New Delhi: A fraud played upon the judiciary has come to light in the Supreme Court, with a man from Uttar Pradesh’s Budaun claiming that he had nothing to do with a criminal appeal in the top court under his name to revive a rape case involving his daughter.
The man, Bhagwan Singh, in an affidavit filed early in August this year, told the Supreme Court (SC) that he did not sign the criminal appeal against a December 2019 Allahabad High Court (HC) judgment quashing a rape complaint lodged by his daughter. Later, the SC bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, on 17 May, issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government and the prime accused to find out more about the case.
The man accused of the rape, Ajay Katara, was the key witness in businessman Nitish Katara’s murder case. Ajay’s statement was the basis for the convictions of Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2002 murder. Vikas Yadav is the son of politician D.P. Yadav, while Vishal is his nephew.
On Ajay’s petition, the Allahabad HC in December 2019 nullified the rape case filed at the behest of Bhagwan Singh’s daughter, Rinki. According to Ajay, the rape case is one of the 37 false FIRs registered against him after his testimony against the two Yadav brothers.
During a hearing in the criminal appeal in the rape case on 9 August this year, Bhagwan Singh personally appeared and informed the SC bench of Justice Trivedi that his daughter, Rinki, eloped and married a man named Sukhpal Singh in 2013, and since then, he has not met her, or his son-in-law. Based on this claim, Bhagwan Singh said that he could not have signed the papers for the appeal, or the ‘vakalatnama’ attached to it.
Bhagwan Singh’s submission was in response to lawyers appearing on behalf of his alleged impersonator and contending that they filed the criminal appeal after receiving documents signed by Bhagwan Singh from his son-in-law, Sukhpal Singh.
On 28 August this year, when the SC bench of Justice Trivedi questioned Sukhpal in court, Sukhpal said he met Bhagwan Singh in Budaun three to four years ago when the latter handed over the signed ‘vakalatnama‘ to his wife, Rinki.
However, noticing inconsistencies in his statement, the SC ordered Sukhpal to file an affidavit to explain the circumstances under which he met Bhagwan Singh, who has denied meeting his son-in-law.
The SC also directed the notary advocate, who attested an affidavit that was part of the appeal filed under Bhagwan Singh’s name, to submit a fresh affidavit to explain how he did that without meeting Bhagwan Singh. The petitioner has to affirm their identity in the affidavit on oath.
The SC also summoned Rinki and called for the original record and proceedings in the rape case that the HC quashed in December 2019 on Ajay’s plea.
Moreover, the SC bench of Justice Trivedi noted that the lawyers appearing in the present appeal marred by impersonation charges are those who appeared for Vikas Yadav in the Supreme Court in his May appeal against a Delhi High Court order rejecting his parole request. At the time, the top court had quashed Yadav’s appeal.
A three-judge bench, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and including Justice Trivedi, will hear the case of impersonation in the present appeal on Tuesday.
Kidnapping FIR to rape complaint
The genesis of the case lies in an 11-year-old kidnapping FIR lodged by Bhagwan Singh with Budaun police on 28 June 2013. The complaint alleged four persons, including his son-in-law Sukhpal, kidnapped his daughter.
However, a month later, his daughter Rinki approached the Allahabad High Court, seeking protection for her husband. Claiming to be a major, Rinki said she married Sukhpal out of her own free will. The high court recorded the couple’s statements and asked the investigating officer in the case to record their statements as well.
On 22 August 2013, the Budaun police recorded their statements, in which Rinki accused Ajay Katara and two others of raping her in Ghaziabad. The statement said Rinki and Sukhpal met the trio on 24 June 2013 after she left her family, and the trio was annoyed over their decision to get married. Then, the trio took her to a place and sexually assaulted her for eight days, she said.
After a thorough investigation, the police closed the case on 20 December 2013. Nobody filed a protest petition against the closure then. However, five years later, Rinki, in June 2018, moved an application before a local court in Budaun, alleging that the police never took steps against Ajay. Her application for directions to the local police to arrest Ajay and put him on trial, however, was rejected, after which, Rinki appealed before the Allahabad HC.
The HC remitted the matter to the trial court in Budaun, asking it to decide the case afresh and take it to a logical end according to the law. Consequently, the police reopened the investigation, recorded the statements of Rinki and Sukhpal again, and filed a chargesheet against Ajay in the trial court, which took cognisance of the matter in December 2018.
Ajay challenged the entire proceedings in the Allahabad HC, which in December 2019 quashed the criminal proceedings against him, holding that there was no merit in the allegations. The court said the chargesheet provided no evidence against Ajay. Moreover, it noted the application to look into the charges was initiated in Budaun and not with the local police in whose jurisdiction the alleged offence took place.
Four years on, in a curious twist to the case, apparently, Bhagwan Singh filed a review petition against the December 2019 decision in the Allahabad HC. When the HC dismissed it in April 2024, an appeal landed in the top court.
In response to a notice then issued by the SC, Ajay filed an affidavit denying the rape charges. He questioned the delay of more than a thousand days in the appeal and argued for its dismissal on the threshold. He contested the charges, saying the kidnapping FIR filed by Bhagwan Singh and the writ petition by Rinki in the Allahabad HC to prevent her husband’s arrest never mentioned his name.
‘Invisible forces’ & impersonation case
His name, Ajay said, emerged for the first time when Rinki recorded her statement before the police. While informing the court about his testimony in the Nitish Katara murder case, Ajay said he had been a victim of multiple false cases registered at the behest of “invisible forces”. Of the total 37 cases against him, six involved rape FIRs. In 35 cases, the police had closed their investigation at the initial stages only, while the HC had stayed the probe on two FIRs, he said.
He also claimed there was a vast improvement in Rinki’s statement recorded before the magistrate in August 2013 compared to her complaint recorded by the police in the same month. Moreover, such a statement, he said, cannot be taken at face value and used directly to establish the truth of facts.
Bhagwan Singh, who has raised the impersonation charges before the top court, learned about the appeal under his name when the Budaun SHO called him. The police officer, who had received the top court notice issued in response to the appeal, wanted to know his grievance and the reason for filing the appeal.
Alarmed after receiving information about the case, Bhagwan Singh moved the top court through his advocate, Nikhil Majithia. He first lodged his impersonation complaint with the office of the Chief Justice of India and the secretary-general.
He later appeared before Justice Trivedi’s court on 30 July and disputed the proceedings instituted under his name. At this, the court questioned lawyer R.P.S. Yadav, who had appeared for the petitioner in the case. Yadan denied knowing Bhagwan Singh and told the bench that he had given the case documents to the advocate-on-record who had prepared and filed the appeal against the Allahabad HC relief to Ajay.
Justice Trivedi’s bench then directed the presence of the advocate-on-record who, on 31 July, appeared in court and refused to identify Bhagwan Singh. He told the court that he signed and filed the appeal on the instructions of R.P.S. Yadav, who was his father’s “long-time” friend. He even denied knowing how the affidavit under Bhagwan Singh was prepared and notarised before being annexed to the appeal.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: How Supreme Court’s process of designating senior advocates changed in last 7 yrs & what it is now