# Rani Pandey & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 940
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 12032 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rani-pandey-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53473
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri
Dharmendra
Kumar
Shukla,
Sri
Hari
Keshav, Sonu Nirmal

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Fraud
upon
the
courtimpersonation and misuse of Aadhaar
Card-A writ petition is filed claiming that
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were legally
wedded and facing threats and they
sought police protection-On hearing date,
the Petitioner no.1 appeared in person
with her brother and denied filing the
petition
alleging
impersonation
and
misuse of her Aadhaar card-She affirmed
that she is married to one Samrat Pandey
has two children and currently lives with
her parents due to matrimonial discord-A
show-cause notice was issued to Advocate
Lallan Chaubey, named as the counsel for
petitioners,
who
denied
involvement
claiming
forgery
of
his
signature-A
preliminary inquiry was ordered through
the Registrar General and it confirmed the
petition was filed fraudulently-Both the
petitioners
denied
having
filed
the
petition-There is prima facie case of fraud
committed to mislead the court-Directions
issued to commissioner of police to
conduct inquiry, use scientific and forensic
methods to trace the fraud.(Para 1 to 19)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amounts
are
charged
from
the
litigants/advocates
towards
the
photo
identification at any rate whatsoever.

35. The Bar Associations would,
however, are at liberty to take such welfare
steps for their members as may be advised
but cannot be coupled with any filings
before this court.

36. Linking of the affidavits with the
amounts
collected
would
amount
to
Contempt of Court by the members of the
Governing Body of the Bar Association.

37. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the Governing Body of both the Bar
Associations for its compliance.

38. It is further directed that the
persons manning the Photo Identification
Centre, either a firm or a company, would
also be personally liable if it is brought to
the notice of this Court that any amounts
are being charged for photo identification
over and above what have been sanctioned
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Chapter
IV Rule 3 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules.

39. The issue stands disposed off with
the said order. The writ petition shall
continue to be listed for deciding the issue
as raised in the writ petition.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ C No. 12032 of 2024

Rani Pandey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Sri Ashutosh
Upadhyay, Sri Lallan Chaubey, Ms. Shikha
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri
Dharmendra
Kumar
Shukla,
Sri
Hari
Keshav, Sonu Nirmal

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Fraud
upon
the
courtimpersonation and misuse of Aadhaar
Card-A writ petition is filed claiming that
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were legally
wedded and facing threats and they
sought police protection-On hearing date,
the Petitioner no.1 appeared in person
with her brother and denied filing the
petition
alleging
impersonation
and
misuse of her Aadhaar card-She affirmed
that she is married to one Samrat Pandey
has two children and currently lives with
her parents due to matrimonial discord-A
show-cause notice was issued to Advocate
Lallan Chaubey, named as the counsel for
petitioners,
who
denied
involvement
claiming
forgery
of
his
signature-A
preliminary inquiry was ordered through
the Registrar General and it confirmed the
petition was filed fraudulently-Both the
petitioners
denied
having
filed
the
petition-There is prima facie case of fraud
committed to mislead the court-Directions
issued to commissioner of police to
conduct inquiry, use scientific and forensic
methods to trace the fraud.(Para 1 to 19)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed with the assertion that Petitioner Nos.
1 and 2 are legally wedded spouses, having
solemnized their marriage on 22.02.2022 in
accordance with Hindu customs and rites at
5 All. Rani Pandey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
941
the Bandevi Temple, located in District
Mau. The petitioners rely on a photograph
annexed as Annexure-2 in support of their
claim. It is further stated that they have
been cohabiting as husband and wife since
their marriage. Petitioner No. 1 alleges that
she is unable to visit her parental home due
to threats to her life from her parents,
arrayed as Respondent No. 4. Respondent
No. 3 has been arrayed as the father of
Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 had
submitted
a
complaint
to
the
Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, but
alleges that no security has been provided
to her. It is further stated that Petitioner No.
2 resides in Delhi for livelihood. In light of
the perceived threat, the petitioners seek a
direction from this Court to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, to
ensure their safety.

2. On 27.04.2024, when the matter
was called for hearing, no one appeared on
behalf of the petitioners. However, Smt.
Rani Pandey appeared in person along with
her brother, Shri Radheshyam Pandey, and
submitted before the Court that the present
petition has been filed by an impersonator
without her knowledge or consent, for
some ulterior motive. She asserted that she
had never visited Prayagraj for the purpose
of signing the present petition and denied
having
signed
the
petition
or
the
accompanying
affidavit.
She
further
submitted that her Aadhaar card had been
misused in the process. She stated that she
is legally married to one Shri Samrat
Pandey and has two children from the said
wedlock, aged approximately 6 and 5
years. Due to matrimonial discord and
ongoing litigation, she currently resides
with her father, Respondent No. 4.

