A Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Piyush Agrawal of the Allahabad High Court has in the case of Dr. Mukut Nath Verma v. Union of India, through Home Secretary imposed Rs. 5 lakh costs on an advocate by the name of Dr. Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a Writ Petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also leveled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court. The Bench also asked the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action against the advocate in accordance with the law.
Factual Background
The petitioner contended that his client Mr. Mani Lal Patidar, an IPS officer of the 2014 batch was posted as Superintendent of Police in 2019 of Mahoba District (UP) where the respondents (Mr. Hitesh Chandra Awasthi (IPS- Retd) the then Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh and Mr. Awanish Kumar Awasthi (IAS) as Addl. Chief Secretary (Home)) started pressurizing the petitioner's client for the benefits of Khanan Mafia (mining mafia) and criminals, but Mr. Patidar did not support their illegal and devious plan.
Mr. Patidar took stern legal actions from time to time and consequently, the illegal work of Khanan Mafias and such criminals was stopped. Criminals started fleeing the city and because of which money flow from the Khanan Mafias to the respondents stopped. These officers started enmity and were hatching heinous conspiracy in connivance with Khanan Mafias as well as other types of criminals against the victim, Mr. Mani Lal Patidar.
The respondents, thereafter abetted Mr. Indrakant Tripathi (now deceased) to commit suicide and sending a video so that Mr. Patidar could be implicated in a false charge leading to his false conviction. Consequently, Mr. Indrakant Tripathi (now deceased) attempted to commit suicide by making a small wound but unfortunately it turned out to be fatal, and later he died. As a result, Mr. Patidar was suspended and two FIRs were also lodged against him and to investigate this matter, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by U.P. Government.
The Petitioner claimed that Mr. Mani Lal Patidar (IPS) appointed the petitioner as his legal counsel, via an email and that he requested the petitioner to look into his matters to collect the relevant papers qua his investigation and further to represent him on his behalf before the SIT. It was further claimed that while Mr. Mani Lal Patidar was coming to meet the petitioner in relation to his legal matters and to pay pending professional fees, he has been arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police on the same day and was deliberately detained by the police authorities. That looking at the gravity of the matter, the petitioner gave a written complaint that covered cognizable offences to Police to lodge an FIR against the main conspirator.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
At the outset, the Court noted that the aforementioned paragraphs of the writ petition were sworn by the petitioner i.e. an advocate, on the basis of his personal knowledge. It has not been stated in the writ petition that how the petitioner being an advocate has personal knowledge of the allegations made in the paragraphs of the writ petition, which relates to the accused Mani Lal Patidar personally and at best maybe within his (Mani Lal Patidar) knowledge. Thus, swearing of the afore-quoted paragraphs of the writ petition by the petitioner on personal knowledge is without foundation as well a conscious attempt to mislead this court.
The Court further noted that from the facts briefly noticed, it appears that the accused Mani Lal Patidar is absconding and against him proceedings under Section 82, Cr.P.C. has also been initiated and whose criminal misc. writ petitions have been dismissed and anticipatory bail applications have been rejected. The habeas corpus writ petition filed by the petitioner herein to produce the accused Mani Lal Patidar is stated to be pending. Under the circumstances, the present writ petition is apparently an abuse of process of law by the petitioner herein, which has stated himself to be an advocate.
The Court reiterated findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following two decisions:
"In Dhanraj Singh Choudhry vs. Nathulal Vishwakarma, (2012) 1 SCC 741 (Para-25),
“Any compromise with the law’s nobility as a profession is bound to affect the faith of the people in the rule of law and, therefore, unprofessional conduct by an advocate has to be viewed seriously. A person practising law has an obligation to maintain probity and high standard of professional ethics and morality.””
“In O.P. Sharma vs. High Court of P&H, (2011) 6 SCC 86 (para-38),
“An advocate’s duty is as important as that of a Judge. Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society. A client’s relationship with his/her advocate is underlined by utmost trust. An advocate is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system.””
The Court came to the conclusion that serious allegations were made by the petitioner against the respondent authorities without any supporting document being annexed with the writ petition nor any material being made available on record to believe the contention. Although the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has sworn the afore-quoted paragraphs on his personal knowledge but has completely failed to disclose his source of knowledge as well as material, if any, to support the allegations.
"Serious allegations have been made against the respondents, which appear to be mala fide in order to malign the image of the State -respondents. The petitioner is expected to disclose true and correct facts before making any allegation against respondents. The petitioner in person, being a practicing lawyer, is also expected to verify the same himself and then leveled such allegations against the respondents. It is also expected that source of such information as well as material... must be brought on record and in the absence thereof, the allegations made in the writ petition cannot be accepted.”
The High Court dismissed the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.05 lakhs (five lakhs).
Case Details
Case Name: Dr. Mukut Nath Verma v. Union of India, through Home Secretary
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 6583 of 2021
Read Order;
source ; www.latestlaws.com
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments