Allahabad High Court
Vinayjit Lal Varma vs State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. Cbi Lko on 26 August, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1469 of 2021 Applicant :- Vinayjit Lal Varma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. Cbi Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon,Nagendra Mohan,Shivanshu Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in respect of Crime No.RC0532020S0002 dated 4.2.2020 and charge sheet no.4 of 2020, dated 28.12.2020. Further challenge has also been made to the order of cognizance dated 6.2.2021 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Central, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.16 of 2021, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
3. The facts, in short, are that Writ Petition No.505 (MB) of 2012 was filed by Khursheed Agha in respect of the mutation proceedings, in which an interim order was granted on 18.1.2012 for maintaining status-quo. This Court also directed the District authorities to proceed with the 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 However, the said writ petition was later on dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.5.2019.
4. For non-compliance of the said interim order, Contempt Petition No.2644 of 2015 came to be filed before this Court.
5. Sri Khursheed Agha had submitted before this Court through an affidavit that he had never filed the contempt petition and he had never instructed the petitioner, who was the counsel in the contempt petition on his behalf to file the contempt petition.
6. During the course of hearing of the contempt petition, this Court directed Khursheed Agha to remain present on 23.9.2019. In compliance of the order of this Court, Khursheed Agha was present in person before this Court and has submitted that the alleged Contempt Petition No.2644 of 2015 was not filed by him and he did not engage the petitioner as Advocate for filing the said contempt petition.
7. This Court vide order dated 23.9.2019 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct inquiry/investigation in respect of filing of Contempt Petition No.2644 of 2015.
8. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, an FIR bearing no.RC0532020S002 dated 4.2.2020 came to be registered, and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and others, including Ashok Pathak, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
9. The Central Bureau of Investigation in its investigation, has found that it was Ashok Pathak, who stood to gain by filing Contempt Petition No.2644 of 2015. The purpose of filing Contempt Petition No.2644 of 2015 was to get a favourable order from the High Court, so that remaining payment of Rs.43,89,04,000/- could get released in favour of Sri Kapil Pratap Rana by M/s Antriksh Landmarks Private Limited, who in turn would have transferred the amount to the accounts of Ashok Pathak and his family members as he had done earlier with respect to Rs.3 Crores received from M/s Antriksh Landmarks Private Limited.
10. It is said that the petitioner was a friend of Ashok Pathak for the last thirty years. Contempt petition was prepared by the petitioner on instructions of Ashok Pathak and handed over it to Ashok Pathak for getting signed by Khursheed Agha. Khursheed Agha never met the petitioner nor signed the contempt petition before him. It was Ashok Pathak, who signed the contempt petition. The petitioner, however, engaged Sri H.G.S. Parihar and Sri Jyotindra Misra, Senior Advocates and they appeared in Contempt Petition No.2644 of 2015 before this Court. The petitioner in criminal conspiracy with Ashok Pathak, filed several affidavits in the aforesaid contempt petition before this Court with mala fide intention to get favourable order, though the said affidavits were not signed by Khursheed Agha.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 prepares the petition and give it to the Pairokar for putting the signatures of the petitioner and after returning the papers, the counsel believes on such Pairokar and then proceed 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, submits 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 little more careful, but at that time, the practice of affixing photograph 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 Central Bureau of Investigation did not investigate the matter further that whether the subsequent signatures were put by Khursheed Agha or Ashok Pathak in the Vakalatnama or not.
12. On the other hand, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the petitioner was a close friend of Ashok Pathak for the last thirty 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.
13. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this 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.
14. 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.
15. Thus, present petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of Crime No.RC0532020S0002 dated 4.2.2020 as well as charge sheet no.4 of 2020, dated 28.12.2020 and the order of cognizance/summoning dated 6.2.2021 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Central, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.16 of 2021, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, so far they relate to the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2022 Rao/-