STATE Vs. KAMAL NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Contemner Kamal Narain Singh filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998 with following two main prayers:- (i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature olcertiorari quashing the First Informa tion Report dated 30-12-97 under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act (Annexure-9to the writ petition ). (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to arrest the petitioner in case Crime No. 376 of 1997, under Section 3 (1) of the U. P Gangster Act, 1986, P. S. Mohammadabad, Dis trict Farrukhabad dated 30-12- 1997 (An-nexure-IX to the writ petition ). While disposing of the said writ peti tion we had passed the following order on 11-2-98. "the prayer of the petitioner is to quash the First Information Report giving rise to registration of case crime No. 376 of 1997 under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster and Ami Social Activities Act, 1986 Police Station Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad. The moot ground formulated in this writ petition and as pressed before us was that even though the petitioner happens to be an active worker of the Samajwadi Party, he has been implicated at the instance of his political opponent belonging to the Ruling Bhartiya Janta Party. " On 15-1-98 the following order was passed by us: As requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner put up this writ petition on Wed nesday next dated 21-1-98 to enable him to file a supplementary affidavit enclosing the docu ments showing primary membership of the political parties, with which, he is claiming his affiliation. Pursuant to the aforementioned order the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit bring ing on record Xerox copy of the receipt (Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit) form No. 30173 of 17th July, 1996 said to have been issued by one Saral Dubey 'adhyaksh Zila Karyakarni' under his signature as well as under the signature of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, 'rashtriya Adhyaksh Samajwadi Party'. On a bare looking to the document we become suspi cious because out of the five words saral the words "sa. La. Du. " bear repetitions. Even the flow of the writing of the two alleged signatures appeared to be not natural. Accordingly, we had proceeded to pass the following order on 9-2-98: The petitioner files a supplementary af fidavit. Put up tomorrow so that Sri Tripathi learned A. G. A. could ascertain the signatures of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav filed in support of his claim that he is a primary member of the Samaj-vadi Party. ' Sri Tripathi, learned A. G. A. produces before us a document containing the signatures of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Minister of this State dated 21-10-1994. The document produced before us has been sent to him through Fax No. 523481 from the Special Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on a Government paper. Thus, there is no doubt that the document produced before us by Sri Tripathi, learned A. G. A. bears the signature of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Mini ster of this State, which is at variance with the signature appearing in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. We have thus, no hesitation in holding that Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit is a forged and fictitious document. No relief can be granted to the petitioner, who has come up to obtain a Rule from this Court on the basis of a forged and fictitious document. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner has produced before us a forged and fictitious document to his knowledge for the purpose of obtaining a Rule, we are of the view that he has committed not only contempt of this Court but also offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Issue notice to him as to why ap propriate orders in that regard be not passed against him. Since Mr. Katiyar learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructed only to appear in the case which has been dis missed, let office issue a notice to the petitioner on the address given in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit making the Rule retur nable on 25th March, 1998. The notice to be registered as a separate criminal contempt case. Sd/-B. K. Roy,j. Sd/-P. K. Jain,j. " On the basis of the said order dated 11-2-98 Criminal Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998 was registered against the contem-ner. The contemner Kamal Narain Singh did not appear in person pursuant to our order dated 11-2-98. On 15-4-98 Sri Vivek Mishra, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of contemner and Sri V. C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on be half of the contemner submitted that since the contemner has not been served with notice he is not aware of the charges nor he was aware that he is required to appear personally before the Court though he came in the morning hours in his Chamber in the Court. We had passed the following order dated 15-4-98: "seen the report dated 13-4-98 of the Registrar. In view of the action taken by him no further action is required on the judicial side of the Court. After detailed reasons recorded vide our order dated 11-2-98 we had dismissed the contemner's Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998. We had also proceeded to record findings of fact against the contemner that since he has produced before us a forged and fictitious docu ment to his knowledge for the purpose of ob taining a Rule, thereby he has committed not only contempt of this Court but also offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and had issued notice to him as to why appropriate orders in that regard be not passed against him by us. The aforementioned order was passed in presence of Mr. Katiyar, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-contemner. We had also noted his stand that he has instructions only to appear in this writ case which was dismissed by us. In that view of the matter we had directed issuance of notice to the contemner by the office on the address given by him in his writ petition and the supplementary affidavit making the Rule returnable on 25th March, 1998. The contemner did not appear on 25-3-98. The office put up a note dated 25-3-98 that in compliance of the Court's order notice was issued to the contemner through the C. J. M. , Farrukhabad but the service report has not been received. Vide our order dated 25-3- 98 we extended the returnable date to 15th April, 1998. We also directed the office to have the report of the C. J. M. , Farrukhabad at once. The office has put up a report that the C. J. M. , Far rukhabad has reported to the effect that Kamal Narain Singh (the contemner herein), is absconding in relation to case crime No. 376 of 1997 under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster Act and hence notice could not be served. The contemner, however, files a Vakalat-nama before us through Sri Vivek Mishra, Ad vocate, Chamber No. 57, New Building, High Court, Allahabad. Keep it on record. Sri V. C. Misra, the learned Counsel ap pearing on behalf of the contemner, prays to adjourn this case on the ground that since the contemner has not been served with notice he is not aware of the charges nor was he aware that he is required to appear personally in Court today though he has come in the morning hours in his Chambers in Court. We do not want to record any positive finding in regard to the merit of the defence taken on behalf of the contemner at this stage as to whether he was aware of the orders of the Court earlier or not except to note the following apparent fact:- (i) We had passed our earlier order in open Court in presence of his previous Counsel. Unless his Counsel has informed the contemner of this proceeding it will be a million dollar question as to why he approached Mr. Mishra in his Chambers for his appearance in the Court. The word 'notice' means knowledge. We will presume that the contemner was aware of the charges which we had framed against him. We had not exempted his personal appearance from his criminal contempt proceedings and under the Rules of the Court he was expected to appear personally today the date fixed from before. We, accordingly, further charge him as to why he should not be punished for not per sonally presenting himself today and for that purpose we issue another notice to him fixing 10 a. m. of Tuesday dated the 28th April, 1998. Since Mr. Misra, learned Counsel states that he has no instructions to receive notice of this second criminal contempt proceedings we direct the office to despatch another notice to the contemner at the address mentioned by him in his writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit including the Vakalatnama which has been filed today. We reserve our further com ments in this regard awaiting his appearance on 28th April, 1998 alongwith his show-cause in the first criminal contempt proceedings as well as the second criminal contempt proceedings which we have initiated which has to be registered separately by the office and put up together on the adjourned date. " On the basis of the above order criminal contempt case No. 35 of 1998 was registered against the contemner.

(2.) DURING the pendency of these two contempt proceedings it was brought to the notice of the Court that even though Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998 filed on behalf of the contemner was dismissed by us vide order dated 11-2-98 the petitioner filed yet another Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998 and obtained orders dated 9-4-98 by a Division Bench of this Court staying the arrest of the contemner in case crime No. 376 of 1997, P. S. Mohammadabad, district Far rukhabad with regard to offence under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1996. In earlier writ petition No. 91 of 1998 also prayer for quashing the FIR in case crime No. 376 of 1997, under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster Act, P. S. Mohammadabad district Farrukhabad was made. While ob taining the order dated 9-4-98 from a Division Bench of this Court the petitioner concealed the factum of his first writ petition No 91 of 1998 having been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11-2- 98. On the other hand, in the affidavit in support of the writ petition filed by Sri Rala Ram, Pairokar of the petitioner categorically made false statement in paragraph 1 of the petition that this was the first writ petition with regard to the instant matter before this Hon'ble Court as there is no ether writ petition/case pending in this regard in any Court of law. When the above facts were brought to our notice we had passed the following order dated 10-7-98: "seen the report sent by the C. J. M. , Far rukhabad. (2) It appears therefrom that the contemner Kamal Narain Singh had obtained restrained order from this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998, Kamal Narain v. State of U. P. & another. We called for the records of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998, filed by the cpntemner, from which it is clear that in paragraph 1 of this writ petition he has falsely stated that the said writ petition is the first writ petition whereas the true fact is that the said writ petition was second in number. The petitioner has deliberately not stated the factum of filing of his earlier writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998 which we had heard and dismissed. Accordingly, we initiate yet another criminal contempt proceedings against him for the aforementioned reason. Office to registrar it separately and put up alongwith these proceed ings under the order of Hon'ble the Chief Jus tice and despatch notice to him at once. (3) At the same time we direct the learned A. G. A. Sri Jagdish Tewari to file an appropriate application before that Bench for recalling the order dated April 9,1998 passed by the Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998 for the aforementioned reason. (4) The Police has failed to apprehend him and produce before this Court in these contempt proceedings. We, accordingly, direct the Senior Superintendent of Police Farrukhabad to arrest the contemner and produce before this Court in these two criminal con tempt proceedings. (5) Put up these cases awaiting his production before this Court on 24th July, 1998 in Chambers at 1. 40 p. m. (6) The office is directed to handover two copies of this order by Monday dated 13-7-98 to Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned A. G. A. for a follow up action. " On the basis of the above order criminal contempt Case No. 59 of 1998 was registered against the contemner.

(3.) PURSUANT to the order dated 24-5-99 copy of the order was received by Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra on 25-5-99 and office reports that complete order-sheet alongwith relevant papers as desired by Miss Moonis, learned A G. A. were handed-over to her as per endorsement dated 25-5-99.