Today, the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an inquiry into a case in which the petitioner denied submitting any special leave petition and expressed unfamiliarity with the advocates who represented him.

Further, the order challenged in the special leave petition stays criminal proceedings against the sole witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara murder case. However, respondents indicated during the court proceedings that the SLP was filed in an effort to perpetuate a false case against him, unbeknownst to the petitioner.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the case and reserved its verdict on September 9, signaling that it would not treat the matter lightly. Today, the judgment was delivered, authored by Justice Trivedi.

The bench notably remarked that the false proceedings not only defrauded the individual (petitioner) in whose name the SLP was filed, but also misled the Court itself.

To recap, Nitish Katara, a Delhi businessman, was murdered in 2002 by Vikas Yadav, the son of politician DP Yadav. The trial court classified the case as an honor killing, convicting Vikas Yadav and sentencing him to life imprisonment in 2008. In 2016, the Supreme Court reduced his sentence to 25 years' imprisonment without the possibility of remission.

One AK was a witness in the case, testifying that he saw Nitish Katara with the accused on the night of the murder. Notably, the witness faced an assassination attempt involving poisoning on one occasion and was 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 of the CrPC, the Allahabad High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against AK. R subsequently filed an application to recall this order, but it was dismissed. In response to this dismissal, the present special leave petition was filed in the name of the petitioner, who is R's father.

The matter was first listed on May 17, 2024, when a bench of Justices Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal issued a notice. Subsequently, on July 9, 2024, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court Registry, stating that on July 3, he was summoned to a police station in Buduan, UP, where he received notice regarding the present case and was asked to sign a form.

In his letter, the petitioner clarified that he had neither retained an advocate to file the current SLP nor signed any vakalatnama or affidavit in that context. He further claimed that someone else had filed the petition as part of a conspiracy and requested strict action against those involved.

Subsequently, an office report was submitted by the Registry to the bench of Justices Trivedi and Sharma, noting that the petitioner claimed not to have filed the SLP.

On July 31, the bench addressed the issue of the petitioner's signatures on the vakalatnama. When an Advocate on Record (AoR) informed the court that he had received the signed vakalatnama from another advocate (Advocate C) and had not witnessed the petitioner sign it himself, the bench expressed serious displeasure.

When the matter was revisited, the concerned Notary appeared and acknowledged the error of attesting the petitioner's affidavit in his absence, having relied on Advocate C’s identification of the petitioner's signatures. In contrast, SS stated that he and his wife R had met the petitioner 3-4 years prior, during which the petitioner provided R with a signed vakalatnama, which he claimed was then given to Advocate E.

On September 9, the bench reserved its orders in the matter, signaling that it would not treat the events lightly. Justice Sharma described the situation as "very unfortunate," while Justice Trivedi expressed strong criticism of the Advocates-on-Record for their negligent approach in practicing before the Supreme Court, particularly regarding the filing of vakalatnamas and their appearance in court.

Case Title : BHAGWAN SINGH v. STATE OF UP | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 18885/2024