The Gauhati High Court in the case Ms. BeolinKharbhih v. The State of Assam & 25 Ors observed and has imposed a cost for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each upon two advocates and who had signed the Vakalatnama in a frivolous litigation which went on for more than 6 years for a non-existing petitioner.
The Single judge bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi was hearing the matter.
It has been observed by the bench that the judicial process has been successfully taken for a ride for the last more than six years by instituting a case and continuing the same by a non-existing person. The role is absolutely important for the counsel who has appeared for the non-existing petitioner as it has been accepted by the counsel the case of the petitioner wherein the Vakalatnama is singed and all steps are to be taken from time to time on behalf of the non-existing petitioner.
Facts of the Case:
In the case, the petitioner, Ms. BeolinKharbhih, who claimed to be a distant relative of one Sankar Prasad Nath, the Ex-Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam.
The petitioner in the plea stated that the said Officer was being entrusted with some sensitive cases which involves politically influential persons of Assam and Meghalaya for which he was receiving threats and he was ultimately being killed in a hit and run case. It has also been claimed by the petitioner that even the wife of Sankar Prasad Nath died under “mysterious circumstances”, but no action was being taken despite multiple representations and FIRs.
Further, the present writ petitions were filed with as many as 26 party respondents in the year 2016, which include the sitting judge of the Meghalaya High Court.
Therefore, it has also been found by the court that there being no specific allegation which was being made against the judge and had accordingly struck off his name. It has been revealed in the investigation that no person in the name of Ms. BeolinKharbhih (petitioner) exists.
It has also been stated in the status report by the Government Advocate, the report filed that even the CID could not find any clue of the existence of the petitioner after making an investigation by examining the CCTV Footage, the business premises with which the petitioner had claimed to be connected, the newspaper publications were also being made to trace her.
It has been directed by the court to the counsel appearing for the petitioner to secure personal appearance of the petitioner. It has been submitted by the Advocate appearing for the petitioner after taking further time on several occasions, which being before the court on 09.03.2023, that the notice issued to the petitioner by the registered post and same got returned back with endorsement that there being “no such person”.
Accordingly, the court in the case recommended to the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland etc in order to enquire the matter and take appropriate steps against the persons involved.
