Supreme Court orders CBI probe into case where fake SLP was filed without litigant's knowledge

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to carry out an inquiry into a case where a litigant had denied filing a special leave petition (SLP) and claimed that he never hired any of the lawyers to represent him before the top court [Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another]..A Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had heard the matter and reserved judgment on September 9, indicating that it would pass directions to ensure that such actions by advocates playing 'fraud in the eyes of the court' should not happen again.Lamenting that brazen attempts are being made to abuse and misuse the process of law, the Court said,"Considering the gravity and seriousness of the case, when the High Court and Supreme Court were sought to be taken for a ride and when the entire justice delivery system was sought to be put to stake, by the respondent no. 3 Mr. Sukhpal, the respondent no. 4 Ms. Rinki, and their concerned associates and the Advocates, who helped them in forging and fabricating the documents to be filed in the High Court and Supreme Court, and to pursue the false proceedings filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his knowledge, consent or authority, we deem it appropriate to hand over the investigation of the case to the CBI," the Court observed.The Court has directed the CBI Director to file a report on the inquiry within two months..The Court also said that falsely implicating somebody in such proceedings amount to offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)."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. No Court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud and no Court can allow its eyes to be closed to the fact that it is being used as an instrument of fraud," the Court noted..A drama of the most unusual kind unfolded in July after a litigant said he did not know any of the lawyers who claimed to represent him before the top court.The present case began with Bhagwan Singh filing a First Information Report (FIR) against one Sukhpal and others, alleging that they kidnapped his daughter Rinki. Subsequently, Rinki had made a statement that she married Sukhpal willingly. However, she claimed that she was raped by Ajay Katara, who met the two of them when they eloped.The Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Ajay Katara. An application for recall of this order was filed by Rinki, but was dismissed.Against this dismissal, the present SLP before Supreme Court was filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, Rinki's father..More than a month after the apex court issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh in the SLP, Bhagwan Singh wrote a letter to the Supreme Court Registry claiming that he had not filed any such case.In his letter, Bhagwan Singh clarified that he had neither engaged any advocate to file the instant SLP, nor had he signed any vakalatnama or affidavit in that regard. He also claimed that someone else filed the petition under a conspiracy and sought strict action against such persons.On July 30, Bhagwan Singh along with his 'real counsel' had personally appeared before the Court to affirm his letter. On the same day, the Advocate-on-Record Anubhav, through whom the SLP was filed, said that he received Bhagwan Singh's signed vakalatnama from Advocate RPS Yadav, but did not witness Bhagwan Singh sign it himself.Advocate RPS Yadav said that he received the entire documents of the case from one Advocate Karan Singh, who practices in the Allahabad High Court.The Court was informed by Rinki and Sukhpal that Bhagwan Singh himself gave the vakalatnama papers to them for filing the SLP. However, Bhagwan Singh disputed this by stating that he had not met his daughter and her husband for over three years.The Bench was also informed that the SLP was notarised, but not in presence of Bhagwan Singh. It had then directed the notary officer to be personally present..Thereafter, on August 28, AN Singh, the Notary officer appeared and admitted that he made a mistake of attesting Bhagwan Singh's affidavit in his absence, based on identification of his signatures by Advocate RPS Yadav. The Court had then asked Notary officer to file an affidavit explaining the procedure of notarising any document and also explain as to why and under what circumstances affidavit by Bhagwan Singh was attested.While reserving the judgment on September 9, the Court had refused to accept apologies by advocates and said that it is not going to take a 'softer' stance..On August 28, the notary officer appeared and admitted that he made a mistake of attesting Bhagwan Singh's affidavit in his absence, based on identification of his signatures by Advocate RPS Yadav. The Court had then asked the notary to file an affidavit explaining the procedure of notarising any document and also explain as to why and under what circumstances the affidavit by Bhagwan Singh was attested.While reserving the judgment on September 9, the Court had refused to accept apologies by advocates and said that it is not going to take a 'softer' stance..Today, the Court in its judgment said that every advocate putting his signature on vakalatnamas and other documents, and every advocate appearing for a party, is presumed to have done so with a sense of responsibility and seriousness."The matter assumes serious concern when the Advocates who are the officers of the Court are involved and when they actively participate in the ill-motivated litigations of the unscrupulous litigants, and assist them in misusing and abusing the process of law to achieve their ulterior purposes...No professional much less legal professional, is immuned from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds," the judgment stated..Lawyers under scanner after litigant says he never authorised filing of appeal in Supreme Court.[Read Judgment]