Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with two appeals purportedly filed by Bhagwan Singh challenging a High Court order quashing criminal proceedings and a subsequent recall application. During proceedings, Bhagwan Singh appeared in court and denied filing any SLP or signing the vakalatnama. The court investigated and found that the vakalatnama and SLP papers were forged. Advocate Karan Singh Yadav received the papers from Sukhpal Singh (Bhagwan Singh's son-in-law) and handed them to advocate R.P.S. Yadav, who prepared the SLP memo and got it notarized by Notary A.N. Singh without Bhagwan Singh's presence. Advocate Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, as AOR, signed the vakalatnama attesting the signature without verification. The court held that this was a clear case of fraud on the court and abuse of process. The appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, and the court issued contempt notices to the advocates and notary involved, directing them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. The court also directed the Registrar General to file a complaint for prosecution under relevant laws.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of Process - Fraud on Court - The court examined whether the appeals were filed with the consent of the appellant, Bhagwan Singh, and found that the vakalatnama and SLP papers were forged, as the appellant denied signing them. The court held that such fraudulent actions amount to abuse of the legal process and contempt of court, warranting dismissal of the appeals and initiation of contempt proceedings against the advocates and notary involved. (Paras 3-12)
B) Legal Ethics - Duty of Advocates - Vakalatnama - The court emphasized that advocates must ensure the authenticity of their client's signature on vakalatnama and must not identify signatures without verification. The conduct of advocates R.P.S. Yadav, Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, and Karan Singh Yadav in facilitating the filing of a forged vakalatnama was held to be unprofessional and contemptuous. (Paras 7-11)
C) Notary - Notarization - False Attestation - The court noted that Notary A.N. Singh notarized the SLP memo without the appellant being present, relying solely on the identification by advocate R.P.S. Yadav. This was held to be a serious irregularity, and the Notary was directed to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Leave Petitions filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh were genuine or fraudulent, and what action should be taken against the advocates and notary involved in fabricating the vakalatnama and filing the appeals without the appellant's knowledge or consent.
Final Decision
The appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. The court issues contempt notices to advocates R.P.S. Yadav, Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, Karan Singh Yadav, and Notary A.N. Singh, directing them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court. The Registrar General is directed to file a complaint for prosecution under Section 340 CrPC and other relevant laws.
Law Points
- Fraud on court
- abuse of process of law
- forged vakalatnama
- contempt of court
- duty of advocates
- notary attestation
- quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (09) 321
Criminal Appeal Nos. …………………..of 2024 (@ SLP(CRL.)NOs………………..OF 2024 @ DIARY NO. 18885 OF 2024)
Nikhil Majithia, Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, R.P.S. Yadav, Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, Karan Singh Yadav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals challenging High Court order quashing proceedings and recall application; later found to be fraudulently filed.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (purportedly Bhagwan Singh) sought to challenge the High Court's order quashing supplementary chargesheet and the dismissal of recall application.
Filing Reason
The appeals were filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his knowledge or consent, based on a forged vakalatnama.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Allahabad allowed application under Section 482 CrPC quashing proceedings in Case No. 410 of 2014; recall application dismissed on 02.04.2024.
Issues
Whether the Special Leave Petitions were filed with the genuine consent of the appellant Bhagwan Singh.
What action should be taken against the advocates and notary involved in fabricating the vakalatnama and filing the appeals without the appellant's knowledge.
Submissions/Arguments
Bhagwan Singh submitted that he did not file any SLP and the vakalatnama was forged.
Advocates R.P.S. Yadav and Anubhav Yashwant Yadav admitted to identifying and attesting the signature without verification.
Advocate Karan Singh Yadav stated he received the papers from Sukhpal Singh, Bhagwan Singh's son-in-law.
Notary A.N. Singh notarized the SLP memo without the appellant being present.
Ratio Decidendi
Filing a case without the client's consent and with a forged vakalatnama constitutes a fraud on the court and abuse of process, warranting dismissal and contempt proceedings. Advocates and notaries have a duty to verify the authenticity of signatures and cannot blindly attest or notarize documents.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
The petitioner – Bhagwan Singh ... 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.
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.
Procedural History
The High Court of Allahabad allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC filed by respondent no. 2 (Ajay Katara) quashing proceedings in Case No. 410 of 2014 on 16.12.2019. A recall application filed by Ms. Rinki was dismissed on 02.04.2024. Thereafter, two SLPs were filed in the Supreme Court in the name of Bhagwan Singh challenging these orders. During proceedings, Bhagwan Singh appeared and denied filing the SLPs. The court investigated and found the vakalatnama was forged. The court dismissed the appeals and initiated contempt proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 363, 366, 376
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
