# Dr. Mukut Nath Verma -in-Person v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 260
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-17
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6583 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-mukut-nath-verma-in-person-v-u-o-i-ors-47210
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Serious allegations have been made by the
Petitioners
against
respondent
authorities-but
neither
supporting
document nor any material available on
record
to
support
the
contentionPetitioner has unauthorisedly filed the
writ-as no authorization has been placed
neither of accused nor of his family
member.

W.P. dismissed with cost. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,911 of 45,604. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39911 for what follows._

260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order to reiterate principles which must
govern countless other faces whose voices
should not go unheard."

10. Taking note of the nature of the
allegation made in the F.I.R. and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
the discussion made above, this Court is
not
inclined
to
quash
the
F.I.R.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.

11. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A260
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6583 of 2021

Dr. Mukut Nath Verma
 ...Petitioner-in-Person
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dr. Mukut Nath Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Serious allegations have been made by the
Petitioners
against
respondent
authorities-but
neither
supporting
document nor any material available on
record
to
support
the
contentionPetitioner has unauthorisedly filed the
writ-as no authorization has been placed
neither of accused nor of his family
member.

W.P. dismissed with cost. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:

1. Improvement Trust Ropar through its
Chairman Vs S. Tejinder Singh Gujral & ors.,
1995 Supp. (4) SCC 577 (para-3)

2.
Dhanraj
Singh
Choudhry
Vs
Nathulal
Vishwakarma, (2012) 1 SCC 741 (Para-25)

3. O.P. Sharma Vs High Court of P&H, (2011) 6
SCC 86

4.Chandra Prakash Tyagi Vs Benarsi Das (dead)
by legal representatives & ors., (2015) 8 SCC
506

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Dr. Mukut Nath Verma,
petitioner
in
person
through
video
conferencing and Sri Manish Goel, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA for Staterespondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the
respondent no. 5 & 6 SHO P.S. Hazratganj
Kotwali
Lucknow
UP
and
SHO
Colonelganj, Prayagraj, UP to lodge FIRs
on
the
basis
of
complaints
dated
22.12.2020 and 07.07.2021 respectively
under Section 154 Cr P C made by the
petitioner and to provide copy of the FIRs
thereof;

II. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the
respondent no. 12 Central Bureau of
Investigation for investigating (C.B.I.) both
the FIRs;

III. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus to the
8 All. Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
261
respondent No. 1 & 2 to provide sufficient
permanent security to the Petitioner in
order to meet his client Mr. Mani Lal
Patidar and to prosecute the petitions
before the any Authorities as Petitioner has
been receiving life threats from the agents
of the Respondent no. 8, 9, 10 and 11;

IV. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the respondent
no. 1, 2, 3 & 4 that a meeting be arranged
with the petitioner and his client Mr. Mani
Lal Patidar (IPS) so that the petitioner can
collect his remaining pending fee and seek
further instructions;

V. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the respondent
no. 2, 3 and 4 to initiate departmental
proceedings against respondent no. 5,6,8, 9,
10 and 11;

VI. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the respondent
no. 2 and 4 to suspend respondent no. 5, 6, 8,
10 and 11 so that they can not influence the
investigation any manner;

VII. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the respondent
no. 7 to withhold the pension and all other
dues of respondent no. 9 till the investigation
is completed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation and a clearance is given by the
Hon'ble Courts;

VIII. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus to the
respondents to provide protection to the life
and limb of the petitioner. So that he may
perform
his
legal/
professional
duties
continuously along with his social obligations
towards weaker sections of the society and to
assist/ work fearlessly through his pro bono
litigation
/
legal
awareness
program/
professional work/ litigation/ pre litigation in
Uttar Pradesh;

IX. To pass any other relief as
this Court deems fit in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience."

3. In paragraph-4 of the writ petition,
the petitioner has stated that "The petitioner
is a practicing advocate in the Supreme
Court of India under the Advocates Act,
1961 registered under Bar Council of Delhi
bearing Enrolment No.D/1062/2014". As
per alleged copy of Adhar Card (issuing
dated 10.11.2020), the address of the
petitioner
is
"Khasra
No.433/221,
Chhattarpur Pahari, Chhattarpur, South
Delhi, 110074". However, in writ petition,
he has given his address as "C/o 177-P,
Aram Bagh, Paharganj, New Delhi110055".

4. In paragraphs-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 21,
22, 29, 30, 34 and 44, the petitioner (an
advocate) has made averments basically on
personal knowledge relating to his client
Mani Lal Patidar, as under:

"5. That the petitioner's client Mr.
Mani Lal Patidar, aged about 32 years,
who hails from Rajasthan is young,
disciplined, honest and energetic gentle
person, besides a law-abiding citizen and a
farsighted IPS Officer of 2014 batch, had
been assigned UP Police Cadre. He
belongs to a middle-class family having no
political background. By nature, he is an
innocent person, who on several occasions
worked
against
the
corruption
and
criminals so that every citizen of the district
shall enjoy a secured peaceful life. Mr.
Patidar was posted as Superintendent of
Police in 2019 of Mahoba District (UP),
who during his tenure has tirelessly
working for the safety and security of the
nation.

6. That respondent no.9 Mr.
Hitesh Chandra Awasthi (IPS- Retd) the
then Director General of Police of Uttar
Pradesh started pressurising Mr. Mani Lal
Patidar (IPS) the then SP of Mahoba, UP
in 2020 for the benefits of Khanan Mafia
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(mining mafia) and criminals, but Mr.
Patidar did not support his illegal and
devious plan. Later on, Respondent No.8Mr. Awanish Kumar Awasthi (IAS) as Addl.
Chief Secretary (Home) also started
pressurising Mr. Mani Lal Patidar (IPS)
the then SP of Mahoba, for the benefits of
Khanan Mafias. But Mr. Patidar neither
agreed to support the illegal works of
khanan mafias nor their other criminal
activities.
Mr.
Patidar
had
never
compromised with honesty by following the
footprints titled ''Apraadh Mukt & Bhay
Mukt Uttar Pradesh' of Hon'ble the Chief
Minister of Uttar Pradesh to set-right the
illegal mining by Khanan Mafias, took
stern legal actions against them from time
to time. Consequently, illegal work of
Khanan Mafias and such like criminals was
stopped. Criminals started fleeing the city
and because of which money flow from the
Khanan Mafias to respondent no.9-Mr.
Hitesh Chandra Awasthi (IPS Retd), the
then Director General of Police of Uttar
Pradesh and respondent no.8-Mr. Awanish
Kumar
Awasthi
(LAS),
Addl.
Chief
Secretary (Home) has been stopped.
Resulting, these officers started enmity and
were hatching heinous conspiracy in
connivance with Khanan Mafias as well as
other type of criminals against the victim,
Mr. Mani Lal Patidar.

7. That respondent nos.9 & 8, in
a
pre-planned
manner,
in
joint
collaboration for corruption with Khanan
Mafias and such like criminals composed a
video, which got viral on the web/social
media with totally false and concocted
allegations against Mr.Mani Lal Patidar
for their ulterior motives, as they abetted
Mr. Indrakant Tripathi (now deceased) to
commit suicide and sending a video thereof
in advance through electronic media which
was
totally
based
upon
a
criminal
conspiracy hatched between them against
Mr. Patidar. So that Mr. Patidar could be
implicated in a false charge leading to his
false conviction by the appropriate courts
in India. Consequently, Mr. Indrakant
Tripathi (now deceased) in pre-planned
manner attempted to commit suicide by
making a small wound on 8th September
2020, but unfortunately it turned out to be
fatal and later he died after being admitted
to hospital for 4-5 days.

8. That Hon 'ble the Chief
Minister of Uttar Pradesh suspended Mr.
Mani Lal Patidar on 9.9.2020, for their
ulterior motives and are sheltering the
Khanan Mafias of the State of Uttar
Pradesh. By this act, the morale of the
criminals/Khanan
Mafias
get
higher,
however, lowered the dignity of an honest
police officer by putting him into great
difficulties. Due to pressure of Khanan
Mafias and under the directions/help of
respondent nos. 9 and 8, two FIRs have
successfully been lodged with false and
fabricated allegations with mala fide
intentions i.e. FIR bearing No.0505 dated
10.9.2020, PS Kotwali Nagar, Mahoba, UP
under sections 384 IPC, 7/13 of PC Act,
1988 and FIR no.0234 dated 11.9.2020 PS
Kabrai, Mahoba, UP under sections 387,
307 (converted into 302 which finally
converted into 306) 120B, IPC 1860, 7/13
PC Act, 1988 against Mr. Mani Lal Patidar
(IPS)
Ex-SP,
Mahoba,
UP
and
to
investigate
this
matter,
a
Special
Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted
by U.P. Government headed by Mr. Vijay
Singh Meena (IPS) IG zone Varanasi.

9. That the petitioner has been
authorised as a legal representative and
Advocate by Mr.Mani Lal Patidar (IPS),
Ex-Superintendent of Police, Mahoba (UP)
by way of an email dated 21.9.2020 and
requested to look into his abovesaid
matters to collect the relevant papers qua
his investigation and further to represent
8 All. Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
263
him on his behalf before the SIT Mahoba
(UP) to put his version.

True copy of the email dated
21.9.2020 authorising the petitioner as
legal representative and Advocate sent by
Mr.Mani Lal Patidar, (IPS) Ex. SP Mahoba
U.P. is being filed herewith marked as
Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

14. That on 27.11.2020 (Friday)
while Mr. Mani Lal Patidar was coming to
meet the petitioner in relation to his legal
matters and to pay pending professional
fees, he has been arrested by the Uttar
Pradesh Police on the same day and was
deliberately
detained
by
the
police
authorities, under a pre-planned manner
for their ulterior motives.

