Supreme Court Unveils Forged Petitions Filed Without Petitioner’s Knowledge, Orders CBI Inquiry

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India expressed deep concern over fraudulent legal proceedings initiated in the name of Bhagwan Singh, a petitioner unaware of the cases pursued on his behalf. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, uncovered a series of false filings, fraudulent vakalatnama, and forged signatures. The Court handed the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), aiming to hold accountable all involved parties, including advocates and notaries.

The case arose from two criminal appeals challenging the judgements of the Allahabad High Court. The first appeal contested the quashing of a supplementary chargesheet against Ajay Katara, accused under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The second appeal challenged the High Court's rejection of a Criminal Miscellaneous recall application. These proceedings revealed shocking instances of forged documents and SLPs filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his knowledge.

Upon inquiry, it was discovered that Bhagwan Singh was unaware of the legal actions taken in his name. He stated that he only became aware of the proceedings when a police notice was served at his residence. The vakalatnama bearing his forged signature had been filed by advocates without his consent. Bhagwan Singh categorically denied meeting any of the advocates involved.

Several advocates were implicated in the conspiracy, including Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, who initially claimed that Bhagwan Singh had signed the vakalatnama in his presence. However, Yadav later changed his statement, saying that he had received the signed vakalatnama from Mr. Karan Singh Yadav, an advocate practicing in Allahabad High Court, who in turn had obtained it from Bhagwan Singh’s son-in-law, Sukhpal Singh. The Court noted that the petitioner, Bhagwan Singh, refuted these claims, stating he had not seen his daughter Rinki or his son-in-law since 2013.

The notarisation of the forged vakalatnama was conducted by Mr. A.N. Singh, a notary, without Bhagwan Singh’s presence. The notary later admitted to notarizing the documents based on identification by one of the advocates involved.

From the given facts, the court formed an opinion that Respondent No. 3, Mr. Sukhpal, and Respondent No. 4, Ms. Rinki, with substantial legal assistance, have made deliberate attempts to falsely implicate Respondent No. 2, Ajay Katara, by initiating legal proceedings under the name of Bhagwan Singh in both the High Court and Supreme Court. These proceedings were supported by false and fabricated documents. The legal team involved in this, including advocates from both courts, such as Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav and others who acted without any instruction from Bhagwan Singh, who had neither met the advocates nor his daughter Rinki and son-in-law Sukhpal since their elopement in 2013. This misuse of legal proceedings appears to have been an effort to abuse the justice system and tarnish its integrity.

The Court also took note of Ajay Katara's affidavit, which highlighted the fact that multiple false cases had been filed against him. Mr. Katara, a key witness in the Nitish Katara murder case, had faced various legal challenges, allegedly orchestrated by the convicted Yadav family to discredit him. His testimony had been crucial in the conviction of Vikas Yadav and this case was part of a broader strategy to harass and intimidate him.

The Bench noted:

“He has been continuously targeted with a campaign of false and frivolous cases and named in around thirty-seven cases, including the present one at the behest of Yadav family and their associates. However, he has been cleared in 35 out of 37 cases.”

The Bench strongly condemned these fraudulent actions, remarking:

“To create or to assist creating false documents and to use them as genuine knowing them to be false in the Court proceedings, to falsely implicate somebody in the false proceedings filed in the name of the person who had no knowledge whatsoever about the same are the acts attributable to the offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

The court also observed, 

“They are also 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 is a fraud committed on the Courts.”

While citing V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. 2012 (12) SCC 133, where it was held that "No Court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud." The bench reiterated that, “No Court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud.” The Bench emphasised the critical importance of maintaining integrity in legal proceedings, stating, 

“There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings conducted in the court. Every Advocate putting his signatures on the Vakalatnamas and on the documents to be filed in the Courts, and every Advocate appearing for a party in the courts, particularly in the Supreme Court, the highest court of the country, is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his/her appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness."

The Court further accentuated stating that no legal professional is above the law, remarking, "No professional, much less legal professional, is immune from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds.”

The Court relied on this case to emphasise the professional responsibilities of advocates, as outlined in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. Advocates were reminded that, while they are expected to represent their clients zealously, they must adhere to ethical guidelines and ensure they do not abuse the court process. Misconduct, such as filing fraudulent documents or notarizing false affidavits, seriously undermines the integrity of the judicial system. The court also drew attention to the specific duties and responsibilities of advocates, particularly Advocates-on-Record, as contained in Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. In light of the above observations, the court transferred the investigation to the CBI, directing it to register a regular case and conduct a thorough inquiry. The CBI is directed to submit its findings within two months. 

The Registrar of the Supreme Court was instructed to hand over original records related to the Section 482 petition, recall applications, and the appeals to the CBI in a sealed cover, while certified copies were to be retained by the Court.

The Court clarifies the usage of the Supreme Court's online appearance marking system. It emphasises that the Notice permits only Advocates-on-Record (AOR) to mark the appearances of advocates who are physically present in court to argue or assist with the case. Specifically, it refers to an Office Circular dated 30.12.2022, which allows Advocates-on-Record (AOR) to register the appearances of advocates who will be appearing with or on their behalf via the online appearance slip system.

Case Details: Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P.  SLP(Cri.) Diary no.18885/2024