In view of the said Notice/Circular dated 30.12.2022 and in furtherance of the afore-stated order passed by the Coordinate Bench, it is directed that the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those Advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice. If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly.

“1. In continuation of the yesterday’s order, Mr. Anubhav, learned Advocate-on-Record whose ‘Vakalatnama’ has been filed on behalf of the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh in the Special Leave Petition is present in the Court. He states his full name to be Anubhav Yashwant Yadav. He further states that though on the ‘Vakalatnama’ he had identified and attested the signature of the petitioner, that was not correct, and that he had received the ‘Vakalatnama’ with the signature of the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh from the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, who is also present in the Court.

2. Yesterday, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav was present in the Court and Mr. Anubhav was not present, and on our being asked, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav had stated that the ‘Vakalatnama’ was signed by the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh in his presence. Today, he states that he had received the ‘Vakalatnama’ already signed by the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer named Karan Singh Yadav, who is practicing in the Allahabad High Court.

3. The petitioner – Bhagwan Singh is also present in the Court and he states that he does not know either Mr. Anubhav or Mr. R.P.S. Yadav or Karan Singh, and that he came to know about the present proceedings having been filed in his name only when the concerned Police Station of his area came to serve notice of this Court on him in respect of the present S.L.P. proceedings.

4. Today, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned Advocate-on-Record states that he is also AOR but Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam has filed ‘Vakalatnama’ on behalf of the petitioner who states that the SLP was not filed by the petitioner.

5. In view of the above, before passing any further order, let Mr. R.P.S. Yadav give the correct name, full address with Phone Number of Mr. Karan Singh who, according to him, had given the papers along with the signed ‘Vakalatnama’ of the petitioner to file the SLP in this Court.

6. The Registry is directed to issue notice to the Advocate Mr. Karan Singh at the address furnished by learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, to remain present in the Court on 9-8-2024 at 2.00 p.m.

The address is as follows: – Chamber 8b, Old Building, High Court, Allahabad, U.P. Mobile No.9935256980

7. Let the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh file an affidavit with regard to the correct facts in respect of the present proceedings.

8. List on 9-8-2024 at 2.00 p.m.”.

“1. Pursuant to the order dated 31-07-2024 passed by this Court, Mr. Karan Singh Yadav, Advocate practicing at Allahabad High Court is present in the Court and states that he received the papers of the case along with signed ‘Vakalatnama’ i.e., with the signature of the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh from his client Sukhpal Singh, son of Rishi Pal, resident of Raisinghnagar, Post – Kadar Chowk, District Budaun, U.P., who happens to be the son-in-law of Bhagwan Singh. Mr. Karan Singh also states that he had appeared before the High Court in the Recall Application No.3/2020 filed on behalf of Ms. Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh, in which it was prayed to recall the order dated 16-12-2019 passed in the Application under Section 482 No.41533/2019. However, the said application was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 0204-2024. He further states that after the said dismissal, since the said Sukhpal Singh wanted to file the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, he was asked to get the ‘Vakalatnama’ with the signature of either Rinki or Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter the said Sukhpal Singh gave him the papers alongwith the ‘Vakalatnama’ signed in the name of Bhagwan Singh. Mr. Karan Singh further states that thereafter he had handed over all the papers along with signed ‘Vakalatnama’ to the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav practicing in the Supreme Court, who is today present in the Court.

2. At this stage, the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh, who is present in the Court, states that his daughter Rinki had eloped and married with Sukhpal Singh in 2013 and since then he has not met Sukhpal Singh or his daughter Rinki, and therefore, he could not have signed the ‘Vakalatnama’ or the papers of the SLP.

3. On being asked by the Court, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav states that he had prepared the Memo of SLP and got it attested through the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh. He further states that at the time of getting the SLP notarized, the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh was not present, however as per the practice prevailing in the Supreme Court, he identified the signature of Bhagwan Singh before the Notary and the Notary also notarized the said Memo. He thereafter handed over papers to the AOR Mr. Anubhav for presenting in the Supreme Court.

4. Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, learned Advocate-on-Record states that since he knew the learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, and Mr. Yadav having prepared the SLP Memo and got the papers ready, he had put his signature as the AOR on the Memo of SLP and also on the ‘Vakalatnama’ stating that he himself had attested and identified the signature of petitioner – Bhagwan Singh.

5. From the above, it appears that Mr. A.N. Singh, Notary Government of India whose registration Number is 16959 and who sits in front of the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound, is also involved in notarizing and attesting the papers and signatures of the petitioner, though he was not personally present before him. Hence, it is directed that he shall remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing.

6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court on 06-08-2024, which was also got notarized before the said Notary – Mr. A.N. Singh.

7. The daughter of the petitioner – Bhagwan Singh i.e., Ms. Rinki and her husband – Mr. Sukhpal Singh are also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the office shall issue notices to Mr. A.N. Singh, Ms. Rinki and Mr. Sukhpal Singh on the next date of hearing. On the said date, the petitioner and all concerned advocates also shall remain present before the Court.

8. At this stage, the Court informed all the concerned Advocates and the Petitioner present in the Court that this is a very serious matter and the Court is going to take a serious view in the matter.

9. List on 23.08.2024.”

“1. This matter was directed to be posted on 23.08.2024 vide the Court’s Order dated 09.08.2024, whereby, the Notary 2 Mr. A.N. Singh, Ms. Rinki-daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and her husband, Mr. Sukh Pal were directed to remain present on the said date. However, due to paucity of time, the matter could not be heard on 23.08.2024, and was directed to be listed on 28.08.2024.

2. Accordingly, today, when the matter is taken up, the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukh Pal, son-in-law of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh are present before the Court. It is stated by Mr. Sukh Pal that his wife-Ms. Rinki is down with fever and therefore, has not come to the Court.

3. The Notary Mr. A.N. Singh, states that he had committed a mistake by attesting an affidavit of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, who was not personally present before him, but his signatures were identified by Advocate, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav on 19.04.2024. According to him, thereafter, the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had again personally come to him on 06.08.2024 for getting another affidavit attested.

4. Let the Notary, Mr. A.N. Singh 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-Bhagwan Singh, in the present case, was attested by him in his absence on 19.04.2024. The affidavit shall be filed on or before 02.09.2024.

5. Mr. Sukh Pal, son of Rishi Pal, is present in the Court. He is the resident of Raisi Nagla, Post-Kadar Chowk, Budaun, Qadarchawk, Uttar Pradesh, as per the Aadhar Card of Mr. Sukh Pal, bearing No. 6790 1351 1082 submitted before us and has been identified by the Advocate, Mr. Karan Singh, who is practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Sukh Pal states that he and his wife Rinki had met his father-in-law, i.e. petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, 3-4 years back at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh and at that time, petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had handed over a signed vakalatnama to his wife Ms. Rinki. According to him, he had handed over the said vakalatnama to the Advocate, Mr. Karan Singh, who was practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. On being asked by the Court, he states that he had never met his father-in-law petitioner-Bhagwan Singh before the said incident.

6. Since, Mr. Sukh Pal is making some inconsistent statements, he is directed to file an affidavit with regard to the whole incident explaining as to under what circumstances he had met his fatherin-law, i.e. the petitioner herein, also stating the whole Chronology of dates and events when he met his father-in-law. The affidavit shall be filed on or before 02.09.2024.

7. On the next date of hearing, Ms. Rinki, the daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and wife of Mr. Sukh Pal shall remain present before this Court under any circumstances.

8. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 Ajay Katara, in the present proceedings, have drawn the attention of the Court to the Order passed by this Court on 10.06.2024 in SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 filed by the petitioner Vikas Yadav, arising out of the final judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CRLMA No. 15617/2024. According to them, the said Vikas Yadav was convicted in the famous Nitish Katara Case, where in, the respondent no.2-Ajay Katara was the only witness who had deposed against him and whose testimony was relied upon by the Courts below for convicting Vikas Yadav, and that was the reason, false case was sought to be made out against the respondent no.2-Ajay Katara in the present proceedings. They have also drawn the attention of the Court to the list of Advocates shown in the Order Sheet/ Record of Proceedings of SLP(Crl.) No.7893/2024 dated 10.06.2024 and submitted that out of 10 Advocates, 08 Advocates are also shown as the appearing Advocates in the Order Sheet/ Record of Proceedings dated 09.08.2024 in the present SLP.