3. After hearing Smt. Rani Pandey-the
individual on whose behalf the present
petition was allegedly filed-a show-cause
notice was issued to Advocate Shri Lallan
Chaubey (Roll No. A/L0050/2012, Chamber
No. 79, Mobile No. 9452340385, R/o 37A/1,
Karanpur, Prayagraj), seeking an explanation
regarding the circumstances under which the
petition came to be filed. The Registrar
General of this Court was also directed to
conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit a
report
in
sealed
cover
regarding
the
circumstances under which the petition was
filed and listed.

4. Pursuant to this Court's direction, a
preliminary inquiry was conducted by the
Registrar (J) (Enquiry), and a report in sealed
cover was submitted. The inquiry concluded
with the finding that the present Writ-C No.
12032 of 2024, titled Smt. Rani Pandey and
Another v. State of U.P. and Others, was not
filed by Smt. Rani Pandey, D/o Udai Bhan
Pandey, R/o Mahui Fatehpur, Fatehpur
Mandaw, District Mau. In his statement,
Advocate Lallan Chaubey denied filing the
petition and claimed that his name and
signature had been misused by an impostor
without his knowledge or consent. Shri Vijay
Rai, Oath Commissioner, was prima facie
found to be negligent in discharging his
duties.

5. The police report indicates that Smt.
Rani Pandey was married to Shri Samrat
Pandey, S/o Ashok Pandey, on 28.01.2016 in
accordance with Hindu rituals, and that they
have two children from the said wedlock.
Since 2022, due to marital discord, she has
been residing with her parents.

6.
The
Enquiry
Officer
recorded
statements
of
Shri
Lallan
Chaubey
(Advocate), Smt. Rani Pandey, Km. Suchi
Devi, Shri Udey Bhan Pandey, Shri Radhey
Shyam Pandey, and Shri Vinod Pandey
during the proceedings.
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Considering the gravity and farreaching implications of the matter, the
Court deemed it appropriate to issue
notices to Shri Samrat Pandey (husband of
Smt. Rani Pandey), his father Shri Ashok
Kumar Pandey, and Shri Vinod Pandey, in
order to ascertain their version before
arriving at any conclusion. Notice was
served to Shri Samrat Pandey through the
Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India. A separate notice was also served to
Shri Vinod Pandey through the local SHO,
and all appeared before the Court.

8. Advocate Lallan Chaubey submitted
an
affidavit
dated
13.05.2024
in
compliance with this Court's order dated
27.04.2024, wherein he stated that he had
no knowledge of the petition until he
received a notice from this Court via his
junior. He categorically denied signing the
Vakalatnama or filing the petition, and
asserted that his signature had been forged.
Advocate Lallan Chaubey, in his statement
before the Enquiry Officer, acknowledged
that he is the subscriber of the mobile
number and the holder of the advocate roll
number mentioned in the petition.

9. Shri Samrat Pandey filed a counter
affidavit
dated
27.11.2024
through
Advocate Shri Arun Kumar Singh, alleging
that his wife, Smt. Rani Pandey, is in an
adulterous relationship with Petitioner No.
2, Shri Vinod Pandey, his next-door
neighbour. He claimed that his father had
attempted reconciliation, but Smt. Rani
Pandey refused to return and threatened to
falsely implicate him. He relied upon a
compromise
deed
dated
27.05.2024
executed between the parties.

10. Similarly, Shri Vinod Pandey, in
his affidavit, denied the allegations made in
the petition and claimed to have no
knowledge of who filed the petition on his
behalf. He also denied the solemnization of
any marriage with Smt. Rani Pandey.

11. After considering the submissions
of learned counsel and interacting with Shri
Samrat Pandey, Smt. Rani Pandey, Shri
Vinod Pandey, and Advocate Shri Lallan
Chaubey, this Court is of the prima facie
view that a fraud has been perpetrated upon
the Court to achieve an ulterior motive. It
appears that such a fraud could not have
been
executed
without
the
active
involvement of an individual well-versed in
court procedures.

12. It is an admitted fact that Smt.
Rani Pandey is legally married to Shri
Samrat Pandey, and they have two
children. It is also undisputed that she
resides with her parents due to a
matrimonial dispute, and litigation is
pending. Smt. Rani Pandey has raised
serious apprehensions that the present
petition might have been filed by her
husband in collusion with an advocate to
create grounds for divorce.

13. Its learnt that the Advocate on Roll
(AOR), in whose name the petitions are
filed, receives SMS notifications from the
Registry of this Court on the mobile
number linked to the AOR at five distinct
stages
of
the
filing
process,
and
subsequently on each date the matter is
listed. For illustration, a sample SMS
template is provided below:

I. Stage-1: At the time of photo
identification of the petitioners, as per the
procedure outlined herein:

"Dear Advocate (A/---/2010).

Receipt of Rs. 600/- generated for
your client------
5 All. Rani Pandey & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
943

HCBA Tech Team"

II. Stage-2: At the time when the
petition is assigned a filing number:

"Your physically filed a case
CAPL received on ------, first party name---
----, has allotted filing/receiving No. -------
is pending at reporting-Allahabad High
Court."

