2024 INSC 708 1

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 U D G M E N T

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

counsellors, who are always busy in taking undue advantage of the

systemic lacunae and in misusing the process of law, in turn damaging

2

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 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

3

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,

4

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.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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

10

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.

11

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

12

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

13

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.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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.”

19

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.

20

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 Vakalatnam a 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: -

21

(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.

22

(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

23

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

24

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.

25

(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,

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

31

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 India

3

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

32

“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

33

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

34

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 a

35

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

Enforcement

5

-

“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

36

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:

37

“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

F.No.5/Judl./2022

Dated: 30

th

December, 2022

NOTICE

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-

38

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 30

th

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,

39

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

40

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 20

th

, 2024