B K AGARWAL Vs. PARVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. On 21-7-2000 this Bench while hearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 4230 of 2000 filed by Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Ram Kumar Agarwal, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-IInd Kala Aam, Bulandshahar and Parvez Alam, Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Sub-Division, Bulandshahar against the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, Station House Officer, P. S. Kotwali Nagar and Sri Hitendra Chaudhari, for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F. I. R. dated 8-7-2000 in case Crime No. 427 of 2000 (Correct No. 429 of 2000) under sections 354 and 452 I. P. C. relating to PS. Kotwali Nagar and for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus staying the arrest of the petitioners and further proceedings of the aforesaid case in pursuance of the impugned F. I. R. we recollected that for the same relief by the same petitioners a writ petition had earlier been filed in this Court. Bench Secretary of the Court was directed to check the list and find out whether any earlier writ petition by the same petitioners for the same prayer was filed or not. The Bench Secretary on checking register and cause list of fresh cases informed that Criminal Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2000 was filed by the same petitioners for the same relief and the same was dismissed by this Court on 18-7-2000. We called for the record and after going through the same, it transpired that the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2000 had been filed by Parvez Alam, S/o Late Khursheed Alam as petitioner No. 1 and B. K. Agarwal (Brij Kishore Agarwal) s/o late Sri R. K. Agarwal as petitioner No. 2 for quashing the F. I. R. of Case Crime No. 429 of 2000 under sections 354 and 452 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar. The above writ petition was filed through Sri V Singh, Advocate and one Sri Pradeep s/o Murari Lal, r/o Mohalla Kanoongaon Sikarpur, district Bulandshahar had filed his affidavit verifying contents of the writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, the said writ petition was dismissed by us by order dated 18-7-2000.

(2.) IT further appeared that by concealing the fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition, the subsequent writ petition No. 4230 of 2000 had been filed falsely stating in paragraph 1 that the said writ petition No. 4230 of 2000 was the first writ petition filed before this Court. Cleverly while filing subsequent writ petition, name of Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, s/o Ram Kumar Agarwal had been shown as petitioner No. 1 while that Parvez Alam as petitioner No. 2 without giving his parentage and crime No. was also given as 427 of 2000 instead of 429 of 2000 while the copy of F. I. R. annexed was of the same contents. Sri Suresh Chandra s/o Sunder Lal, r/o Civil Lines P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar had filed his affidavit in support of the subsequent writ petition. The said Suresh Chandra was identified by Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate of this Court. On index page in the title of the writ petition, the name of petitioner was disclosed as Bhuvnesh Kumar Gupta not as Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal as given in the memo of petition. Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate was present in the Court before us and he admitted before us that signature appearing on the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition under identification clause was not his signature and in fact the signature had been forged by his Clerk Sri Ramesh.

(3.) SRI Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, s/o SRI Ram Kumar Agarwal, the other contemner filed show-cause contending that he joined on the post of Executive Engineer at Bulandshahr after being transferred on 20-6-2000. On 8-7-2000 an F. I. R. was lodged against him on false and friviolous allegations giving rise to the case Crime No. 429 of 2000 under sections 354/452 I. PC. PS. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar. He contacted SRI Ram Bharosey Agarwal, Advocate through his friend SRI Guglani, Junior Engineer on 14-7-2000 and engaged him to move his bail application before the Courts at Bulandshahar. SRI Ram Bharosey Agarwal, Advocate Bulandshahar got prepared some documents pertaining to the bail application to be filed before the Courts at Bulandshahar. However, on 15-7-2000, SRI Ram Bharosey Agarwal informed him that it was very difficult to obtain bail from the Courts at Bulandshahar and he would approach the High Court for staying the arrest and for quashing the entire criminal case against him. He expressed his difficulty in approaching the High Court and then he engaged SRI Dhirendra Singh, Advocate to move his bail application before the Courts at Bulandshahar. SRI Dhirendra Singh moved his bail application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who granted him bail on 27-7-2000. SRI Ram Bharosey Agarwal met him on 27-7-2000 in the evening and requested him to write a letter addressed to his son SRI Sunil Kumar, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad on the pretext that it was necessary to complete some formalities for filing a petition, which has already been prepared by his son Sunil Kumar, Advocate and assured him that criminal proceedings of case Crime No. 429 of 2000 would be quashed by the High Court. In the above circumstances, he wrote two letters addressed to SRI Sunil Kumar on the dictation of SRI Ram Bharosey Agarwal and also signed a vakalatnama. That he had not signed any other paper except these two undated letters and vakalatnama engaging SRI Sunil Kumar, which were prepared on 27-7-2000. He never informed SRI Ram Bharosey Agarwal with regard to proceeding of this Court and order dated 21-7-2000 passed by this Court. He had not instructed any other persons to file Writ Petition on his behalf. He had no information regarding filing and dismissal of earlier Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2000 on 18-7-2000 and subsequent Writ Petition No. 4230 of 2000 and order dated 21-7-2000. He had never instructed SRI Parvez Alam to file writ petition on his behalf nor he gave instruction to SRI Pratap, the deponent of the first petition. He had never engaged SRI V. Singh, Advocate to argue the first writ petition.