# Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 708
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-09-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024
- **Bench:** Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhagwan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-38089
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner
respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent
No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the
accused son and nephew of Ex-Minister and M.P. Mr. D.P. Yadav
were convicted, by filing various false proceedings in the name of
the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority in the
High Court and Supreme Court with the assistance of a battery
of advocates and many other unknown persons. Present SLP
was filed against Respondent No.2 in the name of the petitioner
against the order allowing the Respondent No.2's application
u/s.482, CrPC quashing the criminal proceedings against him
and another order rejecting the recall application filed against the
aforesaid order. Affidavit of the petitioner was notarized by the
Notary in his absence and was submitted with the SLP memo.
Petitioner denied filing any SLP and stated that the same was
falsely filed in his name.
Headnotes†
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
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
775
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,945 of 77,055. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39945 for what follows._

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 774 : 2024 INSC 708
Bhagwan Singh
v.
State of U.P. & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3883-3884 of 2024)
20 September 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner
respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent
No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the
accused son and nephew of Ex-Minister and M.P. Mr. D.P. Yadav
were convicted, by filing various false proceedings in the name of
the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority in the
High Court and Supreme Court with the assistance of a battery
of advocates and many other unknown persons. Present SLP
was filed against Respondent No.2 in the name of the petitioner
against the order allowing the Respondent No.2's application
u/s.482, CrPC quashing the criminal proceedings against him
and another order rejecting the recall application filed against the
aforesaid order. Affidavit of the petitioner was notarized by the
Notary in his absence and was submitted with the SLP memo.
Petitioner denied filing any SLP and stated that the same was
falsely filed in his name.
Headnotes†
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
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
775
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
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
776
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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]
Case Law Cited
Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615; V.
Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors. [2012] 10
SCR 603 : 2012 (12) SCC 133; Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2023] 15 SCR 848 : (2024) 6 SCC 401 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Whittaker Chambers, Witness Quotes (Washington DC, Regnery
Gateway, 1952) p.5; Witness Protection in Criminal Trial in India
by Girish Abhyankar & Asawari Abhyankar.
List of Acts
Notaries Act, 1952; Notaries Rules, 1956; Supreme Court Rules,
2013; Bar Council of India Rules; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
777
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
List of Keywords
Abuse of process of law; Misuse of process of law; Fraud; Fraud
on Court; False proceedings; False, fabricated documents; Nitish
Katara case; False implication; Unscrupulous litigants; Notary;
Notarized by Notary; Vakaltnamas; CBI; Investigation handed
over to CBI; Affidavit notarized in absence of person; Witnesses;
Condition of witnesses; Legal profession; Role of advocates;
Degradation of professional ethics; Advocates-on-Record (AoRs);
Appearances given by AoRs.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
3883-3884 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2019 and 02.04.2024
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 41533 of
2019 and CRMRA No. 3 of 2020 respectively
Appearances for Parties
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Anubhav, Ms. Jemtiben AO, Nikhil
Majithia, Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Harsh Pratap Shahi, Sanchar Anand, Apoorva
Singhal, Shiv Kumar, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.
Delay condoned.
2.
Leave granted.
PREFACE
3.
While the finest of the legal minds and legal eagles on the Bench
and in the Bar of the Supreme Court are busy developing the best
of the jurisprudence and laying down the best of the laws for the
country, there are certain sinister cabal of unscrupulous litigants and
778
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
a coterie of their counsellors, who are always busy in taking undue
advantage of the systemic lacunae and in misusing the process of
law, in turn damaging the image of the Courts as also of the entire
legal fraternity/legal profession. The huge quantum of work load in
the Courts, limitations of the human agencies in manning the Justice
Delivery System and the fertile minds of the unscrupulous litigants
and their legal counsellors are some of the factors responsible for
not allowing the Justice Delivery System to work as effectively and
efficiently as it is expected to work.
4.
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. This is what a citizen
of the democratic country like India, governed by Rule of Law would
legitimately expect from the Courts. 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. With this little Preface let us
deal with the facts of the case.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
5.
The instant two appeals were sought to be filed in the name of
the appellant- Bhagwan Singh. One Appeal is filed challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application under Section 482 No.
41533 of 2019, filed by the respondent no. 2 - Ajay Katara, whereby
the High Court had allowed the said Application and quashed the
entire proceedings in respect of the Supplementary Chargesheet No.
