The Allahabad High Court on Monday ordered a police inquiry after a woman said that a petition in her name had been filed without her knowledge or consent..The petition had been filed before the Court last year seeking protection for the woman and a man (second petitioner), claiming that they were a married couple facing threats from her parents. However, the woman said that she is currently separated from her husband and that he might have filed the petition in collusion with an advocate to create grounds for divorce. .Justice Vinod Diwaker observed that a fraud appeared to have been perpetrated upon the Court to achieve an ulterior motive. The Court added that such fraud could not have been executed without the active involvement of an individual well-versed in court proceedings. “This case warrants a fair and thorough investigation, as the perpetrators appear to have attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court. If the conspirators were to succeed in their design, it would not only constitute a travesty of justice and a stain on the criminal justice system, but would also gravely undermine public confidence in the rule of law and erode the very integrity of judicial institutions. Such an outcome strikes at the core of the justice delivery system and must be prevented with the utmost vigilance and resolve," the Court observed..Accordingly, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter. It further directed that in a case it is found that a cognizable offence was committed, a First Information Report (FIR) be registered forthwith.A comprehensive investigation shall be conducted to uncover the fraud perpetrated upon the Court, the judge stressed.“A free, fair and uninfluenced investigation is expected from the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to bring all conspirators and individuals who provided logistical or other support for executing the fraud before justice. Forensic and scientific methods are to be employed to ensure a fair, unbiased, and thorough investigation,” the Court added.It further directed Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to himself monitor the investigation. The inquiry shall be completed expeditiously, and quarterly progress reports shall be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, the Court ordered..In April 2024, the woman, along with her brother, had appeared in person before the Court to submit that she had never signed the protection plea or the accompanying affidavit. She also submitted that her Aadhaar card had been misused to file such a plea.The woman also said she was not married to the second petitioner as claimed in the plea. She added that she was married to another man and had two children from this marriage. She further said she was currently residing with her father due to a matrimonial discord with her husband. The second petitioner also denied having any knowledge about the protection plea.The Court had then issued a show cause notice to a lawyer, Advocate Shri Lallan Chaubey, asking him to explain how the petition had been filed through him. However, Chaubey too denied filing any such plea and said his name and signature had been misused. The Oath Commissioner was also found to have been negligent.Meanwhile, the woman’s husband, in a counter-affidavit, told the Court that his wife was in an adulterous relationship with the second petitioner and had refused to return to her matrimonial home..Considering these statements, the Court ordered a police inquiry into the matter. The Court also dismissed the protection plea.
The Allahabad High Court on Monday ordered a police inquiry after a woman said that a petition in her name had been filed without her knowledge or consent..The petition had been filed before the Court last year seeking protection for the woman and a man (second petitioner), claiming that they were a married couple facing threats from her parents. However, the woman said that she is currently separated from her husband and that he might have filed the petition in collusion with an advocate to create grounds for divorce. .Justice Vinod Diwaker observed that a fraud appeared to have been perpetrated upon the Court to achieve an ulterior motive. The Court added that such fraud could not have been executed without the active involvement of an individual well-versed in court proceedings. “This case warrants a fair and thorough investigation, as the perpetrators appear to have attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court. If the conspirators were to succeed in their design, it would not only constitute a travesty of justice and a stain on the criminal justice system, but would also gravely undermine public confidence in the rule of law and erode the very integrity of judicial institutions. Such an outcome strikes at the core of the justice delivery system and must be prevented with the utmost vigilance and resolve," the Court observed..Accordingly, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter. It further directed that in a case it is found that a cognizable offence was committed, a First Information Report (FIR) be registered forthwith.A comprehensive investigation shall be conducted to uncover the fraud perpetrated upon the Court, the judge stressed.“A free, fair and uninfluenced investigation is expected from the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to bring all conspirators and individuals who provided logistical or other support for executing the fraud before justice. Forensic and scientific methods are to be employed to ensure a fair, unbiased, and thorough investigation,” the Court added.It further directed Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to himself monitor the investigation. The inquiry shall be completed expeditiously, and quarterly progress reports shall be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, the Court ordered..In April 2024, the woman, along with her brother, had appeared in person before the Court to submit that she had never signed the protection plea or the accompanying affidavit. She also submitted that her Aadhaar card had been misused to file such a plea.The woman also said she was not married to the second petitioner as claimed in the plea. She added that she was married to another man and had two children from this marriage. She further said she was currently residing with her father due to a matrimonial discord with her husband. The second petitioner also denied having any knowledge about the protection plea.The Court had then issued a show cause notice to a lawyer, Advocate Shri Lallan Chaubey, asking him to explain how the petition had been filed through him. However, Chaubey too denied filing any such plea and said his name and signature had been misused. The Oath Commissioner was also found to have been negligent.Meanwhile, the woman’s husband, in a counter-affidavit, told the Court that his wife was in an adulterous relationship with the second petitioner and had refused to return to her matrimonial home..Considering these statements, the Court ordered a police inquiry into the matter. The Court also dismissed the protection plea.
