Uttarakhand HC pulls up lawyer, litigants for Fraud on the Court [Read Order]

In an attempt to have criminal proceedings against them quashed, two litigants and their counsel recently faced the ire of the Uttarakhand High Court, on account of “serious illegalities” found to be committed in filing their writ petition..While passing orders in the case, Justice Lok Pal Singh made it a point to detail the noted improprieties and direct punitive action against all found complicit in the same..Firstly, the writ petition filed on behalf of Priya Sharma and Sudhir Chawla was signed by a third person, named Gopal Singh Bisht. The annexures and affidavits filed in support of the petition, as well as the rejoinder affidavit and vakalatnama, were also signed by Bisht..Bisht, through his counsel, claimed to be the Pariokar of the petitioners. It was thus contended that he had power to act on behalf of the petitioners, as provided in Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Order III of the CPC allows recognized agents and pleaders to act on behalf of parties. Reliance was also placed on Chapter IV, Rule 10 of the High Court Rules, 1952. This Rule allows persons having knowledge of the facts deposed to file affidavits..However, the Court noted that there was no instrument or undertaking proving such a relationship between Bisht and the petitioners. Therefore, he could not be a recognised agent, in view of Rule 2 of Order III of the CPC, read with the Power of Attorney Act, 1882..“…the fact remains that Gopal Singh Bisht has not been appointed as agent to sign and plead on behalf of the petitioners as he is not the recognized agent in view of Order III Rule 2….A recognized agent is defined under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a person holding Power of Attorney, authorizing him to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.”.The Court then turned its scrutiny on the advocates handling the case, for what appeared to be serious professional misconduct committed by them..“An Advocate is an extra-ordinary person having the legal knowledge. Even it is expected from a prudent person or a common person to act diligently, but while accepting the Vakalatnama of Gopal Singh Bisht, without there being any agency in his favour… [the] Advocate has, in fact, committed professional misconduct and has played fraud with the Court.”.The Court also discerned that the names of the litigants were forged in another vakalatnama accepted by the advocate. Given these facts, it was found that the case amounted to a fraud being played on the Court..“It appears to this Court that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Priya Sharma and Sudhir Chawla and Gopal Singh Bisht, the person who signed Vakalatnama of behalf of the petitioners, are trying to play fraud with the Court as, in case, they could not succeed in the present writ petition, they may file another writ petition for the same relief, on the pretext that they have not filed any writ petition earlier and they have not appointed Gopal Singh Bisht as their agent to file the Vakalatnama on their behalf..Now-a-days unscrupulous persons are committing fraud with the Government departments and some of them are not hesitating to commit fraud with the Court by way of filing false pleadings and affidavits. The present writ petition is an example of such a fraud being committed with the Court.”.Besides, records revealed that the petitioners had also suppressed the material fact that an earlier writ petition filed to quash another criminal case was dismissed by the Court last month..In light of these fraudulent acts, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief from the Court..“It is proved on record that there is a complete misrepresentation at the hands of petitioners. Thus, they have committed fraud with the Court and in view of such fraud committed by them, they are not entitled for any relief in respect of quashing of FIR lodged against them, as also for any interim protection during investigation.”.Before parting with the order, the Court directed that an investigation be launched against Bisht for his role in the fraudulent conduct of the case. To prove forgery, a forensic comparison was ordered to be made between original copies of an agreement signed by the petitioners and the signatures in the vakalatnama. A non-bailable warrant was also issued against Sudhir Chawla for non-appearance in Court..As regards the appearing counsel, the Court held,.“Since…[the] Advocate has accepted the Vakalatnama of Gopal Singh Bisht without an authority and filed the writ petition on his instructions, she cannot spare herself for her participation in committing fraud with the Court..Therefore, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to lodge the FIR against the culprits so that a fair investigation be carried out in the matter by the police.”.Read Order: