SC directs CBI probe into filing of false case with fabricated documents [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said wrongdoers must fear the law that they will be punished, innocents must be assured that they will not be prosecuted and victims must be confident that they will get justice.

The top court directed the CBI inquiry into a case after a man denied having filed a petition in connection with a rape and kidnapping case quashed by the Allahabad High Court against the star witness in the 2002 infamous Nitish Katara murder case.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said, "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 court said every advocate putting his signature on vakalatnamas and documents to be filed in courts, and every advocate appearing for a party in a court is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness.
   
No professional, much less a legal professional, is immune from being prosecuted for his criminal misdeeds, the bench said.

The court considered extraordinary facts and circumstances of matter as the petitioner Bhagwan Singh, represented by advocate Nikhil Majithia, claimed he did not file the case and he had never met any of lawyers representing him.

The accused in the rape case, Ajay Katara also said since he deposed in the 2002 case which resulted into conviction of son Vikas Yadav and nephew Vishal Yadav of Uttar Pradesh's gangster politician, former MP and Minister D P Yadav, he had been implicated in 37 false cases including the present one.

In view of the facts, the bench said, the matter assumed 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.

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 (husband of alleged rape victim), Ms Rinki (complainant in rape case), son-in-law and daughter of Bhagwan Singh 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.

The court directed the CBI probe and sought a report within two months. It fixed the matter for consideration of the CBI report on November 25, 2024.

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

Bhagwan Singh also claimed he never met his daughter since she eloped with Sukhpal in 2013.

The court interacted with Bhagwan Singh, his daughter after issuing personal summons against them.

In the matter, the bench noted Sukhpal, his wife Rinki 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 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.

Following the ordeal suffered by witness Katara, 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 court said.

In the case, the bench said the acts of frauds were 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 also 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 bench directed the CBI to register the regular case, after holding preliminary inquiry if necessary to do so, against all the persons found involved and responsible, and shall investigate all the links leading to the commission of the alleged crimes and fraud on court. The Director, CBI is directed to do the needful in this regard and to submit the report to this court within two months, it ordered.

Referring to the practice and procedure, the bench said 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. 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 Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly.

With regard to Standard of Professional misconduct and Etiquettes, the bench said 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, it said.

"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," the court said.

Citing the Notaries Act, 1952, which regulated the profession of Notaries, the bench said, 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 Notary would tantamount to misconduct, and the person complained against would be unfit to be a Notary," the bench said, directing its Registry to send a copy of the order to the Bar Council of India and to the Government of India for necessary perusal and action as may be deemed necessary. 
 

[Read Judgment]