9. In view of the above submissions, the Registry is directed to explain as to on what basis and why the names of so many Advocates are being shown in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings though, they would be neither appearing as an AOR nor as arguing/ Senior Counsel.

10. Let Mr. Sukh Pal and Ms. Rinki be impleaded as party respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the present proceedings. Cause title be amended accordingly.

11. Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate practicing in Allahabad High Court undertakes to appear for Mr. Sukh Pal, son in law of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and Ms. Rinki, daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh and make them understand the present proceedings since he knows Mr. Sukh Pal for years. Though, Mr. Karan Singh is not an Advocate on Record, he is granted permission to file his vakalatnama, duly signed by both Mr. Sukh Pal and Ms. Rinki, and the same shall be taken on record by the Office.

12. Having regard to the seriousness of the case, the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court is directed to send the original Record and proceedings pertaining to the Application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing No. 41533 of 2019 to this Court through Special Messenger on or before 02nd September, 2024.

13. List the matter on 3rd September, 2024 at 02:00 p.m.”

“1. Heard the learned senior counsel/ learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also perused the explanations tendered by the Registry pursuant to this Court’s Order dated 28.08.2024.

2. Today, Ms. Rinki, daughter of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, and the wife of Mr. Sukh Pal, is present in the Court.

3. She states that she used to talk to her father, petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, very often from the below mentioned numbers;

4. She further states that, 05-06 months back she and her husband, Mr. Sukh Pal, met with her father, petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, who handed over her the vakalatnama signed by him, and the said vakalatnama was handed over by Mr. Sukh Pal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, who is practicing in the High Court of Allahabad.

5. Mr. Sukh Pal, who is also present in the Court affirms/ supports the statement made by Ms. Rinki, her wife.

6. However, the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, who is also present in the Court, refutes the said statement made by Ms. Rinki, her daughter and reiterates that he had neither met his Daughter, Rinki or his son-in-law, Mr. Sukh Pal since the year 2013, nor he had any contact with her telephonically or by way of other means at any given point in time.

7. Learned Advocates, Mr. Karan Singh and Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, reiterates what they have said in earlier occasions and stand by it today also.

8. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Notary is represented by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel, who relies on the affidavits filed by him and apologies for notarizing the documents produced in the SLP paperbooks, in the absence of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh.

9. Mr. Anubhav, learned Advocate on Record, who is represented by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel, also reiterates what he had stated on earlier occasions, and tenders unconditional apology for attesting and certifying the signatures of petitioner-Bhagwan Singh on the vakalatnama filed in the present Special Leave Petition, though petitioner-Bhagwan Singh was not present before him, nor he knew petitioner-Bhagwan Singh.

10. Having recorded the above submissions/ statements, the matter is reserved for orders”.

“5. That, in order to appreciate the facts of the present case it is necessary to give a brief background history of the answering respondent. Pertinently, the answering respondent is the only independent prosecution witness in the well-known and infamous Nitish Katara murder case, wherein, pursuant to the answering respondent deposing truthfully in the court against Vikas Yadav, Vishal Yadav and Sukhdev Yadav alias Pahalwan, all of them were convicted under section 302 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter in appeal the Honourable High Court ordered that accused Vikas and Vishal shall not be entitled to any remission till they have completed 25 years of actual sentence.

6. However, it is pertinent to mention that the accused persons namely Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, are son and nephew of DP Yadav, Ex-Minister and Member of Parliament, who is a known history sheeter having more than 57 criminal cases registered against him and a copy of the same is annexed herewith as annexure R-2/1 (Pages 28-30). That it is also appropriate to mention here that due to continuous intimidation, cajoling and threats by D P Yadav and his associate, except the answering respondent all other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, but the answering respondent being a responsible citizen has deposed truthfully and has in this way has significantly contributed in the administration of justice.

7. Pertinently, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 06.02.2015, had categorically observed the traumatisation and the pressure put on the answering respondent to prevent him from deposing against the accused persons, in as much as the Hon’ble Court has categorically inter-alia observed that the answering respondent was subjected to continuous threats and still continues to be under pressure for having appeared as a witness. The Hon’ble Court has observed as under: –

8-9….