163A dated 05.12.2018 in Case No. 410 of 2014, arising out of the
Case Crime No. 443 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC at
Police Station Sehaswan, District Budaun, pending in the Court of
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun. The other Appeal
is filed challenging the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous Recall Application No.3/2020, whereby the High Court
had rejected the said application.
6.
Vide the order dated 17.05.2024, this Court had issued Notice to
the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 on the application seeking condonation
of delay as well as on the SLPs, making it returnable after eight
weeks. The Registry vide the office report dated 29.07.2024 submitted
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
779
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
that a letter dated 09.07.2024 was received from Bhagwan Singh
(in vernacular language) wherein it was stated that he had not filed any
SLP before this Court and the same was falsely filed in his name. It
was also stated in the said office report that an email dated 29.07.2024
was received from Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, Advocate that he
was appearing on behalf of the appellant- Bhagwan Singh.
7.
When the matter was listed on 30.07.2024, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned
advocate appearing along with the AOR Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh
Gautam, drew the attention of the Court to the office report dated
29.07.2024 and the letter dated 09.07.2024 received by the office
from the appellant-Bhagwan Singh and submitted that the appellant
was personally present in the Court and was confirming the contents
of his letter dated 09.07.2024. We, therefore called for the original
papers from the Registry to verify the signature of Shri Bhagwan
Singh on the 'Vakalatnama' filed in the SLP. One Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, an
Advocate who was present in the Court on the said date stated that
he had an instruction to appear on behalf of Mr. Anubhav, Advocate
on Record, who had signed on the 'Vakalatnama' identifying and
attesting the signature of Bhagwan Singh as the petitioner-appellant
on the Vakalatnama. Since the AOR Mr. Anubhav was not present in
the Court, the matter was adjourned to the next date i.e. 31.07.2024.
8.
On 31.07.2024, the AOR Mr. Anubhav, remained present before
the Court. Since on 30.07.2024, the learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S.
Yadav had stated that the 'Vakalatnama' was signed by the
appellant-Bhagwan Singh in his presence, and on 31.07.2024 he had
changed his version by stating that he had received the 'Vakalatnama'
with the signature of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer
named Mr. Karan Singh practicing in the Allahabad High Court, the
Court had directed the Registry to issue notice to the said Advocate
Mr. Karan Singh for remaining present before the Court on 09.08.2024.
9.
The Court on 31.07.2024 passed the following order recording the
statements of Mr. Anubhav, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav and Mr. Bhagwan Singh.
"1.
In continuation of the yesterday's order, Mr. Anubhav,
learned Advocate-on-Record whose `Vakalatnama'
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner - Bhagwan
Singh in the Special Leave Petition is present in
the Court. He states his full name to be Anubhav
Yashwant Yadav. He further states that though on
780
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the `Vakalatnama' he had identified and attested
the signature of the petitioner, that was not correct,
and that he had received the `Vakalatnama' with the
signature of the petitioner - Bhagwan Singh from
the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, who is also present
in the Court.
2.
Yesterday, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav was present in the
Court and Mr. Anubhav was not present, and on
our being asked, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav had stated that
the `Vakalatnama' was signed by the petitioner -
Bhagwan Singh in his presence. Today, he states that
he had received the `Vakalatnama' already signed
by the petitioner - Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer
named Karan Singh Yadav, who is practicing in the
Allahabad High Court.
3.
The petitioner - Bhagwan Singh is also present
in the Court and he 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 in respect of the
present S.L.P. proceedings.
4.
Today, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned Advocate-onRecord states that he is also AOR but Mr. Rishi Kumar
Singh Gautam has filed `Vakalatnama' on behalf of
the petitioner who states that the SLP was not filed
by the petitioner.
5.
In view of the above, before passing any further
order, let Mr. R.P.S. Yadav give the correct name,
full address with Phone Number of Mr. Karan Singh
who, according to him, had given the papers along
with the signed `Vakalatnama' of the petitioner to file
the SLP in this Court.
6.
The Registry is directed to issue notice to the
Advocate Mr. Karan Singh at the address furnished
by learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, to remain
present in the Court on 9-8-2024 at 2.00 p.m.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
781
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
The address is as follows: - Chamber 8b, Old Building,
High Court, Allahabad, U.P. Mobile No.9935256980
7.
Let the petitioner - Bhagwan Singh file an affidavit
with regard to the correct facts in respect of the
present proceedings.
8.
List on 9-8-2024 at 2.00 p.m.".
10. On 09.08.2024, the said Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav practicing
in Allahabad High Court remained present before the Court and
stated that he had received the papers of the case along with signed
'Vakalatnama' i.e. with the signature of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh
from his client Sukhpal Singh, who happened to be the son-in-law
of Bhagwan Singh. He also stated that he had appeared before the
High Court in the Recall Application No. 3/2020 filed on behalf of
Ms. Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh,
for recalling of the Order dated 16.12.2019 (which is impugned
herein), and since the Sukhpal Singh wanted to file the Special
Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, he (Karan Singh) had
asked Sukhpal Singh to get the 'Vakalatnama' with the signature
of either Rinki or Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter the said Sukhpal
Singh gave him the papers along with the 'Vakalatnama' signed
in the name of Bhagwan Singh, which he had handed over to the
Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, practicing in the Supreme Court. It may
be noted that the said Bhagwan Singh who was also present in
the Court on 09.08.2024 stated that his daughter Rinki had eloped
and married with Sukhpal Singh in 2013 and since then he had
not met either Sukhpal Singh or his daughter Rinki, and therefore
he could not have signed the 'Vakalatnama' or the papers of the
SLP. At this juncture Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, learned advocate stated
that he had prepared the Memo of SLP and got it attested through
the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and at that time the appellant-Bhagwan
Singh was not present; and that he had identified the signature
of Bhagwan Singh before the Notary, and thereafter handed over
the papers to the AOR Mr. Anubhav for presenting in the Supreme
Court. The learned AOR Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav also stated
that Mr. R.P.S. Yadav having prepared the SLP Memo and got the
papers ready, he had put his signature as an AOR on the Memo
of SLP and also on the 'Vakalatnama' stating that he had attested
and identified the signature of appellant - Bhagwan Singh. In
782
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
view of the said statements, the Court had directed the Notary
Mr. A. N. Singh to remain present before the Court on the next date
of hearing. Ms. Rinki, the daughter of the appellant and her husband
Mr. Sukhpal Singh were also directed to remain present before the
Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 23.08.2024.
11. The Order dated 09.08.2024 reads as under:
"1.
Pursuant to the order dated 31-07-2024 passed
by this Court, Mr. Karan Singh Yadav, Advocate
practicing at Allahabad High Court is present in the
Court and states that he received the papers of the
case along with signed `Vakalatnama' i.e., with the
signature of the petitioner - Bhagwan Singh from
his client Sukhpal Singh, son of Rishi Pal, resident
of Raisinghnagar, Post - Kadar Chowk, District
Budaun, U.P., who happens to be the son-in-law of
Bhagwan Singh. Mr. Karan Singh also states that he
had appeared before the High Court in the Recall
Application No.3/2020 filed on behalf of Ms. Rinki,
daughter of Bhagwan Singh and wife of Sukhpal
Singh, in which it was prayed to recall the order
dated 16-12-2019 passed in the Application under
Section 482 No.41533/2019. However, the said
application was dismissed by the High Court vide the
impugned order dated 02-04-2024. He further states
that after the said dismissal, since the said Sukhpal
Singh wanted to file the Special Leave Petition
before the Supreme Court, he was asked to get the
'Vakalatnama' with the signature of either Rinki or
Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter the said Sukhpal Singh
gave him the papers alongwith the 'Vakalatnama'
signed in the name of Bhagwan Singh. Mr. Karan
Singh further states that thereafter he had handed
over all the papers along with signed 'Vakalatnama'
to the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav practicing in the
Supreme Court, who is today present in the Court.
2.
At this stage, the petitioner - Bhagwan Singh, who
is present in the Court, states that his daughter Rinki
had eloped and married with Sukhpal Singh in 2013
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
783
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
and since then he has not met Sukhpal Singh or his
daughter Rinki, and therefore, he could not have
signed the 'Vakalatnama' or the papers of the SLP.
3.
On being asked by the Court, 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 and the Notary
also notarized the said Memo. He thereafter handed
over papers to the AOR Mr. Anubhav for presenting
in the Supreme Court.
4.
Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, learned
Advocate-on-Record states that since he knew the
learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, and Mr. Yadav
having prepared the SLP Memo and got the papers
ready, he had put his signature as the AOR on the
Memo of SLP and also on the 'Vakalatnama' stating
that he himself had attested and identified the
signature of petitioner - Bhagwan Singh.
5.
From the above, it appears that Mr. A.N. Singh,
Notary Government of India whose registration
Number is 16959 and who sits in front of the UCO
Bank, Supreme Court Compound, is also involved in
notarizing and attesting the papers and signatures of
the petitioner, though he was not personally present
before him. Hence, it is directed that he shall remain
present before the Court on the next date of hearing.
6.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed
an affidavit before this Court on 06-08-2024,
which was also got notarized before the said Notary -
Mr. A.N. Singh.
7.
The daughter of the petitioner - Bhagwan Singh i.e.,
Ms. Rinki and her husband - Mr. Sukhpal Singh are
also directed to remain present on the next date of
784
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
hearing. Accordingly, the office shall issue notices
to Mr. A.N. Singh, Ms. Rinki and Mr. Sukhpal Singh
on the next date of hearing. On the said date, the
petitioner and all concerned advocates also shall
remain present before the Court.
8.
At this stage, the Court informed all the concerned
Advocates and the Petitioner present in the Court
that this is a very serious matter and the Court is
going to take a serious view in the matter.
9.
List on 23.08.2024."
12. On 23.08.2024, the matter was directed to be listed on 28.08.2024,
on which date the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukhpal Singh,
son-in-law of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh were present. However,
Ms. Rinki was not present on the ground that she was down with
fever. The Court recorded the statements of the Notary Mr. A.N.
Singh and Mr. Sukhpal Singh as reflected in the order and directed
them to file their respective affidavits. At this juncture, Mr. Nikhil
Majithia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bhagwan
Singh and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent no. 2- Ajay Katara submitted that one Vikas Yadav, son
of Mr. D.P. Yadav, Former Member of Parliament, was convicted in
the famous Nitish Katara Case only on the basis of the testimony
of Respondent no. 2 - Ajay Katara, who was the witness in the
said case and therefore number of false cases were filed against
him and this one is filed against respondent no. 2, in the name of
Bhagwan Singh. They also drew the attention of the Court to the
list of Advocates shown in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings
dated 10.06.2024 of SLP(Crl.) No. 7893 of 2024 filed by said Vikas
Yadav before this Court and submitted that out of 10 Advocates
mentioned therein, 08 Advocates are also shown as appearing
advocates in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings dated
30.07.2024 in the present SLP. In view of the said submissions,
the Court had directed the Registry to explain as to on what basis
and why the names of so many advocates are being shown in the
Order sheets/Record of Proceedings though, they would be neither
appearing as an AOR nor as arguing/senior Counsel. The Court
also directed Mr. Sukhpal Singh and Ms. Rinki to be impleaded
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
785
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
as party respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the present proceedings and
call for the original record of the Application under Section 482 No.
41533/2019 from the Allahabad High Court.
13. The Order dated 28.08.2024 reads as under:
"1.
This matter was directed to be posted on 23.08.2024
vide the Court's Order dated 09.08.2024, whereby,
the Notary 2 Mr. A.N. Singh, Ms. Rinki-daughter of
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and her husband, Mr. Sukh
Pal were directed to remain present on the said date.
However, due to paucity of time, the matter could
not be heard on 23.08.2024, and was directed to be
listed on 28.08.2024.
2.
Accordingly, today, when the matter is taken up, the
Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukh Pal, son-in-law
of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh are present before
the Court. It is stated by Mr. Sukh Pal that his wifeMs. Rinki is down with fever and therefore, has not
come to the Court.
3.
The Notary Mr. A.N. Singh, states that he had
committed a mistake by attesting an affidavit of the
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, who was not personally
present before him, but his signatures were identified
by Advocate, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav on 19.04.2024.
According to him, thereafter, the petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh had again personally come to him on 06.08.2024
for getting another affidavit attested.
4.
Let the Notary, Mr. A.N. Singh file an affidavit
explaining the procedure of notarizing any document,
and also explaining as to why, and under what
circumstances the affidavit of the petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh, in the present case, was attested by him in
his absence on 19.04.2024. The affidavit shall be
filed on or before 02.09.2024.
5.
Mr. Sukh Pal, son of Rishi Pal, is present in the
Court. He is the resident of Raisi Nagla, Post-Kadar
Chowk, Budaun, Qadarchawk, Uttar Pradesh, as
per the Aadhar Card of Mr. Sukh Pal, bearing No.
786
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6790 1351 1082 submitted before us and has been
identified by the Advocate, Mr. Karan Singh, who is
practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Sukh
Pal states that he and his wife Rinki had met his
father-in-law, i.e. petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, 3-4
years back at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh and at that
time, petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had handed over a
signed vakalatnama to his wife Ms. Rinki. According
to him, he had handed over the said vakalatnama to
the Advocate, Mr. Karan Singh, who was practicing
in the High Court of Allahabad. On being asked
by the Court, he states that he had never met his
father-in-law petitioner-Bhagwan Singh before the
said incident.
6.
Since, Mr. Sukh Pal is making some inconsistent
statements, he is directed to file an affidavit with regard
to the whole incident explaining as to under what
circumstances he had met his father-in-law, i.e. the
petitioner herein, also stating the whole Chronology
of dates and events when he met his father-in-law.
The affidavit shall be filed on or before 02.09.2024.
7.
On the next date of hearing, Ms. Rinki, the daughter
of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and wife of Mr. Sukh
Pal shall remain present before this Court under any
circumstances.
8.
Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and Mr. Sanchar Anand,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2
Ajay Katara, in the present proceedings, have drawn
the attention of the Court to the Order passed by this
Court on 10.06.2024 in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 filed
by the petitioner Vikas Yadav, arising out of the final
judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by
the High Court of Delhi in CRLMA No. 15617/2024.
According to them, the said Vikas Yadav was
convicted in the famous Nitish Katara Case, where in,
the respondent no.2-Ajay Katara was the only witness
who had deposed against him and whose testimony
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
787
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
was relied upon by the Courts below for convicting
Vikas Yadav, and that was the reason, false case
was sought to be made out against the respondent
no.2-Ajay Katara in the present proceedings. They
have also drawn the attention of the Court to the
list of Advocates shown in the Order Sheet/ Record
of Proceedings of SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 dated
10.06.2024 and submitted that out of 10 Advocates,
08 Advocates are also shown as the appearing
Advocates in the Order Sheet/ Record of Proceedings
dated 09.08.2024 in the present SLP.
9.
In view of the above submissions, the Registry is
directed to explain as to on what basis and why the
names of so many Advocates are being shown in
the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings though,
they would be neither appearing as an AOR nor as
arguing/ Senior Counsel.
10. Let Mr. Sukh Pal and Ms. Rinki be impleaded as party
respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the present proceedings.
Cause title be amended accordingly.
11. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate practicing in Allahabad
High Court undertakes to appear for Mr. Sukh Pal,
son in law of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and Ms. Rinki,
daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and make them
understand the present proceedings since he knows
Mr. Sukh Pal for years. Though, Mr. Karan Singh is
not an Advocate on Record, he is granted permission
to file his vakalatnama, duly signed by both Mr. Sukh
Pal and Ms. Rinki, and the same shall be taken on
record by the Office.
12. Having regard to the seriousness of the case, the
Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court is
directed to send the original Record and proceedings
pertaining to the Application filed under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. bearing No. 41533 of 2019 to this
Court through Special Messenger on or before 02nd
September, 2024.
13. List the matter on 3rd September, 2024 at 02:00 p.m."
788
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
14. On 03.09.2024, the said Rinki, Bhagwan Singh and the Notary,
Mr. A.N. Singh, were present in the Court, however, the Court was
busy in the Special Bench matter(s), therefore directed the office to
list the matter on 09.09.2024. On 09.09.2024 Ms. Rinki, Mr. Sukhpal
Singh, learned advocates Mr. Karan Singh & Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, Mr.
Anubhav, AOR and the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh were present in the Court.
