Probe Ordered After Woman, Her Counsel Deny Filing Writ For Protection In Allahabad High Court, Alleges Foul Play By Husband To Aid Divorce Case

The Allahabad High Court has recently directed investigation in a case where the woman, who was petitioner no.1, denied filing the writ petition and suspected that her husband could have filed the writ petition alleging her marriage with someone else to aid their divorce proceedings.

Since the lawyer whose name was mentioned on the petition as counsel for the petitioner also denied filing the said writ petition, Justice Vinod Diwakar directed Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to conduct preliminary inquiry.

Petitioners allegedly got married at a temple and had been living together as husband and wife. The wife filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh for security as she perceived threat from her own family. It was also stated that the husband resides in Delhi due to work. Since no security was provided to them, petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

During the proceedings of the Court, petitioner no.1, the wife appeared in person along with her brother and stated that the petition had not been filed by her or at her behest but had been filed by an impersonator without her consent or knowledge. She also submitted that she is married to someone else, other than petitioner No. 2, and had two children out of that wedlock. It was submitted that due some marital discord, she had been residing with her father, respondent no.4.

Basis this, the Court had ordered inquiry by the Registrar, who submitted a report in sealed cover and also issued a show cause notice to the counsel for petitioner.

In the inquiry, it was found that the petition was not filed by Smt. Rani Pandey, D/o Udai Bhan Pandey, R/o Mahui Fatehpur, Fatehpur Mandaw, District Mau and the Advocate also stated that he had not filed the petition and claimed that someone had impersonated him. Prima facie, the Oath Commissioner was found negligent in discharging his duties.

The Court observed that police report verified the claim made by petitioner in person regarding her marriage and children.

In the affidavit filed by the advocate, it was stated that “he had no knowledge of the petition until he received a notice from this Court via his junior. He categorically denied signing the Vakalatnama or filing the petition, and asserted that his signature had been forged. Advocate Lallan Chaubey, in his statement before the Enquiry Officer, acknowledged that he is the subscriber of the mobile number and the holder of the advocate roll number mentioned in the petition.”

The actual husband of the wife filed an affidavit before the Court stating that the wife, Rani Pandey was having an extramarital affair with petitioner no.2, who was there neighbour and had also threatened the husband with false complaint when the father of the husband tried to reconcile. Petitioner no. 2, the alleged husband, also denied filing of the writ petition.

The Court observed that prima facie there was fraud done on the Court, and from the actions, the Court held that it was by someone who knew the Court procedures very well.

Further, the Court noted that there were 5 stages of filing a petition at which an SMS is received by the AOR (Advocate on Roll) for the petitioner; first is at the time of photo identification, then when the filing number is allotted, at the stage of defects (if any), clearance of defects and at the stage of listing of case before a Court.

Observing that the petitioner's advocate in this case would also have received notification about the case, the Court held that

“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.”

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court directed Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, is directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry and register an FIR if cognizable offence is found. It was further directed that quarterly progress reports be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj and the investigation be done expeditiously.

Case Title: Rani Pandey And Another v. State Of Up And 3 Others [WRIT - C No. - 12032 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order