10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the answering respondent is paying a heavy price for speaking truth in the court, in as much as, after appearing as prosecution in the abovementioned case, the answering respondent, who never had any civil or criminal case against him has been thereafter continuously targeted with a campaign of false and frivolous legal cases and has been since thereafter named as an accused in around (37)thirty – seven cases including six (6) cases under section 376 IPC, including the present case all at the behest of powerful Yadav family and their associates and the answering respondent. However, the name of the answering respondent has been cleared in 35 out of 37 cases inter-alia at the stage of Inquiry/Investigation itself and the proceedings against the answering respondent have been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court at the Judicature of Allahabad in the remaining 2 cases. Pertinently, in none of the cases, the answering respondent has been put to trial, which is indicative of the fact that answering respondent has been falsely implicated in false and frivolous cases.

11-12…

13. Succinctly stated, on 28.06.2013 one Bhagwan Singh i.e., the father of the alleged victim, lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 443/13 under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S Sahaswan, Badaun, against (i) Sukhpal, (ii) Smt. Chetinya wife of Jaywahan, (iii) Jaywahan and (iv) Shyam Singh by alleging therein that these four persons have taken his daughter who was allegedly minor at that point in time. A copy of the FIR dated 28.06.2013 and identified as Case Crime No. 443/13 under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S Sahaswan, Badaun is already annexed as Annexure P-1 in the SLP.

14-15

16. That it is pertinent to mention that the name of the answering respondent is nowhere to be seen till this stage i.e. he has not been named anywhere, (i) either in the FIR filed by the father of Victim or (ii) in the Writ Petition filed by the victim herself before the High Court nor (iii) in the statement of the victim when she appeared in person before the Honourable High Court. However, very surprisingly, when pursuant to the High Court order, the statement of the victim was recorded by the police under section 161 CRPC, and also under section 164, CRPC, on 22.08.2013 i.e. after about two months of the alleged incident, then, the victim for the very first time introduces a new story and says that the answering respondent has did wrong thing on her person when she reached Ghaziabad for eight days i.e., on 24.06.2023 till 01.07.2023.

17-21..

22. That, on 20.12.2013 after a thorough investigation, the investigating officer closed the investigation in crime case no. 443/13 qua the answering respondent herein vide supplementary chargesheet no. 1. At this juncture it is extremely pertinent to mention that the petitioner or the victim herein did not even file any protest petition regarding the closure of the case.

23. However, after a gap of more than 5 years i.e., on 20.06.2018 the victim moved an application before the court of the Ld. A.C.J.M-II class, Badaun praying that the police have not taken any steps to the accused and therefore S.H.O. Sahaswan be directed to arrest the accused and put them to trial. That as the said application of the victim was rejected by the court, therefore, the victim preferred a Criminal Misc. Application (482 Cr.P.C.) No.25888 of 2018 (Smt. R. vs. State of U.P. and another) before the Hon’ble High Court wherein a direction for investigation to be carried out by the police in this regard was given and the matter was remitted to the learned court to decide the application of the victim afresh and directed the Magistrate to ensure that the investigation against those accused for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is taken to its logical end strictly in accordance with law.

24. …

25. That the entire proceedings were challenged by the answering respondent herein by presenting a petition under section 482 CRPC number 41533 of 2019, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, wherein, the Honourable High Court vide it’s a well-reasoned Judgement and Final Order dated 16.12.2019, was pleased to quash the aforesaid criminal proceeding against the answering respondent by inter alia, holding and observing that if the entire material collected during evidence is assumed to be true on its face value, then also any commission of cognizable offence under 376 IPC is not made out against the answering respondent.

26. ..

27. That it is further to mention that interestingly the above said order dated 16.12.2019, passed by the Honourable High Court, thereby quashing the criminal proceedings against the answering respondent were not challenged before this honourable court by anyone for more than four years. However, after more than 4 years of passing of the order dated 16.12.2019, a petition bearing number 41533 of 2019 seeking to recall the earlier order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court was filed before the Hon’ble High Court, but, the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.04.2024.”

