Supreme Court Investigates Allegations of Impersonation and Fraud in Special Leave Petition Related to Nitish Katara Murder Case

 

The Supreme Court has recently addressed a case involving a petitioner who denied filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and claimed ignorance of the advocates who represented him. The Court expressed shock upon discovering that the vakalatnama (power of attorney) for the SLP was not signed by the petitioner, indicating that someone had impersonated him and filed the case under a conspiracy. The respondents informed the Court that the SLP was an attempt to continue a false case against a witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case.

Court's Directives

In light of these developments, the Supreme Court has taken several steps:

• Notary's Explanation: The Court has summoned the Notary who attested the petitioner's affidavit to explain how he notarized the document in the petitioner's absence. The Notary is required to file an affidavit detailing the notarization process and the circumstances under which the affidavit was attested.
• Registry's Clarification: The Court has also requested an explanation from the Registry regarding the appearance of various advocates in the order sheets of the current case, despite their lack of formal representation as Advocates on Record (AOR) or Senior Counsel.

Background of the Case

The case centers around the murder of Nitish Katara, a businessman killed in 2002, with Vikas Yadav, the son of a politician, convicted of the crime. The petitioner, Katara's father, filed an FIR against individuals allegedly involved in the kidnapping of his daughter, R. However, R later stated that she married one of the accused willingly and had been raped by another individual, AK, leading to complex legal proceedings.

The Allahabad High Court had previously quashed the criminal proceedings against AK, prompting the petitioner to file the SLP. However, he later claimed ignorance of the SLP, stating he had not signed any documents related to it.

Developments in Court

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the petitioner had not authorized the filing of the SLP, and the vakalatnama was signed without his presence. The Court expressed serious displeasure over these irregularities.

• Advocate's Testimony: Advocate E, representing R, stated he received the vakalatnama from the petitioner's son-in-law, SS, who claimed to have obtained it from the petitioner years ago. This statement contradicted the petitioner's assertion that he had not seen SS or R since their elopement.
• Next Steps: The Court has directed SS to provide an affidavit detailing the circumstances of his meeting with the petitioner and the timeline of events. The Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court has been instructed to send the original records of the underlying case by September 2, with the next hearing scheduled for September 3.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's inquiry into the notarization and representation in this case highlights serious concerns regarding legal processes and the integrity of affidavits. The Court's actions aim to ensure accountability and clarity in the proceedings, particularly given the implications of the SLP on ongoing criminal matters related to the Nitish Katara case.