Ms. Rinki stated that she used to talk to her father- Bhagwan Singh very
often on telephone and that five-six months back, she and her husband
Mr. Sukhpal had met her father at Budaun, who had handed over the
'Vakalatnama' signed by him to her, which was in turn handed over by
her husband Mr. Sukhpal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate practicing in
the High Court of Allahabad. At this juncture, the appellant-Bhagwan
Singh refuted the said statement made by Ms. Rinki and reiterated
that he had neither met his daughter nor his son-in-law since the year
2013, nor he had any telephonic contact with her or by way of any
other mode at any point of time. Learned Advocate Mr. Karan Singh
and Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, reiterated their earlier stand. Mr. Amar Nath
Singh, Notary represented through the senior advocate Mr. Sanjay
R. Hegde tendered apology as stated in his affidavit. Mr. Anubhav
Yadav, learned AOR represented by the learned senior advocate
Mr. Siddharth Dave, also tendered unconditional apology.
15. The Order passed on 09.09.2024 reads as under: -
"1.
Heard the learned senior counsel/ learned counsel
appearing for the parties. We have also perused the
explanations tendered by the Registry pursuant to
this Court's Order dated 28.08.2024.
2.
Today, Ms. Rinki, daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh, and the wife of Mr. Sukh Pal, is present in
the Court.
3.
She states that she used to talk to her father,
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, very often from the below
mentioned numbers;
a.
9027068541- her own mobile number.
b.
6399367927- mobile number of her husband
c.
8077687246- mobile number of her brother-in-law,
Dhaalu.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
789
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
4.
She further states that, 05-06 months back she and
her husband, Mr. Sukh Pal, met with her father,
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh,
who handed over her the vakalatnama signed by
him, and the said vakalatnama was handed over by
Mr. Sukh Pal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, who is
practicing in the High Court of Allahabad.
5.
Mr. Sukh Pal, who is also present in the Court
affirms/supports the statement made by Ms. Rinki,
her wife.
6.
However, the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, who is also
present in the Court, refutes the said statement made
by Ms. Rinki, her daughter and reiterates that he had
neither met his Daughter, Rinki or his son-in-law, Mr.
Sukh Pal since the year 2013, nor he had any contact
with her telephonically or by way of other means at
any given point in time.
7.
Learned Advocates, Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. R.P.S.
Yadav, reiterates what they have said in earlier
occasions and stand by it today also.
8.
Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Notary is represented by
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel, who
relies on the affidavits filed by him and apologies
for notarizing the documents produced in the SLP
paperbooks, in the absence of the petitioner-Bhagwan
Singh.
9.
Mr. Anubhav, learned Advocate on Record, who
is represented by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned
senior counsel, also reiterates what he had stated
on earlier occasions, and tenders unconditional
apology for attesting and certifying the signatures of
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh on the vakalatnama
filed in the present Special Leave Petition, though
petitioner-Bhagwan Singh was not present before
him, nor he knew petitioner-Bhagwan Singh.
10. Having recorded the above submissions/ statements,
the matter is reserved for orders".
790
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
16. So far as affidavits filed in the present appeals are concerned, the
Respondent No.2- Mr. Ajay Katara has filed his counter-affidavit
dated 26.07.2024 resisting the present proceedings on the ground
of delay and on merits. While narrating the history of the case to
show as to how he was falsely implicated, he has stated as under: -
"5. That, in order to appreciate the facts of the present
case it is necessary to give a brief background history
of the answering respondent. Pertinently, the answering
respondent is the only independent prosecution witness in
the well-known and infamous Nitish Katara murder case,
wherein, pursuant to the answering respondent deposing
truthfully in the court against Vikas Yadav, Vishal Yadav
and Sukhdev Yadav alias Pahalwan, all of them were
convicted under section 302 IPC and were sentenced to
imprisonment for life by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter
in appeal the Honourable High Court ordered that accused
Vikas and Vishal shall not be entitled to any remission till
they have completed 25 years of actual sentence.
6. However, it is pertinent to mention that the accused
persons namely Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, are son
and nephew of DP Yadav, Ex-Minister and Member of
Parliament, who is a known history sheeter having more
than 57 criminal cases registered against him and a copy
of the same is annexed herewith as annexure R-2/1 (Pages
28-30). That it is also appropriate to mention here that due
to continuous intimidation, cajoling and threats by D P
Yadav and his associate, except the answering respondent
all other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, but the
answering respondent being a responsible citizen has
deposed truthfully and has in this way has significantly
contributed in the administration of justice.
7. Pertinently, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court
in its order dated 06.02.2015, had categorically observed
the traumatisation and the pressure put on the answering
respondent to prevent him from deposing against the
accused persons, in as much as the Hon'ble Court
has categorically inter-alia observed that the answering
respondent was subjected to continuous threats and still
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
791
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
continues to be under pressure for having appeared as
a witness. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under: -
"The only public witness Ajay Kumar who could
not be influenced and stood by his statement has
needed court orders for police protection and is being
subjected to multiple criminal complaints by relatives
of the appellants or persons associated to them. The
fact that all these complaints and cases arose only
after he surfaced before the police speaks for itself."
"...we have noted the traumatization and the pressure
put on Ajay Katara to prevent him from deposing
in the present case. Prior to the case in hand Ajay
Katara seems to have been living an ordinary
existence... Post the murder of Nitish Katara and
his deposition as a witness in the case, he is facing
multiple cases....."
8-9....
10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the answering
respondent is paying a heavy price for speaking truth in
the court, in as much as, after appearing as prosecution in
the abovementioned case, the answering respondent, who
never had any civil or criminal case against him has been
thereafter continuously targeted with a campaign of false
and frivolous legal cases and has been since thereafter
named as an accused in around (37)thirty - seven cases
including six (6) cases under section 376 IPC, including
the present case all at the behest of powerful Yadav
family and their associates and the answering respondent.
However, the name of the answering respondent has been
cleared in 35 out of 37 cases inter-alia at the stage of
Inquiry/Investigation itself and the proceedings against the
answering respondent have been stayed by the Hon'ble
High Court at the Judicature of Allahabad in the remaining
2 cases. Pertinently, in none of the cases, the answering
respondent has been put to trial, which is indicative of the
fact that answering respondent has been falsely implicated
in false and frivolous cases.
792
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11-12....
13. Succinctly stated, on 28.06.2013 one Bhagwan Singh
i.e., the father of the alleged victim, lodged an FIR bearing
Case Crime No. 443/13 under sections 363 and 366 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S Sahaswan, Badaun,
against (i) Sukhpal, (ii) Smt. Chetinya wife of Jaywahan,
(iii) Jaywahan and (iv) Shyam Singh by alleging therein
that these four persons have taken his daughter who
was allegedly minor at that point in time. A copy of the
FIR dated 28.06.2013 and identified as Case Crime No.
443/13 under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, at P.S Sahaswan, Badaun is already annexed
as Annexure P-1 in the SLP.
14-15....
16. That it is pertinent to mention that the name of the
answering respondent is nowhere to be seen till this stage
i.e. he has not been named anywhere, (i) either in the FIR
filed by the father of Victim or (ii) in the Writ Petition filed
by the victim herself before the High Court nor (iii) in the
statement of the victim when she appeared in person before
the Honourable High Court. However, very surprisingly,
when pursuant to the High Court order, the statement of
the victim was recorded by the police under section 161
CRPC, and also under section 164, CRPC, on 22.08.2013
i.e. after about two months of the alleged incident, then,
the victim for the very first time introduces a new story
and says that the answering respondent has did wrong
thing on her person when she reached Ghaziabad for
eight days i.e., on 24.06.2023 till 01.07.2023.
17-21....
22. That, on 20.12.2013 after a thorough investigation,
the investigating officer closed the investigation in crime
case no. 443/13 qua the answering respondent herein
vide supplementary chargesheet no. 1. At this juncture it
is extremely pertinent to mention that the petitioner or the
victim herein did not even file any protest petition regarding
the closure of the case.
[2024] 9 S.C.R.
793
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
23. However, after a gap of more than 5 years i.e., on
20.06.2018 the victim moved an application before the court
of the Ld. A.C.J.M-II class, Badaun praying that the police
have not taken any steps to the accused and therefore
S.H.O. Sahaswan be directed to arrest the accused and
put them to trial. That as the said application of the victim
was rejected by the court, therefore, the victim preferred
a Criminal Misc. Application (482 Cr.P.C.) No.25888 of
2018 (Smt. R. vs. State of U.P. and another) before the
Hon'ble High Court wherein a direction for investigation to
be carried out by the police in this regard was given and
the matter was remitted to the learned court to decide the
application of the victim afresh and directed the Magistrate
to ensure that the investigation against those accused for
offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is taken to its logical end
strictly in accordance with law.
24....
25.