A’s sister, A’s son-in-law and A’s brother. Subsequently, a criminal petition was filed before the High Court and vide order dated 31-07-2013, the arrest of the accused persons therein, was stayed. Later, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, when chargesheet was filed against A for kidnapping a minor girl. The minor’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) disclosed that she was in love with A, so they got married him in a temple and ran away to Ghaziabad. There she met ‘B’, who was accused of raping her.
SLP/ Appeals before this Court
Presently, one of the appeals challenged the judgment and order dated 16-12-2019 passed by the High Court in an Application under Section 482 filed by ‘B’ whereby his application was allowed and entire proceedings in respect of the Supplementary Chargesheet for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) were quashed.
The other Appeal was filed challenging the order dated 02-04-2024 whereby the High Court had rejected the recall application.
The issue regarding the filing of petitions/ appeals in the name of appellant without his knowledge came to notice when the Registry submitted that a letter dated 09-07-2024 was received from the petitioner 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 an Advocate, stating that he was appearing on behalf of the appellant.
It was pointed out by the appellant, present in person before the Court that he did not know either of the advocates/ AORs who were representing him and that he came to know about the present proceedings filed in his name only when the Police Station of his area came to serve Court notice upon him.
The matter further disclosed notarisation of fake signatures, inclusion of names of advocates/AORs who did not appear and allegations of conspiracy against a witness in a famous case.
The advocates in question had stated that vakalatnama signed by the appellant was received by him from an Advocate practicing in the High Court. To this, the appellant reply was that he did not either of these Advocates. In view of the above submissions, the Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the Advocate practicing in Allahabad High Court. The Advocate from High Court submitted that he received the papers of the case along with signed vakalatnama from his client/ A, who is son-in-law of the present appellant. It was stated that this Advocate appeared before the High Court in the recall application filed on behalf of petitioner’s daughter/ wife of A, in which it was prayed to recall the order dated 16-12-2019 passed by the High Court in the Application under Section 482. However, when the said recall application was dismissed, A wanted to file an SLP before the Court, hence, he was asked to get the vakalatnama signed from either his wife or father-in-law/ appellant. Thereafter, he had handed over all the papers along with signed vakalatnama to the Advocate practicing in the Court.
At this stage, the appellant submitted that since his daughter had eloped and married A in 2013, he has not met them, and therefore, he could not have signed the vakalatnama in question or the papers of the SLP.
Previous Orders
The Bench had directed the Notary to file an affidavit explaining the procedure of notarizing any document, and also explaining as to why he attested the signatures.
The Court also sought explanation from the Registry as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates were shown in the Order Sheets who did not appear as AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel. On one of the previous hearings, the Court noted the submission of the AOR and Advocate who prepared the Memo of SLP and got it attested through a Notary who sits in front of the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound.
The Court directed the Notary to 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 in the present case, was attested by him in his absence. The Court also sought explanation from the Registry as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates were shown in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings though, they would be neither appearing as an AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel.
Analysis and Decision
The Court on perusal of the affidavits filed by the parties, the Court noted that A and wife (appellant’s daughter) with the able assistance of a battery of advocates in the Court along with the notary, and a battery of Advocates in the High Court, and many other unknown persons, had made brazen attempts to falsely implicate B by filing false proceedings in the appellant’s name before the High Court and the Court by filing false and fabricated documents. The Court added that appellant had never met any of the said advocates nor had instructed them to file the proceedings and that A and his wife, 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.
The Court also pointed out that B was the star witness in the famous Nitish Katara Murder Case and based on his evidence, the accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Trial Court.
The Court reiterated that- “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.”
Highlighting the seriousness of the matter, the Court said that the matter at hand is of 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.
While handing over the investigation of the matter to CBI, the Court directed the Director, CBI to do the needful in this regard and to submit the report to this Court within two months. The office of the Registrar was directed to hand over the original record of the application under Section 482 and Recall Applications 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
“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.”
Discussing the duty of the advocates and notary, the Court remarked that though an Advocate is expected to uphold his client’s interests fearlessly, his conduct must conform to the Rules of Conduct and Etiquettes laid down in Chapter II Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, both in letter and in spirit. The Court also added that any acts or omissions thereof, on the part of the notary would tantamount to misconduct, and the person complained against would be unfit to be a notary.
Hence, the Court directed the Registry 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.
Apropos the inclusion of the names of the advocates/ AORs who did not even appear, the Court noted that the officers concerned/ Court masters submitted that AORs have been authorized to put in appearance of the Advocates appearing with or on his/her behalf on the portal for filing online appearance slips in view of Office Circular dated 30-12-2022. The Court on perusal of the said circular pointed out that it clearly transpired that the Notice only permitted the AORs 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 Court, hence, only of advocates who are actually appearing in the case. The Court clearly mentioned that the said notice nowhere permitted the AOR to mark appearances of the Advocates who are not authorized either to appear and argue the case.
Therefore, the Court directed that the AOR to 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 him 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 AOR concerned to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
