Holding

The Court held that filing false proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his knowledge, together with the fabrication of documents by advocates and a notary, constitutes fraud on the court and abuse of process, warranting a CBI investigation.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined criminal appeals filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, who alleged that his son‑in‑law and daughter had fabricated vakalatnamas, affidavits and other documents to lodge a Special Leave Petition and related proceedings without his knowledge, thereby attempting to falsely implicate Ajay Katara, a star witness in the Nitish Katara murder case. The Court found that multiple advocates, a notary and the respondents colluded to forge signatures, misuse the online appearance system and file false applications in both the High Court and Supreme Court, constituting fraud on the court and abuse of process. It held that such conduct not only harms the person falsely implicated but also undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, the Court directed that the matter be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, with the original records to be handed over, and ordered that the appeals be disposed of. The judgment also reiterated the professional duties of advocates and notaries under the Bar Council of India Rules, Supreme Court Rules and Notaries Act.

Issues considered

Whether filing Special Leave Petitions and other proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his consent amounts to fraud on the court and abuse of process of law.
Whether the advocates and the notary who forged vakalatnamas and affidavits can be held liable under the Notaries Act and professional misconduct provisions.
Whether the false proceedings constitute offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the appearance‑marking practice by Advocates‑on‑Record violated the Supreme Court Rules on online appearances.
Whether the matter should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Legislation cited

Bar Council of India Ruless. Chapter II Part VI
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 363, s. 366, s. 376
Notaries Act, 1952s. 8
Notaries Rules, 1956s. 11
Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Order IV, s. Order XXI, s. Order XXII

Subjects

Abuse of process of lawMisuse of process of lawFraudFraud on CourtFalse proceedingsFalse, fabricated documentsNitish Katara caseFalse implicationUnscrupulous litigantsNotaryNotarized by NotaryVakaltnamasCBIInvestigation handed over to CBIAffidavit notarized in absence of personWitnessesCondition of witnessesLegal professionRole of advocatesDegradation of professional ethicsAdvocates-on-Record (AoRs)Appearances given by AoRs

Judgment

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 774 : 2024 INSC 708

Bhagwan Singh
v.
State of U.P. & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3883-3884 of 2024)
20 September 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner
respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent
No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the
accused son and nephew of Ex-Minister and M.P. Mr. D.P. Yadav
were convicted, by filing various false proceedings in the name of
the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority in the
High Court and Supreme Court with the assistance of a battery
of advocates and many other unknown persons. Present SLP
was filed against Respondent No.2 in the name of the petitioner
against the order allowing the Respondent No.2’s application
u/s.482, CrPC quashing the criminal proceedings against him
and another order rejecting the recall application filed against the
aforesaid order. Affidavit of the petitioner was notarized by the
Notary in his absence and was submitted with the SLP memo.
Petitioner denied filing any SLP and stated that the same was
falsely filed in his name.

Headnotes†
Abuse of process of law – Fraud on Court – False proceedings
filed in the name of the petitioner in the High Court and
Supreme Court without his knowledge, consent or authority
by filing false and fabricated vakaltnamas, affidavit – Whether
the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 made attempts to falsely implicate
the Respondent No.2 by filing the aforesaid false proceedings
with the assistance of advocates:
Held: Yes – Respondent No.2 is being made to suffer for being
witness in the Nitish Katara case by continuously targeting him with
false and frivolous cases, including the present one at the behest of
Yadav family and their associates – To create or to assist creating
false documents and to use them as genuine knowing them to be
* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 775

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

false in the Court proceedings, to falsely implicate somebody in
the false proceedings filed in the name of the person who had no
knowledge whatsoever about the same are punishable offences –
They are 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 also
a fraud committed on the Courts – In the present case, High Court
and Supreme Court were taken for a ride and the entire justice
delivery system was put to stake by the respondent nos.3 and 4,
their associates and the Advocates, who helped them in forging and
fabricating the documents filed in the High Court and Supreme Court,
and to pursue the false proceedings filed in the name of the petitioner
without his knowledge, consent or authority – In the extraordinary
facts and circumstances, considering the gravity and seriousness of
the case, investigation handed over to the CBI – CBI to register the
regular case, after holding preliminary inquiry if necessary, against
all the persons found involved and responsible, and shall investigate
all the links leading to the commission of the alleged crimes and
fraud on court – Director, CBI to do the needful in this regard and
submit the report within two months. [Paras 26, 29, 32]

