'Fake' SLP Case : Supreme Court Asks Explanation From Notary Who Attested Petitioner's Affidavit In His Absence

In a case where a petitioner denied filing any Special Leave Petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him, the Supreme Court has sought an explanation from the Notary, who attested the affidavit of the petitioner.The Court has asked the Notary to explain by filing an affidavit as to how he attested the petitioner's affidavit in his absence.Previously, the Court had expressed utter shock on finding out that the vakalatnama for filing of the SLP was not signed by the petitioner. Rather, someone had impersonated him and filed the case under a conspiracy.The respondents told the Court that the order impugned in the SLP put an end to criminal proceedings against the only witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case, and the SLP was filed in an attempt to continue the false case against him (without the petitioner's knowledge).In the latest development, the bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma also sought an explanation from the Registry on affidavit, as to why the appearance of certain advocates who appeared in the Nitish Katara Murder accused's case was recorded in the order sheet(s) of the present case."Let the Notary...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...was attested by him in his absence...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", the Court ordered.To recap, Nitish Katara was a Delhi businessman who was murdered in 2002 by one Vikas Yadav, son of politician DP Yadav. The trial court had found it to be a case of honor killing and convicted Vikas Yadav, giving him a life sentence in 2008. In 2016, the Supreme Court had sentenced Vikas Yadav to 25 years' imprisonment without remission.One AK was a witness in the case, who testified to seeing Nitish Katara with the accused on the fateful night. Apparently, the witness was tried to be poisoned on one occasion and implicated in as many as 37 criminal cases.The present case began with the petitioner filing an FIR against one SS and others, alleging that they kidnapped his daughter R and took her away. Subsequently, R made a statement that she married SS willingly, however, she was raped by AK, who met the two of them when they eloped.On an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against AK. An application for recall of this order was filed by R, however, the same was dismissed. Against this dismissal, the present SLP was filed in the name of the petitioner (R's father).The matter was first listed on May 17, 2024, when notice was issued by a bench of Justices Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal. Thereafter, on July 9, 2024, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the SC Registry stating that on July 3, he was called to a police station in Buduan, UP, where he was given notice of the present case and his signatures were obtained on a form.In his letter, the petitioner clarified that he had neither engaged any advocate to file the instant SLP, nor signed any vakalatnama or affidavit in that regard. He also claimed that someone else filed the petition under a conspiracy and sought strict action against such person(s).After that, an office report was placed by the Registry before the bench of Justices Trivedi and Sharma, where it was mentioned that the petitioner claimed to not have filed the SLP.On July 31, the bench considered the issue of the petitioner's signatures on a vakalatnama. When it was informed by an AoR that he received the petitioner's signed vakalatnama from another advocate (Advocate C), and did not witness the petitioner sign it himself, the bench expressed serious displeasure.When the matter was taken up on August 9, Advocate E, who represented the petitioner's daughter 'R' before Allahabad High Court, entered appearance. He apprised the Court that he he had received the case papers, alongwith the petitioner's signed vakalatnama, from his client SS (the petitioner's son-in-law), after he told the latter that to file an SLP against the impugned order, vakalatnama of either R or the petitioner would be required. Advocate E added that on receipt of the same, he handed over the case papers to Advocate C (who practiced before the Supreme Court). On his part, Advocate C admitted that the petitioner was not himself present when the Notary notarized the memo of the SLP. Rather, Advocate C identified the petitioner's signatures and the Notary notarized the memo.Hearing the above, the Court directed the concerned Notary to appear before it on the next date. Besides him, the petitioner, his daughter 'R' and his son-in-law were also directed to remain present. On this occasion, it was also expressed that the issue arising in the case was...

'Fake' SLP Case : Supreme Court Asks Explanation From Notary Who Attested Petitioner's Affidavit In His Absence

Debby Jain

Tags