Supreme Court Addresses Fraudulent Filings: Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. (20 September 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 708

Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can the Indian judicial system be manipulated by unscrupulous litigants and their legal advisors? The Supreme Court of India recently confronted a case where a series of fraudulent filings were made in the name of a person who had no knowledge of the proceedings. This case highlights the misuse of the legal process and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered a judgment addressing the issue of fraudulent filings and the misuse of the legal system. The judgment was authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case began with a criminal appeal filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, challenging a judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court had quashed proceedings against Ajay Katara, the second respondent, in a case involving offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Bhagwan Singh, however, claimed he had not authorized the filing of this appeal. Further, the High Court had also rejected a recall application filed in the same matter. The Supreme Court, upon receiving a letter from Bhagwan Singh denying any knowledge of the proceedings, initiated an inquiry into the matter. It was revealed that the filings were made without Bhagwan Singh’s consent, involving multiple lawyers and a notary. The matter was further complicated by the fact that Ajay Katara was a key witness in the Nitish Katara murder case, and there was a possibility that the false case was made against him by the accused in that case.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially quashed the proceedings against Ajay Katara in the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subsequently, a recall application was filed, which was also rejected by the High Court. The matter then reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh. However, Bhagwan Singh informed the Supreme Court that he had not filed the SLP. This led to the Supreme Court initiating an inquiry and calling for the original records from the High Court. The Supreme Court also recorded the statements of the lawyers involved and the notary, leading to the discovery of the fraudulent nature of the filings.

Legal Framework

The case involves several legal provisions, primarily from the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 include:

• Section 363: Punishment for kidnapping.
• Section 366: Kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage.
• Section 376: Punishment for rape.

The relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 include:

• Section 161: Examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 164: Recording of confessions and statements.
• Section 482: Inherent powers of High Court.

Additionally, the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956, are also relevant, particularly concerning the duties and responsibilities of notaries. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, also play a role in the case, particularly concerning the filing of Special Leave Petitions.

Arguments

The arguments in the case revolved around the authenticity of the filings and the actions of the various parties involved. Here’s a breakdown of the main submissions:

• Bhagwan Singh:
  • Maintained that he had not filed any SLP before the Supreme Court.
  • Stated that he did not know any of the advocates involved in the case.
  • Claimed he had not met his daughter or son-in-law since 2013.
  • Asserted that he was unaware of the proceedings in the High Court.
• Advocate Anubhav Yashwant Yadav (AOR):
  • Initially claimed to have identified and attested Bhagwan Singh’s signature.
  • Later stated that he received the Vakalatnama with Bhagwan Singh’s signature from Advocate R.P.S. Yadav.
  • Tendered an unconditional apology for attesting the signature without Bhagwan Singh being present.
• Advocate R.P.S. Yadav:
  • Initially stated that the Vakalatnama was signed by Bhagwan Singh in his presence.
  • Later stated that he received the Vakalatnama from Advocate Karan Singh Yadav.
  • Admitted to identifying Bhagwan Singh’s signature before the Notary without Bhagwan Singh’s presence.
• Advocate Karan Singh Yadav:
  • Claimed to have received the papers and signed Vakalatnama from Sukhpal Singh.
  • Stated that Sukhpal Singh wanted to file an SLP in the Supreme Court.
  • Mentioned that he had appeared in the High Court for the recall application.
• Notary A.N. Singh:
  • Admitted to attesting the affidavit of Bhagwan Singh without his presence.
  • Stated that Advocate R.P.S. Yadav identified the signature.
  • Tendered an apology for notarizing documents in the absence of the petitioner.
• Sukhpal Singh:
  • Made inconsistent statements regarding meetings with Bhagwan Singh.
  • Claimed that Bhagwan Singh handed over a signed Vakalatnama to his wife.
  • Stated that he gave the Vakalatnama to Advocate Karan Singh Yadav.
• Rinki (Daughter of Bhagwan Singh):
  • Claimed to have spoken to her father on the phone.
  • Stated that she and her husband met her father and he handed over the Vakalatnama.
• Ajay Katara:
  • Resisted the proceedings, citing delay and merits.
  • Detailed his history as a witness in the Nitish Katara case.
  • Claimed to be falsely implicated in numerous cases due to his testimony.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the brazen and coordinated attempt to use the legal system to harass Ajay Katara, who was a star witness in a high-profile case. The use of fabricated documents and false representations by the advocates involved was a significant part of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:

1. Whether the Special Leave Petitions were validly filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh.
2. Whether the advocates involved had acted unethically and misused the legal process.
3. Whether the notary had violated the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956.
4. Whether the respondents had made attempts to falsely implicate Ajay Katara.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities and legal provisions:

• V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. [2012 (12) SCC 133] – Supreme Court of India: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the judicial process cannot be used as an instrument of oppression or abuse.
• Mahendra Chawla vs. Union of India [(2019) 14 SCC 615] – Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case regarding the “Witness Protection Scheme, 2018” and its lack of effective implementation.
• Saumya Chaurasia vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) 6 SCC 401] – Supreme Court of India: The Court cited this case to highlight the high standards of professionalism expected from advocates, especially in the Supreme Court.
• Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952: The Court referred to this section to discuss the functions of a notary.
• Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules, 1956: The Court referred to this rule to discuss the transaction of business by a notary.
• Order IV, Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: The Court referred to this rule to discuss the role and duties of Advocates-on-Record.
• Order XXI and XXII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: The Court referred to these orders concerning the filing of Special Leave Petitions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances, concluded that the proceedings were a clear case of fraud and abuse of the legal process. The Court noted that the SLPs were filed without the knowledge or consent of Bhagwan Singh, and that multiple parties, including lawyers and a notary, were involved in the fraudulent scheme. The Court also highlighted the fact that Ajay Katara was being targeted due to his role as a witness in the Nitish Katara murder case.

• V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors. [2012 (12) SCC 133]*: The Court used this authority to state that the judicial process cannot be an instrument of oppression or abuse.
• Mahendra Chawla vs. Union of India [(2019) 14 SCC 615]*: The Court used this authority to highlight the lack of effective implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
• Saumya Chaurasia vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) 6 SCC 401]*: The Court used this authority to emphasize the high standards of professionalism expected from advocates.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply concerned about the fraudulent nature of the filings and the misuse of the legal system. The Court was particularly disturbed by the involvement of multiple advocates and a notary in the scheme. The Court also emphasized the importance of protecting witnesses, especially in cases where they face threats and intimidation. The Court was also influenced by the fact that Ajay Katara was being targeted due to his testimony in the Nitish Katara murder case, which was a high-profile case.

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis and legal principles. The Court carefully examined the facts of the case, including the statements of the various parties, the documents filed, and the circumstances surrounding the filings. The Court also applied relevant legal principles, including the standards of professional conduct for advocates and notaries, the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process, and the need to protect witnesses. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that Ajay Katara was being targeted due to his testimony in the Nitish Katara murder case.

The court considered alternative interpretations, but rejected them due to the overwhelming evidence of fraud and manipulation. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and protecting witnesses from harassment and intimidation. The final decision was to hand over the investigation to the CBI and to take action against the erring advocates and notary.

The decision was reached after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. The court found that the SLPs were filed without the knowledge or consent of Bhagwan Singh, and that multiple parties, including lawyers and a notary, were involved in the fraudulent scheme. The court also highlighted the fact that Ajay Katara was being targeted due to his role as a witness in the Nitish Katara murder case.

“The wrongdoers must fear the law that they will be punished, the innocents must rest assured that they will not be, and the victims must be confident that they will get the justice.”

“The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.”

“It hardly needs to be emphasised that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practising in the High Courts and the District Courts.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, and the opinion was authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Key Takeaways

• The legal system is vulnerable to manipulation by unscrupulous litigants and their legal advisors.
• Advocates have a duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system and must not participate in fraudulent schemes.
• Notaries must adhere to the rules and regulations governing their profession and must not attest documents without proper verification.
• Witnesses must be protected from harassment and intimidation, especially in high-profile cases.
• The Supreme Court takes a serious view of fraudulent filings and will take action against those who misuse the legal process.

The potential future impact of this case is that it will serve as a deterrent to those who may be tempted to misuse the legal system. It will also serve as a reminder to advocates and notaries of their ethical obligations and the consequences of violating them. The case may also lead to more effective implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI.
• The CBI was directed to register a regular case and investigate all the links leading to the commission of the alleged crimes.
• The CBI was directed to submit a report to the Supreme Court within two months.
• The original records of the case were to be handed over to the Director, CBI.
• A copy of the order was to be sent to the Bar Council of India and the Government of India for necessary action.
• The Registry was directed to ensure that only the names of authorized advocates are listed in the order sheets.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendment in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not tolerate the misuse of the legal process through fraudulent filings and fabricated documents. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting witnesses from harassment and intimidation. The judgment also reinforces the ethical obligations of advocates and notaries. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment serves as a strong reminder of the existing legal principles and ethical standards.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. is a significant step in addressing the issue of fraudulent filings and the misuse of the legal system. The Court’s decision to hand over the investigation to the CBI and to take action against the erring advocates and notary sends a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated. The judgment also highlights the importance of protecting witnesses and maintaining the integrity of the legal process. The case serves as a reminder of the ethical obligations of legal professionals and the need for vigilance in the administration of justice.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Fraud
  • Misrepresentation
  • Abuse of Process
• Supreme Court Judgments
  • Landmark Judgments
  • Case Analysis
• Legal Ethics
  • Advocate Misconduct
  • Notary Violations
• Witness Protection
  • Witness Intimidation
  • Justice System
• Indian Penal Code
  • Section 363
  • Section 366
  • Section 376
• Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Section 161
  • Section 164
  • Section 482
• Notaries Act
  • Notary Rules