“3. That the correct facts are that on 03.07.2024, a call was received by Prem Singh, Former Pradhan of my Village Mudari from Police Station Sahaswan, Distt Badaun, U.P., who asked Prem Singh to bring me (Bhagwan Singh) to Police Station Sahaswan as some notice has to be served upon me. Accordingly, I accompanied Prem Singh to Police Station Sahaswan, where I was handed over three papers by the police and the true copy of the documents given to me by the police on 03.07.2024 at Police Station Sahaswan, District Badaun, Uttar Pradesh are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A (Colly). The police also obtained my signature on one form on which “Petitioner Intimation Letter” was written. The police official told me that these documents relate to a case titled as ‘Bhagwan Singh versus State of U.P’ which had been filed by me in the Supreme Court of India and the same arise out from a First Information Report lodged by me several years back with respect to my daughter’s kidnapping.

4. That as I had not filed any Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India therefore, I came to Delhi and filed my complaint before the Supreme Court of India. A true copy of the complaint dated 9.7.2024 filed with the office of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India is being annexed herewith as Annexure B hereto.

5. I say that I have never instructed any Advocate on Record or Advocate for filing the present Special Leave Petition, on my behalf and in my name before this Hon’ble Court. I further say that I have never visited the office of any of the Advocate or Advocate on Record either in New Delhi or at Allahabad for the purpose of signing the vakalatnama, affidavit or for filing the present Special Leave Petition, in any manner whatsoever. Further, I have also not travelled to Allahabad since the year 2014 for any purpose.

6. I further say that I was not even aware about the filing, pendency and disposal of A U/S 482 No. 41533/2019 before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which passed the judgment dated 16.12.2019, now under challenge in the present Special Leave Petition.”

“7. That the Deponent has attested the Affidavit dated 19.04.2024 of one Bhagwan Singh only after identifying the signature of Bhagwan Singh by an Advocate of this Hon’ble Court, namely Shri R.P.S. Yadav. However, the attested Affidavit was taken away by the Lawyer, namely Mr. R.P.S. Yadav of this Hon’ble Court and he did not turn up again, and that is why, the Deponent was not able to make entry in the Notarial Register.”

“3. That the after said incident Rinki/Sukhpal regularly met his father/Father-In-Law Bhagwan Singh at the Badaun District Court regularly. Bhagwan Singh pushing Rinki/Sukhpal for parivi of aforesaid case.

4. That the chronology of this present case was as under: –

28.06.2013 – FIR of the said incident was registered under Section 363, 366 & 376 IPC at Police Station Sehaswan, District Budaun, U.P.

05.12.2018 – That the Charge sheet has been filed by I.O, in the said FIR No. 443/2013.

03.01.2019 – That the Cognizance was taken by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the said FIR.

16.11.2019 – That the Respondent No. 2, i.e. Ajay Katara, filed an application Under Section 482 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

16.12.2019 – That the said application was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

01.02.2020 -1st recall application bearing No. 03/2020 was filed by the Sukhpal and the said applicantion’s affidavit was attested by the Sukhpal as witness and Rinki gave her signed/thumb impression on the Vakalatnama.

28.11.2021 – That the Father-In-Law Bhagwan Singh was not satisfied of merits of the 1st recall application, thereafter Bhagwan Singh filed 2nd wish to join the recall application as applicant then he gave the signed Vakalatnama dated 28.11.2021, copy of the Vakalatnama is annexed herewith as Annexure ‘B’, to Sukhpal to file a fresh recall application bearing No. 07/2020 and 8/2021 which was filed by the another advocate at Allahabad.

March 2024 – That the Sukhpal handed over a Vakalatnama to Mr. Karan Singh for arguing in recall application bearing No. 3/2020 in the High court of Judicature at Allahabad.

02.04.2024 – That the 1st recall application bearing No. 3/2020 was rejected by the Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Allahabad, arguing by Karan Singh Yadav Advocate, and the other application bearing No. 7/2020 and 8/2021 was not pressed by the Ld. Advocate.

