The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of filing a petition on behalf of other people without his consent and warned the advocate that in future he should be careful while filing petitions and without interacting with the client directly, he should not act on the instructions of the pairokar/stranger.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 CrPC filed by Vinayjit Lal Varma.
The petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in respect of Crime dated 4.2.2020 and charge sheet dated 29.12.2020. Further challenge has also been made to the order of cognizance/summoning dated 6.2.2021 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Central, Lucknow in Criminal Case, whereby the petitioner and other accused have been summoned under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
The facts of the case are that the writ petition was filed in the name of Khursheed Agha. The petitioner was the counsel, who signed the petition and filed his vakalatnama in the said case.
The said petition was filed challenging the resumption order dated 10.5.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, whereby the land bearing Gata Nos 2199, 2200, 2201 and 2406 of Village Piparsand, Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow was resumed in favour of the State Government.
It was further prayed that the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsildar, Sarojini Nagar be directed to delete the entries made in the khatauni regarding order dated 10.5.2016 and restrained them not to hand over possession of the land in question and a direction was sought to maintain status quo.
The Court observed that Khursheed Agha had earlier filed writ petition in respect of the mutation proceedings, in which an interim order was granted on 18.1.2012 for maintaining status quo. The Court also directed the district authorities to proceed with mutation proceedings in accordance with law, expeditiously, and not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. However, the said writ petition was later on dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.5.2019.
Khursheed Agha filed a Civil Misc Application in Writ Petition with a prayer to dismiss the said writ petition as the said writ petition did not bear his signatures and he also said that he never filed the said writ petition before the Court. The Court order dated 14.5.2019 directed the CBI to investigate the allegations made in the application filed by Khursheed Agha that he had not put in his signatures on the petition nor had he filed the said writ petition.
In pursuance to the direction of the Court, an FIR dated 4.2.2020 came to be registered, and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and six others, including Ashok Pathak, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Allegation against the petitioner is that Ashok Pathak was a close friend of the petitioner for the last 30 years. For filing Writ Petition, Ashok Pathak had contacted the petitioner. The petitioner prepared the petition and gave a copy of the petition to Romi @ Sunny Yadav, Office Attendant/Munshi of the petitioner, who handed over the said petition to Ashok Pathak to get it signed from the client i.e Khursheed Agha.
It is further said that Khursheed Agha never met the petitioner. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 9.5.2019, it was said that the alleged petition was prepared by him on the instructions of Ashok Pathak.
Thus, the allegation against the petitioner is that without meeting Khursheed Agha and having instructions from him, he had acted on the instructions of Ashok Pathak and filed Writ Petition on behalf of Khursheed Agha. It is said that Ashok Pathak and the petitioner connived to file the said petition by forging the signatures of Khursheed Agha.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was usual practice in the High Court that counsels used to act on instructions of the pairokar. If a person would come to file a petition and introduce himself as pairokar of the petitioner, the counsels would prepare the petition and give it to the pairokar for putting the signatures of the petitioner and after returning the papers, the counsel believes such pairokar and then proceeds to file the petition.
He, however, submits that before the system of putting the photograph on the affidavit, this practice was prevalent in the High Court, and the petitioner acted in good faith that Ashok Pathak would get the signatures of Khursheed Agha on the petition and vakalatnama. He also submits that voter ID of Khursheed Agha was also affixed on the affidavit and, therefore, the petitioner believed that the signatures were put by Khursheed Agha.
He, therefore, submitted that for this reason, the petitioner cannot be made accused for offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioner ought to have been a little more careful, but at that time, the practice of affixing photographs of the deponent on the affidavit was not prevalent and, therefore, the petitioner acted in good faith on the instructions of Ashok Pathak.
It is also submitted that later on, ‘No Objection Certificate’ was taken from the petitioner and after getting the ‘No Objection Certificate’, other Advocates had put in appearance, but the CBI did not investigate the matter further that whether the subsequent signatures were put by Khursheed Agha or Ashok Pathak in the vakalatnama or not.
On the other hand, Anurag Kumar Singh, CBI counsel, submitted that the petitioner was a close friend of Ashok Pathak for the last 30 years, which he has admitted in his affidavit. The petitioner has also admitted that he never met Khursheed Agha before filing the petition and, therefore, it appears that he had connived with Ashok Pathak to file the writ petition on behalf of Khursheed Agha, who never instructed Ashok Pathak or the petitioner to file the writ petition.
“After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the petitioner acted in good faith though he should have been more careful in filing the petition and without meeting Khurshed Agha or having any direct contact with him, he should not have filed the writ petition. The petitioner believed Ashok Pathak that he would get the signatures of Khursheed Agha inasmuch as voter ID of Khursheed Agha was also affixed on the affidavit though the said voter ID was found to be forged one by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the petitioner had filed the petition.
Be that as it may, for the said act of commission and commission, prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC would be an abuse of process of the Court and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner on this ground, would not be justified,” the Court observed.
“Thus, the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of Crime dated 4.2.2020 as well as charge sheet dated 29.12.2020 and the order of cognizance/summoning dated 6.2.2021 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Central, Lucknow, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, so far they relate to the petitioner, are hereby quashed,” the Court ordered.
However, the petitioner is warned that in future he should be careful while filing the petitions and without interacting with the client directly, he should not act on the instructions of the pairokar/stranger, the order reads.