Investigation Ordered into Misuse of Judicial Process for Extortion and Filing of Petitions with Forged Signatures

The Petitioner filed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regarding directions to act against unauthorized constructions in South Delhi.

During proceedings, the purported signatory of the PIL and subsequent contempt petitions (Universal Human Right Foundation), Mr. Narayan Kumar Kashyap, appeared and stated that his signatures on the current contempt petitions and additional affidavits were forged.

He alleged that he was misled by Advocate S.K. Shukla to sign a PIL solely to resolve a personal dispute involving Mr. Naresh Chauhan and Advocate Prashant Chauhan.

A police compliance report suggested a systematic "scam" where petitions are filed to extort money from property owners facing demolition orders.

1. Whether the process of the court was being systematically abused and misused for the purpose of extortion.

2. Whether the signatures of the petitioner were forged to initiate frivolous contempt proceedings.

The Court applied the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law and the principles governing professional ethics for legal practitioners under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Principles regarding the fraudulent use of litigation as a tool for criminal extortion and the duty of the Court to refer prima facie evidence of professional misconduct to the Bar Council of Delhi and criminal acts to the Delhi Police for investigation.

The Court analyzed the SHO Malviya Nagar’s compliance report, which revealed a "nexus" between specific individuals seeking to exploit demolition orders for financial gain.

By comparing the oral testimony of Mr. Kashyap with the case records, the Court observed that the judicial machinery was being weaponized for illegal enrichment.

The Court noted the specific roles of Advocates S.K. Shukla and Prashant Chauhan in allegedly misleading the petitioner and forging documents to maintain petitions without the petitioner’s consent.

Given the "shocking facts" regarding forgery and extortion, the Court determined that the matter exceeded a mere civil dispute and required both disciplinary and criminal oversight.

The Court directed: (i) a reference to the Bar Council of Delhi to investigate Advocates S.K. Shukla and Prashant Chauhan for professional misconduct; (ii) a reference to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), South District, to conduct a criminal investigation, lodge an FIR if warranted, and identify all co-conspirators.