April 2024 – That after dismissal of Recall application bearing No. 3 of 2020, Victim/Rinki wants to file Special leave petition before this Hon’ble Apex Court and for filing of Special leave petition Victim Rinki given signed Vakalatnama to Sukhpal for handed over to Mr. Karan Singh Yadav (Advocate) for further proceedings.

5. That after taken signed Vakalatnama deponent/Sukhpal came at the chamber of Mr. Karan Singh Yadav and his bag was present on his seat but Mr. Karan Singh Yadav was busy in argue in the case before Hon’ble High court Allahabad, hence he puts the signed Vakalatnama in the bag/Basta of Mr. Karan Singh Yadav and informed him by mobile phone.”

(i) The present SLPs (Appeals) proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh were filed by the Advocate on Record, Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, with his signatures at the end of the SLP memorandum and other papers. He also signed the certificate at the end of the SLP dated 19.04.2024 required to be filed in the prescribed form as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, along with the affidavit dated 24.04.2024 of Bhagwan Singh as notarized by the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh. The said Advocate on Record, Mr. Anubhav Yadav also submitted the Vakalatnama identifying and attesting the signatures of the appellant-petitioner- Mr. Bhagwan Singh. However, during the course of hearing, he had stated that – “though on Vakalatnama he had identified and attested the signature of the petitioner, that was not correct, and that he had received the Vakalatnama with the signature of the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh, from the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav who is present in the Court.” The said statements have been recorded by the Court in the order dated 31.07.2024.

(ii) Though the Learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav had stated on 30.07.2024 that the Vakalatnama was signed by the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh in his presence, on 31.07.2024, he changed his version and stated that he had received the Vakalatnama already signed by the petitioner-Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer named Karan Singh Yadav who is practicing in the Allahabad High Court.

(iii) Mr. Karan Singh Yadav, Advocate practicing at Allahabad High Court was directed to remain present before the Court on 09.08.2024 and he stated that he had received the papers of the case along with the signed Vakalatnama i.e with the signature of the petitioner- Bhagwan Singh from his client Sukhpal, son of Rishipal, who happened to be the son-in-law of Bhagwan Sing. He further stated that he had appeared before the High Court in Recall Application No.3/2020 filed on behalf of Ms. Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh seeking recall of the order dated 16.12.2019, and after the dismissal of the said application on 02.04.2024, he had asked Sukhpal to get the Vakalatnama with the signature of either Rinki or Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter, said Sukhpal gave him the papers along with the Vakalatnama signed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, which he handed over to the Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav practicing in the Supreme Court.

(iv) The Notary Mr. A.N. Singh admitted in his affidavit that he had attested the affidavit dated 19.04.2024 of one Bhagwan Singh, on Mr. RPS Yadav, Advocate having identified the signature of Bhagwan Singh. Meaning thereby, the said affidavit of Mr. Bhagwan Singh was notarized by the Notary without Bhagwan Singh being present before him and the said affidavit was submitted before the Court along with the SLP memo.

(v) The Respondent No.3- Sukhpal kept on making inconsistent statements in the court as stated in the order dated 28.08.2024. He had made the statements that he and his wife Rinki met his fatherin-law, petitioner- Bhagwan Singh 3-4 years back at Budaun, Uttar Pradesh and at that time petitioner-Bhagwan Singh had handed over the signed Vakalatnama to his wife Rinki, which she handed over to the Advocate Mr. Karan Singh, advocate practicing in the High Court of Allahabad. In the affidavit dated 02.09.2024 filed by him he had stated that the first recall application bearing no. 3/2020 was filed by him with his affidavit as the witness, and Rinki had put her thumb impressions on the Vakalatnama. He further stated that on 28.11.2021, Bhagwan Singh gave him a signed Vakalatnama to file a fresh Recall Application bearing No. 7/2020 and 8/2021, which was filed by another Advocate at Allahabad. In March, 2024, he handed over the Vakalatnama to Karan Singh for arguing the Recall Application No. 3/2020 in the High Court. According to him, in April 2024 since Rinki wanted to file SLP before the Supreme Court, she gave a signed Vakalatnama to him (Sukhpal) which he gave to Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav for filing further proceedings. He also stated that since Mr. Karan Singh Yadav was busy arguing a case, he put the signed Vakalatnama in the bag of Mr. Karan Singh Yadav and informed him by mobile phone.

