Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the CBI probe into a case after a man claimed his name was fraudulently used in filing a petition in connection with a rape and kidnapping case quashed by the Allahabad High Court against a key witness in the infamous 2002 Nitish Katara murder case involving son and nephew of Uttar Pradesh's gangster politician, former MP and Minister D P Yadav.

"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," a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said.

The court noted that 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 Sukhpal, 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 bench ordered.

In the case, petitioner Bhagwan Singh before the apex court denied having filed the instant petition against the Allahabad High Court's order quashing the criminal case against Ajay Katara.

Bhagwan Singh here is the father of the alleged rape victim.

After making preliminary inquiry and going through the records, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that the Respondent No 3 Sukhpal, son of Rishipal and Ms. Rinki, wife of Sukhpal, with the able assistance of a battery of advocates in the Supreme Court namely AOR Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, R P S Yadav, Karan Singh Yadav along with the advocate and notary 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 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."

Taking note of the extraordinary facts and circumstances, and considering the gravity and seriousness of the case, the court ordered the CBI probe into the matter.

"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," the bench said.

Court also noted 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.

The respondent accused Ajay Katara submitted before the court that after his deposition in the Nitish Katara murder case, which led to conviction of the politician's son Vikas and nephew Vishal and sentence of 25 years jail without remission, he had continuously been targeted with a campaign of false and frivolous cases and named in around 37 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.

The bench said, "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 India (2019), there is hardly any effective implementation of the same."

The bench also said 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," the bench said.

The court also pointed out 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 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," the bench said.

Referring to the Standard of Professional misconduct and Etiquettes as contained in Chapter II Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, the bench said, 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.

Court also directed that the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those advocates who are authorised to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. 

It fixed the matter for considering the CBI report on November 25, 2024.

Case Title: Bhagwan Singh Vs State of UP & Ors