Notaries Act 1952 – Notaries Rules 1956 – r.11 – Acts or
omissions on the part of the Notary in violation thereof –
Affidavit of the petitioner was notarized by the Notary in his
absence and the said affidavit was submitted with the SLP
memo – Notary did not make the entry of the said attestation
in the Notarial Register – Petitioner denied filing any SLP
stating that the same was falsely filed in his name:
Held: Any acts or omissions on the part of the Notary in violation
of r.11, would amount to misconduct and the Notary complained
against would be unfit to be a Notary – Registry to send a copy
of the order to the Bar Council of India and the Government of
India for perusal and action as deemed necessary. [Paras 37, 38]

Justice Delivery System – Role of advocates – Ethics –
Degradation of the professional ethics on rise – Filing of false
false and fabricated documents in Court:
Held: Legal professionals are not immune from being prosecuted
for their criminal misdeeds – There is a great sanctity attached to
the proceedings conducted in the court – Advocates putting their
signatures on the Vakalatnamas and on the documents to be filed
776 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in the Courts are presumed to have filed the proceedings and put
their appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness.
[Para 31]

Practice and Procedure – Appearances given by Advocates-on-
Record (AoRs) – Names of Advocates shown in the Order Sheets
though, they neither appeared as an AOR nor as arguing/Senior
Counsel – The said issue came up as the Respondent No.2
contended that being a star witness in the Nitish Katara case,
he was being falsely implicated in number of cases including
the present case filed in the name of the petitioner without his
knowledge, consent or authority and some of the advocates
shown as appearing in the present SLP are the same advocates
who appeared in the SLP filed by the accused in the Nitish
Katara case – Plea of the AR-cum-PS/Court Masters relying on
Circular/Notice dated 30.12.2022 that AoRs are authorized to
put in appearance of the Advocates appearing with or on his/
her behalf on the portal for filing online appearance slips and
as they cannot recognize every Advocate appearing so they
have to rely upon the appearances put in by the AoRs:
Held: AoRs can mark the appearances of only those Advocates
who are actually appearing and arguing in the case on a particular
day of hearing – The Notice does not permit the AoRs to mark
appearances of the Advocates who are not authorized either to
appear and argue the case. [Para 40]

Case Law Cited
Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615; V.
Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors. [2012] 10
SCR 603 : 2012 (12) SCC 133; Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2023] 15 SCR 848 : (2024) 6 SCC 401 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
Whittaker Chambers, Witness Quotes (Washington DC, Regnery
Gateway, 1952) p.5; Witness Protection in Criminal Trial in India
by Girish Abhyankar & Asawari Abhyankar.

List of Acts
Notaries Act, 1952; Notaries Rules, 1956; Supreme Court Rules,
2013; Bar Council of India Rules; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 777

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

List of Keywords
Abuse of process of law; Misuse of process of law; Fraud; Fraud
on Court; False proceedings; False, fabricated documents; Nitish
Katara case; False implication; Unscrupulous litigants; Notary;
Notarized by Notary; Vakaltnamas; CBI; Investigation handed
over to CBI; Affidavit notarized in absence of person; Witnesses;
Condition of witnesses; Legal profession; Role of advocates;
Degradation of professional ethics; Advocates-on-Record (AoRs);
Appearances given by AoRs.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
3883-3884 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2019 and 02.04.2024
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 41533 of
2019 and CRMRA No. 3 of 2020 respectively

Appearances for Parties
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Anubhav, Ms. Jemtiben AO, Nikhil
Majithia, Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Harsh Pratap Shahi, Sanchar Anand, Apoorva
Singhal, Shiv Kumar, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.