21. That looking at the gravity of
the matter, the petitioner had given a
written
complaint
which
covered
cognizable offences to respondent No. 05SHO, PS Hazratganj Kotwali, Lucknow by
hand on 22.12.2020 as well as through
speed post to lodge an FIR against the
main conspirator i.e. the then Director
General of Police of Uttar Pradesh-Mr.
Hitesh Chandra Awasthi (IPS) now Retd.
On 30.06.2021, the Addl. Chief Secretary
(Home)-Mr.Awanish Kumar Awasthi (IAS)
and others. A copy whereof had also been
forwarded
to
the
Lucknow
Police
Commissioner, Hon'ble the Chief Minister
of Uttar Pradesh, Hon'ble Governor of
Uttar Pradesh etc.

True copy of complaint letter
dated 22.12.2020 addressed to the SHO, PS
Hazratganj Kotwali, Lucknow regarding
abduction,
illegal
detention,
criminal
conspiracy etc of Mr. Manilal Patidar is
being filed herewith marked as Annexure
No.10 to this writ petition.

22. That the petitioner vide his
communications dated 24.12.2020 (email)
and 26.12.2020 (speed post) addressed to
the Hon'ble Chief Minister of UP and Mr.
Dhruv
Kant
Thakur
(IPS),
Police
Commissioner, Lucknow had approached
to direct the concerned police authorities to
provide copy of the FIR and that if there is
any doubt to the concern SHO/authority
regarding
allegation
of
charges
or
technical typing error mentioned in this
earlier communication dated 22.12.2020
relates to the offences covered under
Sections 109, 115, 116, 120B etc, they can
seek
clarification
directly
from
the
petitioner through his e-mail with an
instruction to provide copy of the FIR
within 72 hours from the date of receiving
of that communication in which petitioner
clearly told that in the matter of Lalita
Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2
SCC 1, the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"120. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold:

120.1 The registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code,
if the information discloses commission of
a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation."

Despite this, Respondent No. 5SHO, PS Hazratganj Kotwali and Mr.
Dhruv
Kant
Thakur,
IPS
(Police
Commissioner,
Lucknow)
knowingly
disobeyed directions under law with
intention to cause injury for their wrongful
gain. In addition they have also acted in
collaboration in concealing the crime
which has been committed under the
guidance of Mr.Hitesh Chand Awasthi
(IPS), the then DGP, UP and Mr. Avanish
Kumar Awasthi (IAS), Addl Chief Secretary
(Home)
respondent
nos.8
and
9
respectively.

True copies of letter for issuance
of necessary direction for registration of
FIR
dated
23.12.2020
(email)
and
26.12.2020 (Speed post) addressed to the
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the Police Commissioner, Lucknow
(colly) being filed herewith marked as
Annexure No.11 (Colly) to this writ
petition.

29. That respondent no. 9-Mr.
Hitesh Chandra Awasthi (IPS Retd)-the
then Director General of Police of Uttar
Pradesh and Respondent no.8-Mr.Awanish
Kumar
Awasthi
(IAS),
Addl.
Chief
Secretary (Home) UP with the full
cooperation of other respondents, since
inception, for the sake of minting money
from the Khanan Mafias and other
criminals, are adopting the different
wrongful tactics and camouflage i.e. firstly
by hatching a criminal conspiracy, handin-gloves with the Khanan Mafias and
other criminals with the intend to injury for
their wrongful gain, had abetted Mr.
Inderkant Tripathi (now deceased) for
suicide on 8.9.2020 and in a pre-planned
manner falsely implicated my client-Mr.
Mani Lal Patidar; secondly, my client-Mr.
Mani Lal Patidar (IPS), Ex- SP has been
suspended without going into the depth of
the matter on 9.9.2020; thirdly immediately
after suspension with malafide intention on
10.9.20 and 11.9.20 abovesaid two FIRs
were registered against the petitioner's
client on the concocted grounds; fourthly,
on 27.11.2020 when Mr. Mani Lal Patidar
was
coming
to
meet
the
petitioner
personally along with his pending fees, he
was abducted and illegally detained at
some unknown place by the UP police
authorities
for
ulterior
motives
and
ultimately put under wrongful confinement
at a secret place under the directions of
respondents no.9&8 with the consent of
Hon'ble the Chief Minister; fifthly during
the unlawful detention of petitioner's client,
they also have created so many false,
fabricated documents for wrongful loss of
petitioner's client and have announced fake
award on 29.11.2020 of Rs.25,000/- by
respondent
no.10
(Mr.
Arun
Kumar
Srivastava,
SP,
Mahoba)
and
later
immediately on 6.12.2020, enhanced the
amount of fake award to Rs. 50,000/- by
Mr. K. Satyanarayana, IG, Chitrakoot
Dham Banda, UP for production of Mr.
Mani Lal Patidar dead or alive, besides
lodging a fake case as absconder in PS
Kabrai, Mahoba on 12.12.2020 under
section 174-A IPC for the purpose of
cheating with the intent to injury when
petitioner's client is under their illegal
detention since 27.11.2020; sixthly for the
purpose of cheating, they concealed the
genuineness of the facts and misguided the
Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and its
subordinate courts with the intent to cause
injury to the petitioner's client. A complete
monitoring of the above said conspiracy is
performed by respondents the guidance and
supervision of respondent nos. 8 & 9 with
ulterior motives, which fact is well within
the knowledge of respondent no.2, no
action has been taken/ solicited till date
against any of the culprits rather a
protection has been granted to their
wrongful acts. All these facts has been
mentioned in the Habeas Corpus Writ
Petition bearing no.353/2021 titled, "Dr.
Mukut nath Verma v. State of UP & 11
Ors.", the contents thereof may please be
read as part and parcel of this petition.