III. Stage-3: At the time when
any defect is raised by the Registry:

"Filing No.----------- filed on -----
- has defect (s) No........... Details of defect
(s) are available on AHC website. -AHC"

IV. Stage-4: Upon clearance of
any defects, if raised by the Registry:

"-----v. ------ filing no. --------
filed on ------- Reported clear and file is
being forwarded to Fresh Filing SectionAllahabad High Court."

V. Stage-5: At the time when the
case is listed before the Court:

"Cases Listed on 00/00/2025
Advocate
Name
-----
(A/R------/2012)
[particulars
of
case]-Allahabad
High
Court"

14. It is apparent from the foregoing
illustration that the learned Advocate, in
whose AOR the present petition has been
filed, must have received Rs. 475/- in the
account linked to his AOR out of the Rs.
600/-
deposited
by
the
petitioners.
Furthermore, it is likely that he received
SMS notifications on the mobile number
associated with the AOR on at least five
occasions prior to the first hearing of the
petition.

15. This case warrants a fair and
thorough investigation, as the perpetrators
appear to have attempted to perpetrate a
fraud upon the Court. If the conspirators
were to succeed in their design, it would
not only constitute a travesty of justice and
a stain on the criminal justice system, but
would also gravely undermine public
confidence in the rule of law and erode the
very integrity of judicial institutions. Such
an outcome strikes at the core of the justice
delivery system and must be prevented
with the utmost vigilance and resolve.

16. In view of the above, the
Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, is
directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry
into the matter. If a cognizable offence is
found to have been committed, an FIR shall
be
registered
forthwith,
and
a
comprehensive
investigation
shall
be
conducted to uncover the fraud perpetrated
upon this Constitutional Court. A free, fair
and uninfluenced investigation is expected
from
the
Commissioner
of
Police,
Prayagraj to bring all conspirators and
individuals who provided logistical or other
support for executing the fraud before
justice. Forensic and scientific methods are
to be employed to ensure a fair, unbiased,
and thorough investigation.

16.1 Commissioner of Police,
Prayagraj
shall
himself
monitor
the
investigation and after review of the
progress of investigation, weekly record
satisfaction in the case diary.

16.2
The
inquiry
shall
be
completed expeditiously, and quarterly
progress reports shall be submitted to the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Prayagraj,
without fail.

17. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to transmit a certified copy of the
complete case record to the Commissioner
of
Police,
Prayagraj,
for
immediate
compliance.

18. The Registrar General is directed
to preserve the original case file in secure
custody and produce it whenever required.
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
If needed for forensic or scientific analysis,
such as verification of signatures, stamps,
or photo ID cards, the original record may
be handed over to the Investigating Officer
after keeping the certified copy of the
same.

19. In light of the foregoing, the
petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 944
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 13636 of 2025

Surajpur
Indane
Gas
Sewa,
Agarwal
Market, District Gautam Budh Nagar
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.) &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Sri Chandrika Patel,
Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anand Tiwari

(A)
Arbitration
&
Conciliation
Law
-
Maintainability of a writ petition in the
presence
of
an
arbitration
clause
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 7, 9, 17 & 23 - writ petition is not
maintainable
where
an
adequate
and
efficacious alternative remedy exists, as
arbitration is an important Alternative
Disputes Redressal process - court, in its
writ jurisdiction, cannot entertain a matter
when the parties have a valid arbitration
clause, as the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 is a self-contained code that
provides
sufficient
remedies,
including
interim protection. (Para -12,15,16)
Petitioner's
LPG
distributorship
dispute
-
challenged two orders passed by the respondentIndian Oil Corporation - respondent contended
that the writ petition was not maintainable due to
the existence of a binding arbitration clause in the
agreement between the parties. (Para -1 to 5 )

HELD: Writ petition not maintainable in view of
the arbitration clause as provided under Clause
37(a) of the agreement and the availability of
efficacious remedies under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, leaving it open to the
petitioner to approach the arbitrator under
Section 23. No observation in the judgment
should be construed as adjudication on merits
and that if the petitioner approached the
arbitrator, the matter should be decided
expeditiously
without
unnecessary
adjournments. (Para - 17 to 19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjana M. WIG (Ms) Vs H.P. Corpn. Ltd,
(2005) 8 SCC 242

2.
C.O.R.E. Vs ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV),
(2020) 14 SCC 712

3. St. of J & K & anr. Vs Dev Dutt Pandit, (1999)
7 SCC

4. U.O.I. Vs Varindera Constructions Ltd. & ors.,
(2018) 7 SCC 794

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Chandrika
Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri
Anand
Tiwari,
learned
counsel
appearing for respondents.

2. Order dated 07.02.2024 passed by
respondent no. 3/Divisional LPG Sales
Head, Noida Indane Divisional Office A-1,
Udyog Marg, Sector-1 Noida, District
Gautam Budh Nagar as well as order dated
17.02.2025 passed in appeal by respondent