TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1805
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law, in turn damaging the image of the Courts as also of the entire legal fraternity/legal profession. 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 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 at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-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 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gwan 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ife 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 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 Ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 4. She further states that, 05-06 months back she and her husband, Mr. Sukh Pal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 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 impressi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sting 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. (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, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kalatnama 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. [2012 (12) SCC 133] "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 s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 online 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ce....