(vi) On 09.09.2024, Ms. Rinki, daughter of Bhagwan Singh and wife of Sukhpal Singh stated that she used to talk to her father very often on mobile phone. She gave numbers of the phones from which she used to talk which have been recorded by the Court in the order. She further stated that 5-6 months back she and her husband Sukhpal had met her father who handed over the Vakalatnama signed by him to her. The said Vakalatnama was handed over by Mr. Sukhpal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate. Her husband, Mr. Sukhpal who was present in the Court supported the said statements made by his wife Rinki.

(vii) However, the appellant-petitioner Bhagwan Singh all throughout the proceedings maintained his stand and stated in his affidavit that he had never met his daughter Rinki or his son-in-law Sukhpal since 2013, nor he had any contact with his daughter telephonically or by any other means as sated in his affidavit he had not travelled to Allahabad since 2014 for any purpose. He also stated that he had neither filed the present SLP proceedings, nor was aware about the filing, pendency or disposal of the application under Section 482 No. 41533/2019 before the Allahabad High Court.

(viii) As transpiring from the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 Mr. Ajay Kataria that since he was a star witness in the famous Nitish Katara case, and on the basis of whose evidence the accused Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, who happened to be the son and nephew of Mr. D. P. Yadav, Ex- Minister, and M.P. were convicted, he was falsely implicated in number of cases. This is one of such cases, filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, at the instance of Respondent No.3 Sukhpal, Respondent No.2 Rinki, with the help of their Advocates appearing for them in the High Court and this Court.

As very aptly said in a book on Witness Protection-

“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. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court.”

“7. (a)…..

(b) (i) Where the vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the Advocate-on-Record, he shall certify that it was executed in his presence.

(ii) Where the Advocate-on-Record merely accepts the vakalatnama which is already duly executed in the presence of a Notary or an advocate, he shall make an endorsement thereon that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the vakalatnama.”

“13. It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the 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. Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated.”

F.No.5/Judl./2022

Dated: 30th December, 2022

Take Notice that an Online Module has been developed to facilitate procedure of marking appearances of the Advocates in the Record of Proceedings, which is going to be activated from 02.01.2023.

Take Notice that the Advocates-on-Record may mark the appearances of the Advocates appearing in the Court through the link provided on the website http://main.sci.gov.in and on the Office Mobile App of the Supreme Court of India. The said facility shall be available for the duration spanning from the publication of the Cause List on the website till 11.30 a.m. on the date of hearing of the matter. The User Manual for the same is available on the website.

In case of any query, the Advocates-on-Record may contact the concerned Court Masters, whose contact details are available on the website on daily basis.

Take further Notice that the existing practice of submitting appearance slips on Court-wise e-mail IDs shall stand dispensed with w.e.f. 02.01.2023.

Sd/-

“4. We have perused circular of the Supreme Court Registry dated 30th December, 2022 by which a portal for online appearance was activated w.e.f. 02.01.2023. In terms of the said circular, the Advocates-on-Record are permitted to mark appearances of the “advocates appearing in court.” Meaning thereby, such instruction casts onerous responsibility on the Advocates-on-Record to furnish information of the advocate appearing online or physically in the case. Apparently, it would mean that the advocate who is either present in the case or assisting them in the Court, the presence of only those is to be marked. It would not mean that the advocate, who is neither present personally nor online, may be allowed to mark his presence by furnishing online information. We cannot loose sight of the fact that furnishing such information may have bearing on the sanctity of the Court proceedings in the case.

5. We may hasten to observe that on the basis of the presence of the counsel in the proceedings, the advocates may be entitled to get certain benefits such as allotment of chamber, designation of senior advocates and other. In the long run, if the advocates, who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly. Therefore, for sanctity of the proceedings and for betterment of the Institution, online information ought to be submitted of only those advocates who are either appearing or assisting during hearing, personally or online.

6. In view of aforesaid, we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.

7. As observed, we request the member of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates as indicated, and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit. We also request the Presidents of respective Bar Associations of the Supreme Court to look into the issue and notify the members for taking corrective steps.

8. A copy of this order be sent to the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association for information and acknowledgment.”