30. While respondents the public
servants are bound to serve the nation with
deep honesty, but they are deliberately
involved in unlawful and several heinous
criminal activities for his wrongful gain in
the interest of Khanan Mafias. Not only
this, they are misusing their power for their
self-benefits in different modes contrary to
law i.e. they used to get the work done
through their subordinate police officers to
pressurise the criminals to work according
to
their
whims
and
fancies
and
managing/promoting various illegal works
8 All. Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
265
for their wrongful gain and by taking
bribe/gratification
from
the
criminals
and/or to work for the benefits of criminals
because of which the high morale of the
honest police officers is getting down. By
taking gratification from criminals and
well-wishers/erring police officers, they
shelter
crime
of
murder
abduction/kidnapping,
dacoity
etc.
Consequently, the crime and morale of
criminals are getting high which is
dangerous for every citizens of the nation.
All over the U.P. State neither victims are
getting the FlR/NCR lodged in easy way
nor any receipt to most of the complaints is
being given by the concerned police
stations, rather SHO of the concerned
police
station
harassing
the
victim/complainant by delaying tactics.
More so, U.P. Police neither investigate
fairly
nor
protect
the
victim
but
support/favour
the
accused
for
the
wrongful gain. Sometimes, they also used
abusive behaviour against the complainant
to draw a fear in them, but no action is
being taken against the erring police
officials and the honest/innocent police
officer is being harassed by drawing him
accused. These officers by grabbing all
media agencies into their hands or of
putting fear of false allegations; by
concealing real picture of the crime in the
U.P. state, by advertising/flashing false
news and tarnishing the image of an honest
person/police officer/media person, by
lodging false complaint against him and by
manipulating a false FIR to save the
criminals and because of these reasons,
any
common
man/journalist/writer/professor/
teacher
remains
under
fear
for
publishing,
speaking
and/or
writing
true
news.
Consequent to their defective working
procedure
adopted
by
them,
several
innocent persons have been put to severe
custody, got imprisonment due to their false
and
fabricated
allegations,
fake
encounters, forced to suicide etc. Because
of all these reasons, the life of Inderkant
Tripathi (now deceased) comes to an end
and Mr. Mani Lal Patidar based on false
and fabricated allegations became accused.
Mr.
Hitesh
Chandra
Awasthi
and
Mr.Awanish Kumar Awasthi, respondent
nos. 9 and 8 respectively are so powerful
that they have made several people suffer
in custody, and are capable of even
detaining or arranging for wrongful
confinement of the victim, Mr. Mani Lal
Patidar. In fact, a thorough and complete
enquiry
is
called
for
against
both
respondent nos. 8 & 9 as many innocent
people are languishing in prison because of
them. They with the above said illegal
activities are putting a fear and terror over
the victims, it is possible either the client of
the petitioner can be murdered or can be
eloped at some unknown place/abroad. In
view of the fact that they are under the
influence of the Khanan Mafias, it can be
possible
that
these
two
authorities
(respondent
nos.8
&
9)
may
have
connection with the other agencies involved
in terrorist activities resulting a shabby
picture of the UP State.

34. That since Mr. Mani Lal
Patidar is a honest and innocent police
officer who took legal action against
Khanan Mafias and their alliance. As there
is collaboration of respondents with
Khanan Mafias, so other respondents are
working
under
pressure
of
them.
Knowingly all respondents remain silent
spectators of whole of the issue and never
feel duty bound to clear cut the issue or to
help Mr. Manilal Patidar.

44. That it is astonishing to note
that the Petitioner has been writing and
sending several representations to various
authorities in the State and to the Central
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government but till date the whereabouts
of the victim Mr. Mani Lal Patidar has not
been disclosed or brought on record by the
UP Police. It is shocking to see that such a
senior police officer of the UP Police has
been missing/ arrested/ illegally detained
but till date no action has been taken by the
UP Police."

5. The affidavit accompanying the
writ petition has also been sworn by the
petitioner as deponent. The swearing clause
of the affidavit is reproduced below:

"1. That the deponent is the
petitioner
representing
accompanying
petition in person. He is Hindu by religion
and is an Advocate by profession and is
filing the photo copy of the Aadhar Card as
a proof of his identity, and as such he is
fully acquainted with the facts deposed to
below and those stated in the writ petition.

That the contents of paragraph 1
of this affidavit and those of paragraphs 1
to 45 of the writ petition are true to the
personal knowledge of the deponent, those
of paragraphs 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 36,
39, 40, 41, 43 of the writ petition are based
on perusal of records those of paragraph
are based on the Information received by
the deponent, those of paragraph 45 of the
writ petition are based on the legal advice
which also the deponent verily believes to
be true, and nothing material has been
concealed and that no part of the affidavit
is false.

SO HELP ME GOD.

DEPONENT"

6. Along with the writ petition, the
petitioner herein has filed a declaration as
under:

"DECLARATION
IN
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. OF
2021
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India)
(DISTRICT: MAHOBA)

Dr.
Mukut
Nath
Verma
.......Petitioner-in-Person
Versus

Union of India, through Home
Secretary & Others ... Respondents

Dr. Mukut Nath Verma S/o Shri
Ram Deo Verma, aged about 42 years,
Correspondence address 177-P, Aram
Bagh, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 and
official address as Khasra No.433/221,
Chhattarpur Pahari, Chattarpur, South
Delhi, Delhi- 110074 (I Card of Supreme
Court Bar Association V-406 & Aadhar
Card no.993450334460)

That the petitioner who is
representing the accompanying petition
in-person, is a practicing advocate in
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India and
as such is fully acquainted with the facts
deposed to below and those state in the
criminal misc. writ petition.

That
due
to
the
Covid-19
pandemic in the entire country, the
formalities of the affidavit have not been
fully
complied
with
and
deponent
undertakes that the same shall be duly
complied with once the situation becomes
normal, as per the High Court guidelines.

That in view of the abovesaid
facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to take this
verification/declaration on record, treating
the same as part of the criminal misc. writ
petition to meet the ends of justice.

DEPONENT
(DR. MUKUT NATH VERMA)
Petitioner-in-Person
8 All. Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
267
Khasra No.433/221, Chhattarpur Pahari,
Chattarpur, South Delhi, Delhi-110074
Email: advocatedrverma@gmail.com

Date: 19.07.2021

Allahabad.
Mob: 8800949892"

7. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition,
the petitioner has stated that he has been
authorised as legal representative and
advocate by Mani Lal Patidar (IPS, ExSuperintendent of Police, Mahoba U.P.) by
way of e-mail as Anenxure-3 to the writ
petition which is reproduced below:

"Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 12:18 AM

2
minute
craft<manilal.engineer@gmail.com>

To. digrvns@up.nic.in

CC:shome@nic.in,
dgpcontrolup@nic.in, spmba-up@nic.in,

advocatedrverma@gmail.com

URGENT/THR.E-MAIL

Shri Vijay Singh Meena sir , IPS,

IG Varanasi Range

&

The Head In-Charge,

SIT Mohoba.

REF : FIR No.0234 PS Kabrai,
Mahoba dated 11.9.2020

JAI HIND,

Respected Sir(s)

I would like to inform you that as
from the last week my father is suffering
from cold-cough with high fever and
admitted to hospital yesterday with COVID
positive sign. I too have sign of cold and
throat infection, my doctor has advised me
complete quarantine for few days due to
which I am unable to put my side of
representation
before
the
Special
investigation Team Sir.

However, my utmost humbly &
polite request to authorities is to please
kindly allow Dr.Mukut Nath Verma,
Advocate, Supreme Court of India to
appear on my behalf to collect the relevant
necessary papers and represent myself
before Special Investigating Team at this
pandemic situation as per the prescribed
schedule. Since I have full faith upon him,
I am too authorising and requesting Dr.
Verma for that purpose to appear before
the authorities so that there shouldn't be
any delay at the initial stage on my part in
investigation. I am further expecting for a
favourable and graceful opportunity to
appear before the Investigating Authorities,
to put my side truthfully before coming to
any conclusion and submitting any report
at the higher level of the Administration/
Government.

Yours Sincerely,

(MANI LAL PATIDAR)

IPS

Ex-Superintendent
of
Police,
Mohoba

ID NO.

Cadre year : RR-2014

CC: 1. The Add chief Secretary
(Home), Government Uttar Pradesh

2. The Director General of
Police, Lucknow (UP)

3. SP MAHOBA

4.
Dr.Mukut
Nath
Verma,
Advocate, Supreme Court of India,

(Enrolment No.D/1062/2014) -
for collecting documents and to present
before the Special Investigation Team.

(MANI LAL PATIDAR)

IPS Ex-Superintendent of
Police, Mohoba"

8. As per own allegation of the
petitioner, in afore-quoted paragraph-9 of
the writ petition read with alleged e-mail
(Annexure-3), the petitioner as an advocate
has been allegedly authorised by the
accused Mani Lal Patiar to appear on his
behalf to collect relevant and necessary
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
papers and represent before the SIT and
other authorities.

9. However, the petitioner herein, i.e.
Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Advocate has filed
a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.353 of
2021 (Dr. Mukut Nath Verma vs. State
of U.P. and 11 others) to produce the
accused Mani Lal Patidar, which is stated
to be pending. It further appears that the
accused Mani Lal Patidar had filed a
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11301
of 2020 (Mani Lal Patidar vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others), which was dismissed
by the Division Bench by order dated
02.11.2020 and liberty was granted to him
to move an application under Section 438
of the Cr.P.C. It further appears that the
accused Mani Lal Patidar had also filed a
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application under Section 438, Cr.P.C.
No.8921 of 2020 (Mani Lal Patidar vs.
State of U.P. and another), which was
rejected by the learned Single Judge vide
order dated 16.12.2020. It appears that the
aforesaid accused Mani Lal Patidar had
also filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.11774 of 2020 (Mani Lal Patidar vs.
State of U.P. and 2 others), which was
dismissed as not pressed, by order dated
03.11.2020 passed by the Division Bench.
The accused Mani Lal Patidar filed another
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8533
of 2020 (Mani Lal Patidar vs. State of
U.P. and another), which was dismissed
by order dated 03.12.2020.

10. Perusal of the orders passed in the
above referred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.11301
of
2020
dismissed
on
02.11.2020, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.11774 of 2020 dismissed as not pressed
on
03.12.2020
and
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application No.8921 of
2020 rejected on 16.12.2020, all filed by
the accused Mani Lal Patidar, would show
that all these orders are subsequent to the
alleged missing of accused Mani Lal
Patidar since 27.11.2020 as alleged in
paragraph-14 of the writ petition, but
perusal of the orders passed in the aforesaid
cases argued by advocates and senior
advocates of this court, would reveal that
no statement was made that the accused is
missing. Perusal of the order dated
03.12.2020 passed in Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application
under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.8533 of 2020,
reveals that the learned Single Judge has
noted the allegations that the applicant/
accused
is
absconding
and
is
not
cooperating in the investigation.

11. In the order dated 16.12.2020
passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
No.8921 of 2020 (Mani Lal Patidar vs.
State), the learned Single Judge has noted
the submissions made by learned counsel
for the accused-applicant, the informant's
counsel
and
the
learned
Additional
Advocate General, as under:

"In
the
backdrop
of
the
allegations, learned counsel appearing for
the applicant submits that after preliminary
inquiry conducted on the direction of the
State Government, it transpired that
investigation is to be carried out for offence
under section 306 IPC. It is urged that
ingredients of the offence under section 306
IPC is not made out against the applicant;
deceased shot himself by using his own
weapon; applicant is not in a position to
escape investigation; applicant is entitled
to bail.

Learned counsel appearing for
the
State,
in
rebuttal,
submits
that
applicant is already facing criminal case
being Crime Case No. 234 of 2020, under
8 All. Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
269
sections 387/306/120-B/ IPC and section 7
& 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; in the said case applicant has been
declared an absconder. In the instant case
applicant
is
absconding;
coercive
measures have been initiated under
section 82 of Cr.P.C; a F.I.R has been
lodged under section 174-A IPC being
Case Crime No. 0331 of 2020, police
station Kabrai, District Mahoba. It is
further
urged
that
government
has
announced reward of Rs. 50,000/- vide
communication dated 16.12.2020, inviting
information about the applicant from the
public. It is urged that applicant is a
senior civil servant and his conduct in not
participating in the investigation or the
departmental inquiry does not augur well,
either with the department, or in the
administration of justice. It will not be in
public interest at this stage to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant; it is a
case of custodial interrogation. Applicant,
a protector of law has become law unto
himself. It is further submitted that charge
sheet has been filed against the other
accused
police
personnel
and
the
investigation is kept open against others,
including, the applicant. It is further
informed that anticipatory bail application
of the applicant (No. 8533 of 2020) in the
other crime case has been rejected by this
Court vide order dated 03.12.2020."

12. The submissions of learned
counsel for the accused Mani Lal Patidar as
aforequoted were made on 16.12.2020 in
which there is no whisper about alleged
missing of the accused. There is no
disclosure in the present writ petition about
the family members of the accused Mani
Lal Patidar. There is no averment in the
writ petition that any of the family
members of the accused Mani Lal Patidar
have either instructed or approached the
petitioner herein to file the present writ
petition. There is also no allegation in the
writ petition that any of the family
members of the accused Mani Lal Patidar
have approached the petition herein for
filing
various
alleged
representations/
repeated representations etc. at various
forums. Source of finance towards cost of
litigation by the petitioner herein has also
not been disclosed in the writ petition.

13. One of the letters of the petitioner
dated 04.12.2020 was allegedly replied by the
Superintendent of Police, Mahoba by letter
dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ
petition), which is reproduced below:

"ANNEXURE No. 9 (Colly)

lsok esa]

Mk0 eqdqV ukFk oekZ] ,MoksdsV

lqizhe dksVZ vkWQ bf.M;k

psEcj&SCBA ykbczsjh] SCI

iksLV ckWDl ua0&5758

ubZ fnYyh& 110055

d`i;k
vki
vius
i=kad%
Information/2020 fnukad 04-12-2020 dk lanHkZ
xzg.k dk d"V djsa] tks 1&v/;{k] jk"Vah; ekuokf/kdkj
vk;ksx] ubZ fnYyh 2&egkefge jkT;iky m0iz0]
3&ek0 eq[;ea=h mRrj izns'k dks lEcksf/kr djrs gq,
iwoZ iqfyl v/kh{kd egksck Jh ef.kyky ikVhnkj ds
voS/k fu:)hdj.k mRrj izns'k iqfyl }kjk fd;s tkus
ds laca/k esa gSA voxr djkuk gS fd%&

1& eq0v0la0&505@2020 oknh furs'k
ik.Ms; }kjk Fkkuk dksrokyh egksck ij fnukad 10-092020 dks iathd`r djk;k x;k] ftldh foospuk
{ks=kf/kdkjh uxj] egksck }kjk lEikfnr dh tk jgh
gSA bl vfHk;ksx esa vkids DykbUV 1⁄4okafNr vfHk;qDr1⁄2
ef.kyky ikVhnkj us ,f.VflisVjh csy 1⁄4vUrZxr /kkjk
438 lhvkjihlh1⁄2 ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa
fnukad 19-11-2020 dks fØfeuy fjV fiVh'ku ;ksftr
fd;k x;k] ftls ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 0312-2020 dks fujLr fd;k x;kA

2&
eq0v0la0&234@2020
oknh
jfodkUr f=ikBh }kjk Fkkuk dcjbZ tuin egksck
ij fnukad 11-09-2020 dks iathd`r djk;k]
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ftldh foospuk orZeku esa iqfyl v/kh{kd vijk/k]
tuin iz;kxjkt }kjk lEikfnr dh tk jgh gSA
bl vfHk;ksx esa vkids DykbUV 1⁄4okafNr vfHk;qDr1⁄2
ef.kyky ikVhnkj us ek0 mPp U;k;ky;
bykgkckn esa ih0vkbZ0,y0 fnukad 05-10-2020 dks
;ksftr fd;k tks fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk
fnukad 02-11-2020 dks fujLr dj fn;k x;kA
fnukad 14-10-2020 dks FIR Quash djus o
fxjQ~rkjh ij LFkxu izkIr djus gsrq fjV ;ksftr
fd;k x;k] ftls ek0 mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad
02-11-2020 dks fujLr dj fn;kA

blh vfHk;ksx esa vkids DykbUV ds
fo:) ih0lh0 dksVZ&9 y[kuÅ }kjk fnukd 2510-2020 dks ,u0ch0MCyw0 fuxZr fd;k x;k ftls
fnukad 19-10-2020 dks rFkk /kkjk 82 lhvkjihlh
dk vf/ki= fuxZr fnukad 13-11-2020 dks fnukad
17-11-2020 dks fu;ekuqlkj rkehy djk;k x;kA
/kkjk 82 lhvkjihlh ds vkns'k dk vuqikyu
vkids DykbUV ef.kyky ikVhnkj }kjk u djus ds
dkj.k fnukad 12-12-2020 dks /kkjk 174, Hkknfo
dk vfHk;ksx Fkkuk dcjbZ ij buds fo:)
iathd`r fd;k x;kA

3& vkids DykbUV ef.kyky ikVhnkj
}kjk eq0v0la0&234@2020 Fkkuk dcjbZ ds
vfHk;ksx esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa ,f.VflisVjh
csy /kkjk 438 lhvkjihlh vUrZxr fjV fnukad 0412-2020 dks ;ksftr fd;k x;k] ftls ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; us fnukad 16-12-2020 dks fujLr dj
fn;kA

4& blh e/; fnukad 27-11-2020 dks
dqN pSuyks o V~ohVj ij ;g lekpkj izlkfjr
fd;k x;k fd ef.kyky ikVhnkj dks jktLFkku ls
fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k] ftls ckn esa iqf"V u gksus ds
dkj.k pSuyks }kjk okil dj fy;k x;kA

5& vki }kjk izsf"kr fnukad 04-12-2020
ds bl uksfVl esa ftlesa okafNr vfHk;qDr ef.kyky
ikVhnkj dks mRrj izns'k iqfyl }kjk fnukad 2711-2020 ls Illegal Detention fd;s tkus dk
mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ls izrhr gksrk gS fd vkids
}kjk gh lqfu;ksftr <ax ls "kM+;U= djrs gq,
fxj¶rkjh dk lekpkj pSuyks@V~ohVj ij fn;k
x;k D;ksafd ;fn fxj¶rkjh dh ckr lgh gS rks
ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa vUrZxr /kkjk 438
lhvkjihlh ,f.VflisVjh csy vkids dykbUV
okafNr vfHk;qDr ef.kyky ikVhnkj }kjk ;ksftr u
djrs gq, vUrZxr /kkjk 439 lhvkjihlh esa ;ksftr
fd;k tkrkA
blls Li"V gS fd vki ,oa
vkids DykbUV okafNr vfHk;qDr ef.kyky ikVhnkj
us eux<+Ur rF;ksa dk lgkjk ysrs gq, ,d
[krjukd <ax ls "kM+;U= dj ek0 vk;ksx ,oa ek0
mPp U;k;ky dks fnxHkzfer djus dk vlQy
iz;kl fd;k x;k gS] tks fd vijk/k dh Js.kh esa
vkrk gSA ;fn bl i= dk mRrj fnukad 30-122020 rd izkIr ugh gksrk gS] rks vkids fo:)
fof/kiw.kZ dk;Zokgh djrs gq, izdj.k BAR
Counsil dks Hkh lanfHkZr dj fn;k tk;sA

layXud& 1&fV~oV 27-11-2020

2&fjV ua0&8921@2020

3&ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dk
fn0 16-12-2020 dk vkns'k

iz= la[;k% ,lVh@,lih&45@2020
g0 viBuh;

fnukad%
fnlEcj
21]
2020
21-12-2020
iqfyl v/kh{kd

egksck

izfrfyfi%

1- vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd] iz;kxjkt
tksu] iz;kxjkt dks lknj voyksdukFkZA

2- iqfyl egkfujh{kd] fp=dwV/kke
ifj{ks=] ckank dks lknj voyksdukFkZA"

14. Perusal of the contents of the
afore-quoted
reply/
letter
of
the
Superintendent of Police, Mahoba dated
21.12.2020 prima facie reflects about the
conduct of the petitioner.

15. Perusal of the swearing clause as
afore-quoted would reveal that the aforequoted paragraphs of the writ petition have
been sworn by the petitioner herein i.e. an
advocate, on the basis of his personal
knowledge. It has not been stated in the
writ petition that how the petitioner being
an advocate has personal knowledge of the
8 All. Dr. Mukut Nath Verma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
271
allegations made in the afore-quoted
paragraphs of the writ petition, which
relates to the accused Mani Lal Patidar
personally and at best may be within his
(Mani Lal Patidar) knowledge. Thus,
swearing of the afore-quoted paragraphs of
the writ petition by the petitioner on
personal knowledge is without foundation
as well a conscious attempt to mislead this
court.

16. From the facts briefly noticed
above, it appears that the accused Mani Lal
Patidar is absconding and against him
proceedings under Section 82, Cr.P.C. has
also been initiated and whose criminal
misc. writ petitions have been dismissed
and anticipatory bail applications have been
rejected. The habeas corpus writ petition
filed by the petitioner herein to produce the
accused Mani Lal Patidar is stated to be
pending. Under the circumstances, the
present writ petition is apparently an abuse
of process of law by the petitioner herein,
which has stated himself to be an advocate.

17. Thus, in view of the facts and
discussion noted above, the relief Nos. (I)
and (II) have neither any substance nor can
be granted. The Relief Nos.(III) and (IV)
sought by the petitioner herein are
mischievous in nature. The relief sought by
the petitioner for collecting his remaining
pending fees from the accused Mani Lal
Patidar
,
can
not
be
granted.
In
Improvement Trust Ropar through its
Chairman vs. S. Tejinder Singh Gujral
and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 577
(para-3), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
"We find that the High Court had allowed
the writ petition filed by the respondentadvocate
for
the
recovery
of
his
professional fees from the petitioner. No
writ petition can lie for recovery of an
amount under a contract. The High Court
was clearly wrong in entertaining and
allowing the petition. There is no separate
law for the advocates."

18. In Dhanraj Singh Choudhry vs.
Nathulal Vishwakarma, (2012) 1 SCC
741 (Para-25), Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:

"Any compromise with the law's
nobility as a profession is bound to affect
the faith of the people in the rule of law
and, therefore, unprofessional conduct by
an advocate has to be viewed seriously. A
person practising law has an obligation to
maintain probity and high standard of
professional ethics and morality."

19. In O.P. Sharma vs. High Court
of P&H, (2011) 6 SCC 86 (para-38),
Hon'ble Supreme court held as under:

"An
advocate's
duty
is
as
important as that of a Judge. Advocates
have a large responsibility towards the
society. A client's relationship with
his/her advocate is underlined by utmost
trust. An advocate is expected to act with
utmost sincerity and respect. In all
professional
functions,
an
advocate
should be diligent and his conduct
should also be diligent and should
conform to the requirements of the law
by which an advocate plays a vital role
in the preservation of society and justice
system. An advocate is under an
obligation to uphold the rule of law and
ensure that the public justice system is
enabled to function at its full potential.
Any violation of the principles of
professional ethics by an advocate is
unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring
even
a
minor
violation/misconduct
militates
against
the
fundamental
foundation of the public justice system."
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. The principles laid down in the
case of Dhanraj Singh Choudhry and
O.P. Sharma (supra) as aforequoted, have
been quoted with approval by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash
Tyagi vs. Benarsi Das (dead) by legal
representatives and others, (2015) 8 SCC
506.

21.