Kumari Udita vs State of U.P. and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Rakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.

In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner Kumari Udita along with his father Mr. Ugrasen Prasad is present in person.

Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the oral order dated 8.12.2009 of Sister Tutor Incharge, Basic Health Worker (Female), Training Centre, Sultanpur, by which the petitioner has been removed from the training of Basic Health Worker (Female) on the ground that the mark-sheet furnished by the petitioner was forged one. After removal from training, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. A.R. Verma on behalf of the opposite party No. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has also filed counter affidavit on 6.3.2010 in the office.

It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the copy of the mark-sheets filed with the writ petition as Annexures 1 and 8 are forged document. Their genuineness has been verified by the Board and the Board has affirmed that the mark sheet furnished by the petitioner is forged one.

By order dated 23.2.2010, the Superintendent of Police, Deoria was directed to produce the petitioner and her father before the Court. However, the petitioner herself appeared in person along with her father Shri Ugrasen Prasad. Mr. Rakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner identified the petitioner who is present in person.

Mr. Rakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that a person, namely Ram Pyarey Pandey of village Pipraich, post office Dhanaukhi, district Deoria had approached him along with another person personating himself to be the father of the petitioner. It is Ram Pyarey Pandey who had given the documents annexed with the writ petition out of which Annexures 1 and 8 are forged documents. Mr. Rakesh Srivastava further submits that Ram Pyarey Pandey had given his Mobile No. 9792729091. It has also been stated that the mobile number of another person who had contacted him along with Ram Pyarey Pandey personating himself to be father of the petitioner was 9415778963.

It is settled law that filing of false document while approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the contempt of the Court and this should be dealt in appropriate manner with the person who approached the Court with uncleaned hands.

In the present case, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has been persuaded by Shri Ram Pyarey Pandey and others who preferred the writ petition. It has also been stated that Ram Pyarey Pandey and the person who impersonated himself to be Ugrasen as the father of the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner''s counsel in lieu of fees and other expenses. Mr. Rakesh Srivastava also submits that the petitioner''s father Ugrasen Prasad who is present in Court had not gone to his chamber for the purpose of filing of the writ petition.

Since the controversy involves playing of fraud with the Court, it shall be appropriate that a First Information Report be lodged and the matter may be investigated by the appropriate agency of the State Government.

In view of above, the Registry is directed to lodge a First Information Report along with order passed today in the police station concerned and the case shall be referred for enquiry to the C.B.C.I.D. which is directed to proceed with the enquiry, expeditiously, in accordance with law and submit a status report to this Court immediately after lapse of two months. While proceeding with the investigation, the C.B.C.I.D. Shall find out the persons or group of persons who are involved in preparing a false document/mark-sheets which has been attached with the present writ petition. The Registrar shall provide the photostat copy of the entire record to the C.B.C.I.D. The C.B.C.I.D. is further directed that while proceeding with the investigation, it shall also find out whether the fake mark-sheets of the Board have been prepared only with regard to the petitioner or for others also and whether any group of persons are involved in such racket in preparation of forged and fake mark-sheet of the board. It shall be open for the C.B.C.I.D. to arrest the persons against whom prima facie cognizable offence is found during the course of investigation and proceed ahead in accordance to law. The Investigating Officer shall not be below the rank of Superintendent of Police.

The case shall again be listed on 14.5.2010 for further hearing. The petitioner and her father Ugrasen Prasad shall again appear in person on the next date of listing on 14.5.2010.