A man told the Supreme Court: 'I never filed this case.' The Court agreed.
Bhagwan Singh's daughter eloped. Then someone filed an SLP in his name to target a witness in the Nitish Katara murder case. The Court found a chain of forged documents, a careless lawyer, and a notary who never saw the signer.
2013
years.
Bhagwan Singh's daughter eloped. Then someone filed an SLP in his name to target a witness in the Nitish Katara murder case. The Court found a chain of forged documents, a careless lawyer, and a notary who never saw the signer.
Bhagwan Singh wrote to the Supreme Court: 'I never filed any case. Someone forged my name.' The Court investigated and found a conspiracy involving his own son-in-law.
The letter arrived not as a legal notice, but as a cry of bewilderment from a farmer in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh. Bhagwan Singh had never stepped inside a courtroom in his life. Yet his name was on a Special Leave Petition (SLP — a petition seeking the Supreme Court's permission to appeal a lower court's decision) challenging a High Court order. He had no idea who filed it. His hand, he later said, had never touched a pen for it.
When a daughter's elopement became a legal weapon
In 2013, Bhagwan Singh's daughter Rinki eloped and married Sukhpal Singh. Like any father, Bhagwan Singh filed an FIR (a written complaint that starts a police investigation) for her kidnapping. The police at P.S. Sehaswan, District Budaun, registered FIR No. 443/2013 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The investigation initially closed against Ajay Katara in December 2013 via a supplementary chargesheet. But in December 2018, at the ACJM-II court in Budaun, a new supplementary chargesheet was filed — a formal accusation after further investigation — naming a man named Ajay Katara under Section 376 IPC (the crime of rape). The courtroom that day smelled of dust and old case files, the chargesheet read aloud in a low monotone.
This was no ordinary accused. Ajay Katara was a key prosecution witness in the Nitish Katara murder case — one of India's most high-profile crimes, involving the murder of a business executive by the son of a powerful politician. The timing and the target were not coincidental.
The High Court steps in, the conspiracy begins
Ajay Katara approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (the High Court's power to shut down a case that should never have been filed). In December 2019, the High Court agreed — it quashed the proceedings against him, effectively ending the case. The courtroom that day was quiet, the judge's order read aloud, the bench's voice echoing off the high ceilings, and the file closed — or so it seemed.
Bhagwan Singh filed a recall application (a request to reverse the quashing order), which was dismissed in April 2024. The courtroom fell silent again as the judge pronounced the dismissal, the weight of the rejected file thudding onto the clerk's desk.
Then came the twist. Someone filed an SLP before the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh's name, challenging the High Court's order. The petition was crafted, signed, notarized, and filed — all without Bhagwan Singh's knowledge, consent, or authority.
The Court's own investigation
When Bhagwan Singh's letter reached the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma did not dismiss it as a routine denial. They ordered a judicial inquiry — a deep look into how the petition came to be filed. What they found was a carefully orchestrated chain of forgery.
The Advocate-on-Record (AOR — a lawyer authorized to file cases in the Supreme Court) had attested the vakalatnama (a document authorizing a lawyer to represent a client) without ever meeting Bhagwan Singh. The notary had notarized the affidavit without the deponent — the person swearing the affidavit — being present. The notary's chair sat empty that day, the stamp pressed onto a document no one had seen signed. The sealed envelope containing the forged documents felt thin in the hands of the court officer, the smell of fresh ink still clinging to the paper.
A chain of advocates had facilitated the filing using forged and fabricated documents.
Who was behind it all?
The Court's investigation traced the conspiracy back to Sukhpal Singh — Bhagwan Singh's own son-in-law — and Rinki, his daughter. They had orchestrated the entire filing, likely at the behest of persons connected to the convicted accused in the Nitish Katara murder case. The goal was clear: use a forged legal proceeding to drag Ajay Katara back into court, harass him, and potentially derail the murder trial.
What the law says about forged court filings
The Court examined three key legal requirements that had been violated.
First, Order IV Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which requires an AOR to personally verify the identity and signature of the client before filing a vakalatnama.
Second, Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952, read with Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, which mandates that a notary must see the deponent sign the affidavit in person.
Third, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which sets the standards of professional conduct for advocates.
Every single requirement had been bypassed. The AOR had not seen Bhagwan Singh. The notary had not seen him. The documents were signed by someone else, somewhere else, and filed as if they were genuine.
Why the Court called it 'brazen attempt to abuse the legal process'
The Supreme Court did not mince words. It held that filing proceedings using forged vakalatnamas and fabricated documents, without the knowledge or consent of the person in whose name the proceedings are filed, constitutes a "brazen attempt to abuse the legal process" and fraud on the court. This is not a technical violation — it strikes at the very foundation of the justice system. If anyone can file a case in someone else's name, the court's orders become meaningless, and the innocent become pawns in a legal game.
The Court cited three precedents: Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India (2019), V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors. (2012), and Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024). Each case reinforced the principle that courts must protect themselves from being used as instruments of fraud.
The order: CBI investigation and professional misconduct
The Court disposed of the appeals — meaning the SLP itself was thrown out — and directed the CBI to register a regular case against all persons found involved. The CBI was told to investigate all links and submit a report within two months. The original records of the forged petition — a thin stack of papers, smelling of old ink — were handed over to the CBI in a sealed cover. The courtroom fell silent as the envelope was passed across the bench, the sound of paper sliding against wood filling the room.
Separately, the Court referred the conduct of the advocates involved to the Bar Council of India (BCI — the regulatory body for lawyers) for professional misconduct proceedings. The AOR who attested the vakalatnama without verification, and the notary who notarized the affidavit without the deponent's presence, now face potential disbarment or suspension.
The Court also issued a direction regarding online appearance marking by AORs, under a Registry Circular dated December 30, 2022. AORs may now mark appearances only of those advocates who are actually authorized to appear and argue the case on that particular day — not those merely associated with the office. A small but significant procedural reform to prevent similar abuses.
What this means for lawyers and litigants
For advocates, the message is stark: attesting a vakalatnama without personal verification is not a minor oversight — it is professional misconduct that can lead to criminal investigation. For notaries, notarizing an affidavit without the deponent's presence is equally serious. For litigants, the case is a reminder that the court will not hesitate to investigate when someone claims their name has been forged.
THE PLAY: Before filing any document in court, personally verify the identity and signature of the client — a notary's stamp or an AOR's attestation is meaningless if the person never appeared before you.
The CBI now has two months to trace every link in this chain of forgery. The boy who eloped, the daughter who conspired, the advocates who looked the other way, and the people who wanted Ajay Katara silenced — they all now face the full force of a criminal investigation. Bhagwan Singh, the farmer who never wanted to be in court, finally got his answer: the case was never his.