PREFACE
3. While the finest of the legal minds and legal eagles on the Bench
and in the Bar of the Supreme Court are busy developing the best
of the jurisprudence and laying down the best of the laws for the
country, there are certain sinister cabal of unscrupulous litigants and
778 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

a coterie of their counsellors, who are always busy in taking undue
advantage of the systemic lacunae and in misusing the process of
law, in turn damaging the image of the Courts as also of the entire
legal fraternity/legal profession. The huge quantum of work load in
the Courts, limitations of the human agencies in manning the Justice
Delivery System and the fertile minds of the unscrupulous litigants
and their legal counsellors are some of the factors responsible for
not allowing the Justice Delivery System to work as effectively and
efficiently as it is expected to work.
4. 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. This is what a citizen
of the democratic country like India, governed by Rule of Law would
legitimately expect from the Courts. The Courts are called the
‘Temple of Justice’. However, often brazen attempts are being made
to abuse and misuse the process of law by committing frauds on
Courts. This is one of such cases where such an attempt has been
made to pollute the stream of justice. With this little Preface let us
deal with the facts of the case.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
5. The instant two appeals were sought to be filed in the name of
the appellant- Bhagwan Singh. One Appeal is filed challenging the
Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in an Application under Section 482 No.
41533 of 2019, filed by the respondent no. 2 – Ajay Katara, whereby
the High Court had allowed the said Application and quashed the
entire proceedings in respect of the Supplementary Chargesheet No.
163A dated 05.12.2018 in Case No. 410 of 2014, arising out of the
Case Crime No. 443 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC at
Police Station Sehaswan, District Budaun, pending in the Court of
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Budaun. The other Appeal
is filed challenging the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous Recall Application No.3/2020, whereby the High Court
had rejected the said application.
6. Vide the order dated 17.05.2024, this Court had issued Notice to
the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 on the application seeking condonation
of delay as well as on the SLPs, making it returnable after eight
weeks. The Registry vide the office report dated 29.07.2024 submitted
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 779

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

that a letter dated 09.07.2024 was received from Bhagwan Singh
(in vernacular language) wherein it was stated that he had not filed any
SLP before this Court and the same was falsely filed in his name. It
was also stated in the said office report that an email dated 29.07.2024
was received from Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, Advocate that he
was appearing on behalf of the appellant- Bhagwan Singh.
7. When the matter was listed on 30.07.2024, Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned
advocate appearing along with the AOR Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh
Gautam, drew the attention of the Court to the office report dated
29.07.2024 and the letter dated 09.07.2024 received by the office
from the appellant-Bhagwan Singh and submitted that the appellant
was personally present in the Court and was confirming the contents
of his letter dated 09.07.2024. We, therefore called for the original
papers from the Registry to verify the signature of Shri Bhagwan
Singh on the ‘Vakalatnama’ filed in the SLP. One Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, an
Advocate who was present in the Court on the said date stated that
he had an instruction to appear on behalf of Mr. Anubhav, Advocate
on Record, who had signed on the ‘Vakalatnama’ identifying and
attesting the signature of Bhagwan Singh as the petitioner-appellant
on the Vakalatnama. Since the AOR Mr. Anubhav was not present in
the Court, the matter was adjourned to the next date i.e. 31.07.2024.
8. On 31.07.2024, the AOR Mr. Anubhav, remained present before
the Court. Since on 30.07.2024, the learned Advocate Mr. R.P.S.
Yadav had stated that the ‘Vakalatnama’ was signed by the
appellant-Bhagwan Singh in his presence, and on 31.07.2024 he had
changed his version by stating that he had received the ‘Vakalatnama’
with the signature of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh from one lawyer
named Mr. Karan Singh practicing in the Allahabad High Court, the
Court had directed the Registry to issue notice to the said Advocate
Mr. Karan Singh for remaining present before the Court on 09.08.2024.
9. The Court on 31.07.2024 passed the following order recording the
statements of Mr. Anubhav, Mr. R.P.S. Yadav and Mr. Bhagwan Singh.
“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
780 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 781

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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.”.
10. On 09.08.2024, the said Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav practicing
in Allahabad High Court remained present before the Court and
stated that he had received the papers of the case along with signed
‘Vakalatnama’ i.e. with the signature of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh
from his client Sukhpal Singh, who happened to be the son-in-law
of Bhagwan Singh. He also stated 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,
for recalling of the Order dated 16.12.2019 (which is impugned
herein), and since the Sukhpal Singh wanted to file the Special
Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, he (Karan Singh) had
asked Sukhpal Singh to get the ‘Vakalatnama’ with the signature
of either Rinki or Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter the said Sukhpal
Singh gave him the papers along with the ‘Vakalatnama’ signed
in the name of Bhagwan Singh, which he had handed over to the
Advocate Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, practicing in the Supreme Court. It may
be noted that the said Bhagwan Singh who was also present in
the Court on 09.08.2024 stated that his daughter Rinki had eloped
and married with Sukhpal Singh in 2013 and since then he had
not met either Sukhpal Singh or his daughter Rinki, and therefore
he could not have signed the ‘Vakalatnama’ or the papers of the
SLP. At this juncture Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, learned advocate stated
that he had prepared the Memo of SLP and got it attested through
the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and at that time the appellant-Bhagwan
Singh was not present; and that he had identified the signature
of Bhagwan Singh before the Notary, and thereafter handed over
the papers to the AOR Mr. Anubhav for presenting in the Supreme
Court. The learned AOR Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav also stated
that Mr. R.P.S. Yadav having prepared the SLP Memo and got the
papers ready, he had put his signature as an AOR on the Memo
of SLP and also on the ‘Vakalatnama’ stating that he had attested
and identified the signature of appellant – Bhagwan Singh. In
782 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

view of the said statements, the Court had directed the Notary
Mr. A. N. Singh to remain present before the Court on the next date
of hearing. Ms. Rinki, the daughter of the appellant and her husband
Mr. Sukhpal Singh were also directed to remain present before the
Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 23.08.2024.
11. The Order dated 09.08.2024 reads as under:
“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 02-04-2024. 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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 783

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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. M r. A n u b h a v Ya s h w a n t Ya d a v, l e a r n e d
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
784 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.”
12. On 23.08.2024, the matter was directed to be listed on 28.08.2024,
on which date the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh and Mr. Sukhpal Singh,
son-in-law of the appellant-Bhagwan Singh were present. However,
Ms. Rinki was not present on the ground that she was down with
fever. The Court recorded the statements of the Notary Mr. A.N.
Singh and Mr. Sukhpal Singh as reflected in the order and directed
them to file their respective affidavits. At this juncture, Mr. Nikhil
Majithia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bhagwan
Singh and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent no. 2- Ajay Katara submitted that one Vikas Yadav, son
of Mr. D.P. Yadav, Former Member of Parliament, was convicted in
the famous Nitish Katara Case only on the basis of the testimony
of Respondent no. 2 – Ajay Katara, who was the witness in the
said case and therefore number of false cases were filed against
him and this one is filed against respondent no. 2, in the name of
Bhagwan Singh. They also drew the attention of the Court to the
list of Advocates shown in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings
dated 10.06.2024 of SLP(Crl.) No. 7893 of 2024 filed by said Vikas
Yadav before this Court and submitted that out of 10 Advocates
mentioned therein, 08 Advocates are also shown as appearing
advocates in the Order Sheets/Record of Proceedings dated
30.07.2024 in the present SLP. In view of the said submissions,
the Court had directed the Registry 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. The Court
also directed Mr. Sukhpal Singh and Ms. Rinki to be impleaded
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 785

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

as party respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the present proceedings and
call for the original record of the Application under Section 482 No.
41533/2019 from the Allahabad High Court.
13. The Order dated 28.08.2024 reads as under:
“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.
786 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 father-in-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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 787

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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.”
788 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

14. On 03.09.2024, the said Rinki, Bhagwan Singh and the Notary,
Mr. A.N. Singh, were present in the Court, however, the Court was
busy in the Special Bench matter(s), therefore directed the office to
list the matter on 09.09.2024. On 09.09.2024 Ms. Rinki, Mr. Sukhpal
Singh, learned advocates Mr. Karan Singh & Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, Mr.
Anubhav, AOR and the Notary Mr. A.N. Singh were present in the Court.
Ms. Rinki stated that she used to talk to her father- Bhagwan Singh very
often on telephone and that five-six months back, she and her husband
Mr. Sukhpal had met her father at Budaun, who had handed over the
‘Vakalatnama’ signed by him to her, which was in turn handed over by
her husband Mr. Sukhpal to Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate practicing in
the High Court of Allahabad. At this juncture, the appellant-Bhagwan
Singh refuted the said statement made by Ms. Rinki and reiterated
that he had neither met his daughter nor his son-in-law since the year
2013, nor he had any telephonic contact with her or by way of any
other mode at any point of time. Learned Advocate Mr. Karan Singh
and Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, reiterated their earlier stand. Mr. Amar Nath
Singh, Notary represented through the senior advocate Mr. Sanjay
R. Hegde tendered apology as stated in his affidavit. Mr. Anubhav
Yadav, learned AOR represented by the learned senior advocate
Mr. Siddharth Dave, also tendered unconditional apology.
15. The Order passed on 09.09.2024 reads as under: -
“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;
a. 9027068541- her own mobile number.
b. 6399367927- mobile number of her husband
c. 8077687246- mobile number of her brother-in-law,
Dhaalu.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 789

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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”.
790 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

16. So far as affidavits filed in the present appeals are concerned, the
Respondent No.2- Mr. Ajay Katara has filed his counter-affidavit
dated 26.07.2024 resisting the present proceedings on the ground
of delay and on merits. While narrating the history of the case to
show as to how he was falsely implicated, he has stated as under: -
“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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 791

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

continues to be under pressure for having appeared as
a witness. The Hon’ble Court has observed as under: -
“The only public witness Ajay Kumar who could
not be influenced and stood by his statement has
needed court orders for police protection and is being
subjected to multiple criminal complaints by relatives
of the appellants or persons associated to them. The
fact that all these complaints and cases arose only
after he surfaced before the police speaks for itself.”
“...we have noted the traumatization and the pressure
put on Ajay Katara to prevent him from deposing
in the present case. Prior to the case in hand Ajay
Katara seems to have been living an ordinary
existence... Post the murder of Nitish Katara and
his deposition as a witness in the case, he is facing
multiple cases…..”
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.
792 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 793

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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
794 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Hon’ble High Court, but, the same was dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court on 02.04.2024.”
17. The appellant-Bhagwan Singh pursuant to the order passed by the
Court dated 31.07.2024 filed an affidavit dated 06.08.2024 stating
inter alia the following: -
“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.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 795

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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.”
18. The Advocate/Notary Mr. Amar Nath Singh filed his affidavit dated
31.08.2024 in compliance with the order dated 28.08.2024 stating
inter alia the provisions of Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and
Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and further stated as under: -
“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.”
19. Mr. Sukhpal newly added Respondent No.3 also filed an affidavit
dated 02.09.2024 in compliance with the order dated 28.08.2024
passed by the Court. He stated inter alia as follows: -
“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.
796 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.”
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 797

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

20. From the aforesaid affidavits of the concerned Parties and the Notary
and the statements of the concerned Advocates recorded by the
Courts in the orders, the following facts emerge: -
(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
798 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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 father-in-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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 799

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT
21. The Court vide the order dated 28.08.2024 had directed the Registrar
General of Allahabad High Court to send the original records and
proceedings pertaining to the Application filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C bearing No.41533/2019. From the perusal of the Records
of the said case, it is found that the said Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C was filed by the present Respondent No. 2- Ajay Katara
against the State of U.P and Bhagwan Singh seeking quashing of
the proceedings of the supplementary chargesheet No.163A filed
against him in case No.410/2014 for the offence under Section 363,
800 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

366, 376 IPC. It appears that no Vakalatnama was filed in the said
proceedings on behalf of Bhagwan Singh, who was the opponent
No.2 in the said Application, however as recorded by the High
Court in the impugned order dated 16.12.2019, Senior Advocate Mr.
Anoop Trivedi assisted by the Advocates Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav
and Pradeep Kumar had appeared for the opposite party No.2 i.e.
Bhagwan Singh and argued the said Application. It is pertinent to note
that in the said proceedings Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav had
filed his Vakalatnama for Rinki on 21.11.2019, though she was not
a party to the proceedings. It further appears that though the said
Application under Section 482 was allowed by the High Court vide the
order dated 16.12.2019, a Vakalatnama with the thumb impression
of Bhagwan Singh was sought to be filed by the Advocates, Mr. Jai
Singh Yadav and Mr. P.B. Mishra on 30.11.2023 i.e. almost 4 years
after the disposal of the said Application.
22. From the record of the said Application being No. 41533/2019, it
further appears that a Criminal Miscellaneous Recall Application
No.3/2020 was sought to be filed in the name of the applicant- Rinki
by Advocates Arun Kumar Mishra and Hemant Kumar Srivastava,
seeking recall of the order dated 16.12.2019 in the said Application
no. 41533/2019. It is very pertinent to note that in the said Recall
Application, Mr. Sukhpal filed an affidavit on 01.02.2020 in support of
the Recall Application though he was not a party to the proceedings.
The Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav appeared for the opponent
No.2 Bhagwan Singh, though in the record there is no Vakalatnama
filed by Karan Singh Yadav for Bhagwan Singh either in the Recall
Application proceedings or in the Main Application under Section 482.
As transpiring from the Order dated 02.04.2024, it appears that the
main contention raised by Mr. Karan Singh was that the opponent
no.2 Bhagwan Singh was not given opportunity of filing counter
affidavit before passing the judgment on 16.12.2019 in the Main
Application under Section 482.
23. It further appears that Criminal Miscellaneous Recall Application
Nos. 7/2020 and 8/2021 were also filed by one Advocate Mr. Alok
Kumar Yadav on 20.12.2020 seeking condonation of delay and on
28.11.2020 seeking recall of the order dated 16.12.2019. Along
with the said Applications, one affidavit with the signature of said
Advocate Alok Kumar Yadav, without the signature of Bhagwan
Singh on whose behalf it was sought to be filed and without the
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 801

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

signature of the Oath Commissioner, was sought to be filed. The
said Alok Yadav also filed his Vakalatnama on 28.11.2021 with the
alleged thumb mark of Bhagwan Singh. All the said three Recall
applications were argued by the Advocate Karan Singh Yadav
purportedly on behalf of Bhagwan Singh, who was opponent No.2
in the main proceedings under Section 482 filed by Ajay Katara. The
Recall Application No.3/2020 came to be rejected by the Court vide
order dated 02.04.2024 by observing that the main case was argued
by the two reputed Senior Advocates appearing for the opponent
No.2, as stated in the judgment dated 16.12.2019. The other two
Recall Applications being No. 7/2020 and 8/2021 were not pressed
for by the said Advocate Mr. Karan Singh Yadav and therefore were
dismissed vide the said order dated 02.04.2024.
24. From the said proceedings of the High Court, it clearly emerges
that though there was no Vakalatnama filed on behalf of Bhagwan
Singh who was opponent No.2 in the Application under Section
482 No. 41533 of 2019, two Senior Advocates and other Advocates
made their submissions on behalf of Bhagwan Singh. After the final
judgment was passed by the High Court on 16.12.2019, three Recall
Applications came to be filed one after the other, almost four years
after the said judgment in the name of Bhagwan Singh and Rinki.
The concerned advocates also appeared on behalf of the Bhagwan
Singh without his authority, knowledge or consent.
25. From the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that the
Respondent No.3 Mr. Sukhpal, son of Rishipal and Respondent
No.4 Ms. Rinki, wife of Sukhpal, with the able assistance of a
battery of advocates in the Supreme Court namely AOR Mr.
Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, Mr. R.P.S Yadav, Mr. Karan Singh
Yadav along with the Advocate and notary Mr. A.N. Singh, and
a battery of Advocates in the High Court namely Santosh Kumar
Yadav, Jai Singh Yadav, Alok Kumar Yadav and Karan Singh
Yadav and many other unknown persons had made brazen
attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2 Ajay Katara
by filing false proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh in the
High Court and Supreme Court, by filing false and fabricated
documents. Though, the said Bhagwan Singh had never met any
of the said Advocates nor had instructed any advocates to file the
proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court and, though he
had never met his daughter Rinki and son- in-law, Sukh Pal since the
802 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

time they had eloped and married with each other in 2013, they with
the help and assistance of the said Advocates had tried to misuse
and abuse the process of law and malign the stream of justice.
26. It is also very pertinent to note that as stated earlier, the said
Respondent no.2-Ajay Katara was the star witness in the famous
Nitish Katara Murder Case and on the basis of his evidence along
with the other evidence the accused in the said case namely Vikas
Yadav and Vishal Yadav, (who happened to be the son and nephew
of D.P. Yadav, Ex-Minister and Member of Parliament) were convicted
and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court. In the appeal,
the High Court had confirmed the conviction and further ordered that
the said two accused shall not be entitled to any remission till they
have completed 25 years of actual sentence. The said judgment
was also confirmed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Katara is made to
suffer for being witness in the said case. As stated by him in the
affidavit, he was subjected to continuous threats and still continues
to be under pressure for having appeared as the witness. He has
stated that before the said case, he had no case civil or criminal
filed against him, and after the said case, he has been continuously
targeted with a campaign of false and frivolous cases and named in
around thirty-seven cases, including the present one at the behest
of Yadav family and their associates. However, he has been cleared
in 35 out of 37 cases.
27. It would not be out of place to reiterate that the witnesses play
a vital role in facilitating the court to arrive at a correct findings,
particularly in criminal trials. As rightly said by Jeremy Bentham, an
English Philosopher and jurist, “the witnesses are the eyes and ears
of justice.” They are the backbone in the decision making process
in the adversial system prevalent in India. In the words of Whittaker
Chambers, a witness is -
“a man whose life and faith are so completely one that
when the challenge comes to step out and testify for his
faith, he does so, disregarding all risks, accepting all
consequences.”1

1 Whittaker Chambers, WITNESS QUOTES (Washington DC, Regnery Gateway, 1952) p. 5
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 803

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

As very aptly said in a book on Witness Protection-
“In search of truth, he plays that sacred role of the sun,
which eliminates the darkness of ignorance and illuminates
the face of justice, encircled by devils of humanity and
compassion.2
28. However, the condition of witnesses in the Indian Legal System is
very pathetic. The witnesses are threatened, coerced by using force
and lured by monetary considerations, at the instances of those
who are in power, their henchmen and hirelings, with a view to
smother and stifle truth, and to make mockery of justice. Though the
“Witness Protection Scheme, 2018” has been framed by the Central
Government and approved by this Court in Mahendra Chawla vs.
Union of India3 there is hardly any effective implementation of the
same.
29. To create or to assist creating false documents and to use them as
genuine knowing them to be false in the Court proceedings, to falsely
implicate somebody in the false proceedings filed in the name of
the person who had no knowledge whatsoever about the same are
the acts attributable to the offences punishable under the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 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. As held by this Court in V. Chandrasekaran &
Anr. vs. Administrative Officer & Ors.4
“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,

2 Witness Protection in Criminal Trial in India by Girish Abhyankar & Asawari Abhyankar
3 [2018] 14 SCR 627 : (2019) 14 SCC 615
4 [2012] 10 SCR 603 : 2012 12 SCC 133
804 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse
of process of the court.”
30. 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.
31. People repose immense faith in Judiciary, and the Bar being an
integral part of the Justice delivery system, has been assigned a very
crucial role for preserving the independence of justice and the very
democratic set up of the country. The legal profession is perceived
to be essentially a service oriented, noble profession and the lawyers
are perceived to be very responsible officers of the court and an
important adjunct of the administration of justice. In the process of
overall depletion and erosion of ethical values and degradation of
the professional ethics, the instances of professional misconduct are
also on rise. There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings
conducted in the court. Every Advocate putting his signatures on
the Vakalatnamas and on the documents to be filed in the Courts,
and every Advocate appearing for a party in the courts, particularly
in the Supreme Court, the highest court of the country is presumed
to have filed the proceedings and put his/her appearance with all
sense of responsibility and seriousness. No professional much less
legal professional, is immuned from being prosecuted for his/her
criminal misdeeds.
32. In the extraordinary facts and circumstances, and 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 CBI shall register the regular case, after holding
preliminary inquiry if necessary to do so, against all the persons
found involved and responsible, and shall investigate all the links
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 805

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

leading to the commission of the alleged crimes and fraud on court.
The Director, CBI is directed to do the needful in this regard and to
submit the report to this court within two months. The office is directed
to hand over Original Record of the Application under Section 482
No.41533/2019 and Recall Applications 3/2020, 7/2020 and 8/2021
and the Original Record of the instant Appeals to the Director, CBI in
a sealed cover, after retaining the certified copies of all the records
of the said proceedings and instant appeals.

WAY FORWARD TO CORRECTIVE MEASURES
33. This is the opportune time to remind the Advocates about the Standard
of Professional misconduct and Etiquettes as contained in Chapter II
Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. As stated in the Preamble
thereof, an Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner
befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member
of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may
be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar,
or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity, may
still be improper for an advocate. Though an Advocate is expected
to fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, his conduct must
conform to the Rules of Conduct and Etiquettes laid down in the
said Chapter, both in letter and in spirit.
34. The role and the duty of the Advocates particularly Advocates-on-
Record are contained in Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The relevant part of Rule 7 Order IV of the said Rules reads as under:
“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.”
35. The Special Leave Petitions civil or criminal have to be filed in the
Supreme Court in compliance with the Rules contained in Order XXI
and XXII of the said Rules.
806 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

36. As observed by this Court in Saumya Chaurasia vs. Directorate
of Enforcement 5 -
“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.”
37. Similarly, the Notaries Act 1952 regulates the profession of Notaries.
The functions and duties of Notaries are enumerated in Section 8
thereof. The transaction of business by a Notary is contained in
Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules 1956. Any acts or omissions thereof,
on the part of the Notary would tantamount to misconduct, and the
person complained against would be unfit to be a Notary.
38. Having recorded above, the Registry is directed to send a copy of
the order to the Bar Council of India and to the Government of India
for necessary perusal and action as may be deemed necessary.
39. So far as the listing of the names of the Advocates in the Order
Sheets is concerned, in response to the order passed by the Court
on 28.08.2024, directing the Registry 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, it has been
submitted by the concerned officers i.e. AR-cum-PS/Court Masters
inter alia that the Advocate on Records have been authorized to put

5 [2023] 15 SCR 848 : (2024) 6 SCC 401
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 807

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

in appearance of the Advocates appearing with or on his/her behalf on
the portal for filing on-line appearance slips in view of Office Circular
dated 30.12.2022. It is further stated that it is not possible for the Court
Masters to recognize every Advocate appearing in the Court rooms by
face and therefore, they have to rely upon the appearance put in by
the Advocates-on-Record. In case a Senior Advocate is appearing but
his/her name is not reflected in the appearance slip, the Court Masters
include their names. The said Circular/Notice dated 30.12.2022 relied
upon by the AR-cum-PSs/Court Masters reads as under:
“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
F.No.5/Judl./2022
Dated: 30th December, 2022
NOTICE
Re: Activation of Portal of Filing Online Appearance
Slips
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/-
(Puneet Sehgal) (Chirag Bhanu Singh)
Registrar (J-III) Registrar (J-I)”
808 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

40. From the bare reading of Notice, it clearly transpires that the Notice
only permits the Advocate-On-Record to mark the appearances of
the Advocates appearing in the Court, through the link provided
on the website or on the office mobile app of the Supreme Court.
Meaning thereby, the Advocate on Record may mark the appearances
of those Advocates who are actually appearing in the case i.e. the
Advocate-on-Record and the Advocates who are going to appear
and argue the case on a particular day of hearing. The Advocate
on Record is expected to know before 11:30 a.m. on the date of
hearing as to which Advocate/Advocates is/are going to appear/
argue the particular case, and is accordingly required to mark their
appearances as instructed in the Notice. The Notice nowhere permits
the Advocates-on-Record to mark appearances of the Advocates who
are not authorized either to appear and argue the case.
41. Recently the Coordinate Bench on interpretation of the said Circular
dated 30.12.2022 vide the Order dated 29.08.2024 in Contempt
Petition(C)No. 1188/2018 in C.A. No. 2703 of 2017 observed and
directed as under:
“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, sch 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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 809

Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

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.”
42. 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
810 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters
shall act accordingly.
43. The Appeals stand disposed of in terms of this Order. However, the
same be listed for the submission of the Report by the CBI on 25th
November, 2024.

Result of the Case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey