Supreme Court:
In a criminal special leave petition before the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. it was pointed out by the petitioner, present in person before the Court that he did not know either of the advocates/ AORs who were representing him and that he came to know about the present proceedings filed in his name only when the Police Station of his area came to serve Court notice upon him. The Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. expressed utter shock in the matter, which disclosed notarisation of fake signatures, inclusion of names of advocates/AORs who did not appear and allegations of conspiracy against a witness in a famous case. The Bench directed the Notary to file an affidavit explaining the procedure of notarizing any document, and also explaining as to why he attested the signatures.
The Court also sought explanation from the Registry as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates were shown in the Order Sheets who did not appear as AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel.
Genesis
The present petitioner/ minor’s father had lodged an FIR on 28-06-2013 alleging that his minor daughter aged 12 years was kidnapped by her cousin brother A, A’s sister, A’s son-in-law and A’s brother. Subsequently, a criminal petition was filed before the High Court and vide order dated 31-07-2013, the arrest of the accused persons therein, was stayed. Later, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, when chargesheet was filed against A for kidnapping a minor girl. The minor’s statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) disclosed that she was in love with A, so they got married him in a temple and ran away to Ghaziabad. There she met ‘B’, who was accused of raping her.
An application was moved under Section 482 by ‘B’ for quashing the summoning and cognizance order of the Trial Court for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The High Court noted that no date and time of the alleged rape was disclosed by the girl. The High Court on consideration of the all material and circumstances allowed the application of B and quashed and set aside the impugned orders.
SLP before Court
The Advocates in question had stated that vakalatnama signed by the petitioner was received by him from an Advocate practicing in the Allahabad High Court. To this, the petitioner’s reply was that he did not either of these Advocates. In view of the above submissions, the Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the Advocate practicing in Allahabad High Court. The Advocate from High Court submitted that he received the papers of the case along with signed vakalatnama from his client/ A, who is son-in-law of the present petitioner. It was stated that this Advocate appeared before the High Court in the recall application filed on behalf of petitioner’s daughter/ wife of A, in which it was prayed to recall the order dated 16-12-2019 passed by the High Court in the Application under Section 482. However, when the said recall application was dismissed, A wanted to file an SLP before the Court, hence, he was asked to get the vakalatnama signed from either his wife or father-in-law/ petitioner. Thereafter he had handed over all the papers along with signed vakalatnama to the Advocate practicing in the Court.
At this stage, the petitioner submitted that since his daughter had eloped and married A in 2013 he has not met them, and therefore, he could not have signed the vakalatnama in question or the papers of the SLP.
On one of the previous hearings, the Court noted the submission of the AOR and Advocate who prepared the Memo of SLP and got it attested through a Notary who sits in front of the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound. Hence, the Court directed this Notary, to remain present before the Court for being involved in notarizing and attesting the papers and signatures of the petitioner, even though he was not personally present before him. The Court had also directed all the advocates concerned in the matter to remain present before the Court.
Order
The Court directed the Notary to 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 in the present case, was attested by him in his absence. Further, the Court had directed A to file an affidavit explaining the whole incident as to under what circumstances he had met his father-in-law/ present petitioner, along with the chronology of dates and events when he met his father-in-law.
The Court also sought explanation from the Registry as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates were shown in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings though, they would be neither appearing as an AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel in the order dated 09-08-2024, who are also advocates in order dated 10-06-2024 in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 which was filed against Delhi High Court’s decision, wherein, the present respondent ‘B’ was the only witness. The counsel for ‘B’ submitted that B had deposed against the convicted- petitioner in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 and for that reason a false case was sought to be made out against the B in the present proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment