Kamal Narain Singh vs State of U.P.& Ors.

The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the First Information Report giving rise to registration of case crime No. 376 of 1977 under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster and Ami Social Activities Act, 1986 Police Station Mohammadabad, district Farrukhabad. The moot ground formulated in this writ petition and as pressed before us was that even though the petitioner happens to be an active worker of the Samajwadi Party, he has been implicated at the instance of his political opponent belonging to the Ruling Bhartiya Janta party.

On 15198 the following order was passed by us:

"As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner put up this writ petition on Wednesday next dated 21198 to enable him to file a supplementary affidavit enclosing the documents showing primary membership of the political parties, with which, he is claiming his affiliation,"

Pursuant to the aforementioned order the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record Xerox copy of the receipt (Annexure1 to the supplementary affidavit) Form No. 30173 of 17th July, 1996 said to have been issued by one Saral Dubey ''Adhyaksh, Zila Karyakami under his signature as well as under the signature of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, ''Rashtriya Adhyaksh Samajwadi Party'' On a bare looking to the document we became suspicious because out of the five words Saral the words "Sa. La. Du." bear repetitions. Even the flow of the writing of the two alleged signatures appeared to be not natural. Accordingly we had proceeded to pass the following order on 9298:

"The petitioner files a supplementary affidavit put up tomorrow so.that Sri Tripathi, learned A.G.A. could ascertain the signatures of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav fded in support of his claim that he is a primary member of the Samajwadi Party."

Sri Tripathi, learned A.G.A produced before us a document containing the signature of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Minister of this State dated 21101994. The document produced before us has been sent to him through Fax No. 623481 from the Special Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on a Government paper. Thus, there is no doubt that the document produced before us by Sri Tripathi, learned A.G.A. bears the signature of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Minister of this State which is at variance with the signature appearing in Annexure1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.

We have thus, no hesitation in holding that Annexure1 to the supplementary affidavit is a forged and fictitious document. No relief can be granted to the petitioner, who has come up to obtain a Rule from this Court on the basis of forged and fictitious document.

For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.

Since the petitioner has produced before us a forged and fictitious document to his knowledge for the purpose of obtaining a Rule, we are of the view that he has committed not only contempt of this court but also offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Issue notice to him as to why appropriate orders in that regard be not passed against him. Since Mr. Katiyar learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions only to appear in the case which has been dismissed, let office issue a notice to the petitioner on the address given in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit making the rule returnable on 25th March, 1998. The notice to be registered as a separate criminal contempt case.