- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by one Kamta Prasad son of Kallu resident of village Baberu, Mohalla Vibharthok, Baberu, District Banda.
(2.) HIS prayer is to quash the first information report dated 24-12-1997 giving rise to registration of case crime No. 40 of 1997, under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 I. P. C, PS. Baberu, District Banda. HIS another prayer is to command Respondent No. 5 not to arrest him till the matter is being enquired by the C. B. I, or any other independent agency as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. The petitioner has impleaded State of U. P as Respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Banda as Respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Tahsil Baberu, District Banda as Respondent No. 3, Anjani Kumar Srivas- tava, Advocate, son of Sri Ram Prasad Srivastava, resident of Mohalla Cross Road (Kamsin Baberu Road) District Banda, at present residing in Mohalla E. W. S. H. No. 84, Kalindipuram, Al lahabad, Chamber No. 69, New Building High Court as respondent No. 4 disclosing his Registration No. UP 5245/91 of Bar Council U. P. at Allahabad, and Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Baberu District Banda as Respondent No. 5 4. On a perusal of the first informa tion report we find the substance of the allegation is that the accused persons which also includes the petitioner in order to obtain advantage illegally have produced farzi and forged slay order by playing fraud. The first information in writing was lodged by the Tahsildar, Respondent No. 3. 5. The main defence of the petitioner as sei forth in this writ petition is that it was Respondeni No. 4 who had handed over to him a forged order. 6. On 22-4-1997 the following order was passed by the Bench: "issue notice by registered. post to Respondent No. 4 to show cause as to why appropriate final orders be not passed, making rule returnable on 9th May, 1997. Leave shall also be granted to the petitioner to serve respon dent No. 4 by process of Dasti. Requisites for both the processes-shall be furnished by the petitioner, as prayed for, by tomorrow failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference toa Bench. In the meantime we direct the Registrar of this Court to gel the report submitted about the allegations made by the petitioner about the submission of alleged forged orders of this Court as contained in Annexures IX and XV to the writ petition. We also direct the office the furnish to copy of this order to the learned A. G. A. Sri Tiwari so that he could obtain necessary instruc tions in regard to the allegations made in this writ petition. The pendency of this writ petition shall not be understood to mean by any one that inves tigation, if any, pending against the petitioner or trial, if any, pending against the petilioner has been siayed by this Court. " 7. On 9-5-1997 the following order was passed: "respondent No. 4 enters appearance in person and has come up with a prayer to withdraw the rule issued to him. In terms of interim order dated 22-4-1997 the Registrar has submitled his report to the effect that from the facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that Annexures 9 and 15 to the writ petition are forged and fabricated documents with inient to gain benefit and advantages; and that in view of the statements made in the writ petition that Photostat copy of the aforemen tioned two documents were handed over by respondent No. 4, if may deem fn and proper, he (respondent No. 4) be commanded to produce the certified copies of the aforementioned an-nexures so that the mystry behind it could he unearthed. The relevant statement made by the petitioner have been denied by Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has also come up with a pleading that the petitioner is trying to involve him as he is junior Counsel belonging to the District Banda on account of some professional rivalry. The matter in relation to forging the or ders of this Court has already been entrusted by a Division Bench (of which one of B. K. Roy, J. is a member) to the C. B. I, in writ petition No. 3007 of 1996. We, accordingly in the interest of justice tag this writ petition with that writ peti tion to be placed before the Bench before which it is scheduled to be listed on 14-5-1997 and this case will be listed accordingly on that date under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. " 8. On 14-5-1997 the following order was passed: "the prayer of the petitioner Karma Prasad is to quash the first information report dated 24-2-1997 giving rise to registration of crime case No. 40 of 1997 under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420, I. P. C. , P. S. Baberu, District Banda. A further prayer has been made to com mand the respondent No. 5 Station House Of ficer of the aforesaid police station not to arrest him till the matter is enquired by the C. B. I, or any other independent agency in the interest of justice. Perusal of the first information report shows that there is an allegation againsl the pelilioner Kamta Prasad and ihree others, namely, Mahabir s/o Jagdeo, Ram Hit s/o Ramadhar and Munna Lal s/o Bhagiraih, all residents of village Baberu in the district of Banda of having produced forged stay order illegally and for deriving advantage by commitling fraud. The petitioner has come up with a claim, inter alia, that it was respondent No. 4 Anjani Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, s/o Sri Ram Prasad Srivastava bearing registration No. 5245 of 1991 of the U. P. State Bar Council, resident of Cross Road (Kamasin Baberu Road), District Banda presently residing in House No. 84 Mohalla E. W. S. Kalindipuram, Allahabad, his official address being chamber No. 69 New Building, Allahabad High Court, Al lahabad. A Bench of this Court (one of which is a member of the present Bench, namely, Binod Kumar Roy, J.) on 22-4-1997, when the said writ petition was placed under heading for admission, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner had passed the following order: "issue notice by registered post to respon dent No. 4 to show cause as to why appropriate final orders be not passed, making rule retur nable on 9th of May, 1997. Leave shall also be granted to the petitioner to serve respondent No. 4 by process of Dasti. Requisites tor both the processes shall be furnished by the petitioner, as prayed for, by tomorrow failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference toa Bench. " In the mean time, we direct the Registrar of this Court to get the report submitted about the allegations made by the petitioner about the submission of al leged forged orders of this Court as con tained in Annexures IX and XV to the writ petition. We also direct the office to fur nish the copy of this order to the learned A. G. A. Sri Tiwari so that he could obtain necessary instructions in regard to the al legation made in this writ petition. The pendency of this writ petition shall not be understood to mean by anyone that investigation, if any, pending against the petitioner or trial, if any, pending against the petitioner has been stayed by this Court. Pursuant to the directions made to the Registrar, he got an inquiry made and report submitted which is on the record. The relevant party. The report aforemen tioned reads thus: "annexure IX to the writ petition shows that on 12-12-1995 Hon'ble S. R. Singh, J. was pleased to pass an order in WR No. 11170 of 1995 (Kamta Pd. & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Ors.), Distt. Banda that both the petitioners shall be regularised on their respective posts upto the beginning of the selection process until further orders. Annexure XV to WP. relates to W. PNo. 273 of 1997, Ram Hit v. State of U. P. and On. . Distt. Banda indicating that Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble' G. P. Mathur. J. and Hon'ble S. P. Snvastava, J. was pleased to direci that on the production of a certified copy of the order, applicants will serve the same before the Investigating Officer and thus he will not harass them unnecessarily and Investigating Officer wilfnot proceed against the petitioners and as such, we are with the observations that the present petition stands finally disposed of. At the first glance this order appears to be forged. Because in writ petition No. 273 of 1997 Ramhit is the only petitioner. In place of singular words, plural words have been used e. g. applicants, petitioners and them instead of applicant, petitioner and him. To test the veracity and complexity of the contents contained in Annexures IX and XV to the writ petition the undersigned sent ior the original files of WP No. 11170 of 1995 and W. P. No. 273 of 1997. Annexure IX to writ petition shows that Writ Petitions '11170 of 1995 was filed by S/s' Kamta Pd. and Mahabir against State of U. P, S. D. M. Baberu and 'lahsildar Baberu Distt-Banda and as interim order dated 12-12- 1995 was passed by H un'hle S. R. Singh. J. whereas originally WP. No. 11170 of. 1995 had been filed by Sri Sunder lal Diwakar r/o vill-Manawan, Block Kakwan Distt. Kanpur Dehai against State Elections Commission, District Magistrate/district Election Commissioner, Returning Officer and Machlu. This writ peti tion was dismissed by the Division Bench com prising of Hon'ble R. A. Shiirma, J. and Hon'ble D. K. Seth, J. on 27-4-1995. There does not exist any order of Hon'ble S. R. Singh, J. passed on 12-12-1995. Annexure XV to the writ petition indi cates that WP No. 273 of 1997 had been filed by Ramhit against State of U. P, through the Supdt. of Police Banda, Station Officer, PS. Baberu, Banda and Tehsildar Baberu, Distt-Banda. This writ petition was finally disposed of by Hon'ble G. P Maihur. J. and Hon'ble S. P. Srivastava,. J. on 19-3-1997. Actually the writ petition No. 273 of 1997 was filed by Sri Sukhbir Singh against State of U. P through Station House Officer, P. S. Jaswanl Nagar, Distt. Etawah and Ram Bahadur s/o Ganga Charan r/o Nagla Hulasi, P. S. Jaswant Nagar, Distt-Etawah. This writ petition had already been dismissed by Hon'ble S. PMalhur and Hon'ble R. P. Nigam, J. on 6-12-1997. A true copy of the order dated 6-2-1997 is placed below in support of the version stated above. There is no order dated 19-3-1997 passed by Hon'ble G. P. Mathur and Hon'ble S. P Srivastava, JJ. in WP. No. 273/1997. From the facts and circumstances men tioned above it is crystal clear that Annexures IX and XV to the writ petition are forged and fabricated documents with intent to gain benefit and advantages. In paragraphs 9 and 16 of the writ petition the petitioner has specifically stated that Photostat copy of these documents had been handed over by the respondent No. 4 (Sri Anjani Kumar Srivastava, Advocate ). If the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, the respondent No. 4 be commanded to produce the certified copies of Annexures IX and XV to the writ petition issued by the office so that mystry behind it could be unearthed. " Respondent No. 4 also entered ap pearance in person and came up with a prayer to withdraw the rule issued. He was heard on 9-5-1997 and the Bench had passed the following order: "respondent No. 4 enters appearance in person and has come up with a prayer to withdraw the rule issued to him. In terms of interim order dated 22-4-1997 the Registrar has submitted his report to the effect that from the facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that Annexures 9 and 15 to the writ petition are forged and fabricated documents with intent to gain benefit and advantages; and that in view of the statements made in the writ petition that Photostat copy of the aforemen tioned two documents were handed over by respondent No. 4, if may deem fit and proper, he (respondent No. 4) be commanded to produce the certified copies of the aforementioned an-nexures so that the mystry behind it could he unearthed. The relevant statements made by the petitioner have been denied by Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has also come up with a pleading that the petitioner is trying to involve him as he is junior Counsel belonging to the District Banda on account of some professional rivalry. The matter in relation to forging the or ders of this Court has already been entrusted by a Division Bench (of which one of us B. K. Ray, J. is a member) to the C. B. I, in writ petition No. 3007 of 1996. We, accordingly, in the interest of justice tag this writ petition with that writ peti tion to be placed before the Bench before which it is scheduled to he listed on 14-5-1997 and this case will be listed accordingly on that date under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. " That is how the matter is now before this Bench. Be that as it may, we cannot allow the stream of administration of jus tice of this Constitutional Court to be pol luted by anyone inasmuch as the word administration of justice includes in itself delivery of orders/judgments which decides an issue. The question in regard to forgery of orders/judgments of this Court are not new. Enquiries had already been entrusted to the C. B. I. in some cases, with one of which, namely, writ petition No, 3007 of 1996 the instant case has been tagged up. We, accordingly exercising our powers of judicial superintendence, as enshrined in Articles 226 and 227 of thc Constitution read with Article 215 of the Constitution, as the powers/jurisdictions of this Court as a Court of Record stands recognised under the constitutional scheme itself, command the C. B. I, to in vestigate the forgery of the documents aforementioned and submit its report by 25-7-1997. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order immediately to Sri Girdhar Nath, learned Counsel for the C. B. I. , who has entered appearance in the connected case, who shall also appear in theinstantcaseon behalf ol the C. B. I. The office is directed to place this case for further hearing and for passing further appropriate orders, if required, either in Court on 25-7-1997 or in our chambers as 1. 45 p. m. on that date. The office is also commanded to hand over a copy of the earlier orders if not supplied and reports which have not been reproduced in this order. 9. In terms of the directions made by the Court from time to time after thorough enquiry the C. B. I, has submitted a charge sheet. Respondent No. 4 Anjani Kumar Srivastava is also present before. He ac cepts this factum also and informs us that he is currently lodged in jail. 10. From the progress report sub mitted by the C. B. I. , it appears that writ petitions Nos. 11170 of 1997, 11173 of 1995, 1166 of 1996 and 273 of 1997 were actually not filed by Sarvasri Kamta Prasad, Mahabir, Ramhit, Munna and Ramhil respectively in ihis Court but were filed by Sunder Lal Diwar of village Manawan, District Kanpur Dehat; Keshav Prasad of District Kanpur; Jeti @ Ranjeet of District Varanasi and Sukhbeer Singh of District Etawah respectively. We direct the C. B. I, to proceed further in this regard and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. We also give liberty to the C. B. I, to make a motion before us, if and when passing of our further, order is considered necessary by it. 11. We put on record that it is not the case of the writ-petitioner before us today that he has been exonerated by the C. B. I, of the allegations made against him in the first information report. 11. Be that as it, for the reasons aforementioned we cannot quash the first information report. 13. For the aforementioned reasons we dismiss this writ petition. 14. The police authorities, who have produced Anjani Kumar Srivastava before us, will take him back. 15. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Girdhar Nath, learned Counsel for the C. B. I, by Monday dated5-4-1999. Petition dismissed. .;