UP Court Clerk Exploits Drunk Man to Seize Property, Supreme Court Upholds Harsh Penalty
A shocking case of judicial misconduct has emerged from Uttar Pradesh. A court clerk manipulated a man's drinking habit to fraudulently obtain his ancestral property. The Supreme Court has now upheld strong penalties against the clerk.
The Fraudulent Property Grab
The court clerk worked as a peshkar in the chief judicial magistrate's court. He targeted a man known to drink heavily. On February 14, 2024, he made the intoxicated man sign a sale deed. This document transferred a portion of the man's undivided ancestral house to the clerk.
The clerk knew the property had not been legally divided among family members. He proceeded with the fraudulent transaction anyway. This act set in motion a chain of events that would displace a family from their home.
Family Evicted Through Court Orders
Using the improperly obtained sale deed, the clerk approached the trial court. He secured orders to enforce the property transfer. On January 13 last year, the man's wife resisted eviction attempts. She stood against the interim order from the trial court.
The clerk then obtained another court decree. He collaborated with local police to physically evict the woman and her three children. They were thrown out of their family home based on documents signed during a drunken stupor.
High Court Intervention and Penalties
The Allahabad High Court investigated the matter thoroughly. The court discovered how judicial processes had been abused to dispossess a family. The High Court delivered a strong verdict against the clerk.
The court ordered the clerk to restore the property to the woman within forty-eight hours. It also directed him to pay her one lakh rupees as compensation. The High Court recommended disciplinary proceedings against both the clerk and the civil judge involved in the case.
Supreme Court's Firm Stand
The court clerk appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming he was a victim of conspiracy. Senior advocate H S Phoolka argued his case before a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant. The bench included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi.
The Supreme Court rejected all arguments in favor of the clerk. Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that such behavior by court staff should result in immediate dismissal. The bench emphasized the need to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court noted several irregularities in the case. A civil court had passed a decree on the same day a suit was filed. The court failed to issue notices to co-sharers who were not made parties to the suit. These actions represented serious procedural violations.
Preserving Judicial Integrity
The Supreme Court bench explained why harsh measures were necessary. "Sometimes, we need to pass such harsh orders when it is found that a conspiracy is hatched within the four walls of the court," the justices stated. They added that people come to courts seeking justice, not exploitation.
The court emphasized the importance of sending the right message to the public. "If we do not pass harsh orders in such incidents, it will be difficult for people to repose faith and trust in the judiciary," the bench observed. They found no reason to modify any part of the High Court's judgment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the clerk's appeal completely. It declared that the High Court's directions were appropriate for the case circumstances. The unusual measures were necessary to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with any observations or directions from the lower court.
This case highlights how court officials sometimes abuse their positions. It also demonstrates the judiciary's willingness to take strong action against such misconduct. The Supreme Court's firm stand reinforces the principle that justice must be accessible to all, not just those with connections or cunning.
