Abuse of process of law – Fraud on Court – False proceedings filed in the name of the petitioner in the High Court and Supreme Court without his knowledge, consent or authority by filing false and fabricated vakaltnamas, affidavit – Whether the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2 by filing the aforesaid false proceedings with the assistance of advocates:
Held: Yes – Respondent No.2 is being made to suffer for being witness in the Nitish Katara case by continuously targeting him with false and frivolous cases, including the present one at the behest of Yadav family and their associates – 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 punishable offences – They are 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 also a fraud committed on the Courts – In the present case, High Court and Supreme Court were taken for a ride and the entire justice delivery system was put to stake by the respondent nos.3 and 4, their associates and the Advocates, who helped them in forging and fabricating the documents filed in the High Court and Supreme Court, and to pursue the false proceedings filed in the name of the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority – In the extraordinary facts and circumstances, considering the gravity and seriousness of the case, investigation handed over to the CBI – CBI to register the regular case, after holding preliminary inquiry if necessary, 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 – Director, CBI to do the needful in this regard and submit the report within two months. [Paras 26, 29, 32] Notaries Act 1952 – Notaries Rules 1956 – r.11 – Acts or omissions on the part of the Notary in violation thereof – Affidavit of the petitioner was notarized by the Notary in his absence and the said affidavit was submitted with the SLP memo – Notary did not make the entry of the said attestation in the Notarial Register – Petitioner denied filing any SLP stating that the same was falsely filed in his name: Held: Any acts or omissions on the part of the Notary in violation of r.11, would amount to misconduct and the Notary complained against would be unfit to be a Notary – Registry to send a copy of the order to the Bar Council of India and the Government of India for perusal and action as deemed necessary. [Paras 37, 38] Justice Delivery System – Role of advocates – Ethics – Degradation of the professional ethics on rise – Filing of false false and fabricated documents in Court:
Held: Legal professionals are not immune from being prosecuted for their criminal misdeeds – There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings conducted in the court – Advocates putting their signatures on the Vakalatnamas and on the documents to be filed in the Courts are presumed to have filed the proceedings and put their appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness. [Para 31]
Practice and Procedure – Appearances given by Advocates-onRecord (AoRs) – Names of Advocates shown in the Order Sheets though, they neither appeared as an AOR nor as arguing/Senior Counsel – The said issue came up as the Respondent No.2 contended that being a star witness in the Nitish Katara case, he was being falsely implicated in number of cases including the present case filed in the name of the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority and some of the advocates shown as appearing in the present SLP are the same advocates who appeared in the SLP filed by the accused in the Nitish Katara case – Plea of the AR-cum-PS/Court Masters relying on Circular/Notice dated 30.12.2022 that AoRs are authorized to put in appearance of the Advocates appearing with or on his/her behalf on the portal for filing online appearance slips and as they cannot recognize every Advocate appearing so they have to rely upon the appearances put in by the AoRs: Held: AoRs can mark the appearances of only those Advocates who are actually appearing and arguing in the case on a particular day of hearing – The Notice does not permit the AoRs to mark appearances of the Advocates who are not authorized either to appear and argue the case. [Para 40]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.