U. S. TRIPATHI, J. On 21-7-2000 this Bench while hearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 4230 of 2000 filed by Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Ram Kumar Agarwal, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-IInd Kala Aam, Bulandshahar and Parvez Alam, Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution Sub-Division, Bulandshahar against the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahar, Station House Officer, P. S. Kotwali Nagar and Sri Hitendra Chaudhari, for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F. I. R. dated 8-7-2000 in case Crime No. 427 of 2000 (Correct No. 429 of 2000) under sections 354 and 452 I. P. C. relating to PS. Kotwali Nagar and for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus staying the arrest of the petitioners and further proceedings of the aforesaid case in pursuance of the impugned F. I. R. we recollected that for the same relief by the same petitioners a writ petition had earlier been filed in this Court. Bench Secretary of the Court was directed to check the list and find out whether any earlier writ petition by the same petitioners for the same prayer was filed or not. The Bench Secretary on checking register and cause list of fresh cases informed that Criminal Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2000 was filed by the same petitioners for the same relief and the same was dismissed by this Court on 18-7-2000. We called for the record and after going through the same, it transpired that the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2000 had been filed by Parvez Alam, S/o Late Khursheed Alam as petitioner No. 1 and B. K. Agarwal (Brij Kishore Agarwal) s/o late Sri R. K. Agarwal as petitioner No. 2 for quashing the F. I. R. of Case Crime No. 429 of 2000 under sections 354 and 452 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar. The above writ petition was filed through Sri V Singh, Advocate and one Sri Pradeep s/o Murari Lal, r/o Mohalla Kanoongaon Sikarpur, district Bulandshahar had filed his affidavit verifying contents of the writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, the said writ petition was dismissed by us by order dated 18-7-2000. 2. The above writ petition was filed through Sri V Singh, Advocate and one Sri Pradeep s/o Murari Lal, r/o Mohalla Kanoongaon Sikarpur, district Bulandshahar had filed his affidavit verifying contents of the writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, the said writ petition was dismissed by us by order dated 18-7-2000. 2. It further appeared that by concealing the fact of dismissal of earlier writ petition, the subsequent writ petition No. 4230 of 2000 had been filed falsely stating in paragraph 1 that the said writ petition No. 4230 of 2000 was the first writ petition filed before this Court. Cleverly while filing subsequent writ petition, name of Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, s/o Ram Kumar Agarwal had been shown as petitioner No. 1 while that Parvez Alam as petitioner No. 2 without giving his parentage and crime No. was also given as 427 of 2000 instead of 429 of 2000 while the copy of F. I. R. annexed was of the same contents. Sri Suresh Chandra s/o Sunder Lal, r/o Civil Lines P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar had filed his affidavit in support of the subsequent writ petition. The said Suresh Chandra was identified by Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate of this Court. On index page in the title of the writ petition, the name of petitioner was disclosed as Bhuvnesh Kumar Gupta not as Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal as given in the memo of petition. Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate was present in the Court before us and he admitted before us that signature appearing on the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition under identification clause was not his signature and in fact the signature had been forged by his Clerk Sri Ramesh. 3. The Bench was of the view that the petitioners of the petition, the deponent of the affidavit Sri Suresh Chandra and others tried to play fraud on the Court with a view to obtain some favourable relief concealing the fact that the writ petition filed earlier on behalf of the petitioners for the same relief had already been dismissed by this Court. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we dismissed the above writ petition No. 4230 of 2000 with a special costs of Rs. 50. 000/- to be deposited by the petitioners in this Court within one months. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we dismissed the above writ petition No. 4230 of 2000 with a special costs of Rs. 50. 000/- to be deposited by the petitioners in this Court within one months. We also called upon the deponent Sri Suresh Chandra, s/o Sri Sunder Lal, r/o Civil Lines, PS. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar and Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate to show cause why they be not proceeded with for committing contempt of this Court. We further, directed that notices be also issued to the petitioners Sri B. K. Agarwal and Sri Parvez Alam to show-cause why they be not punished for committing contempt of this Court by fixing 5-9-2000 for their appearance. 4. Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate filed his reply contending that Criminal Writ Petition 4152 of 2000 was filed by Sri V. Singh Advocate on behalf of Sri Parvez Alam, s/o Khursheeed Alam and Sri B. K. Agarwal, S/o late Sri R. K. Agarwal, which was reported on 17-7-2000. Sri B. K. Agarwal. petitioner No. 2 in the aforesaid writ petition had directed him (Sunil Kumar) to file petition. Accordingly, he prepared the petition on 17-7-2000 itself and it was reported on 18-7-2000. At that time he was unaware of the fact that another petition had been filed by Sri V. Singh, Advocate. He filed impugned Writ Petition No. 4230 of 2000 on 18-7-2000 itself. In case, he had some other intention, he would not have filed Writ Petition on 18-7-2000 and that too before the same Bench. The copy of letter of Sri B. K. Agarwal instructing him to file the writ petition on his behalf was annexed as An-nexure-1 to the affidavit. 5. Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, s/o Sri Ram Kumar Agarwal, the other contemner filed show-cause contending that he joined on the post of Executive Engineer at Bulandshahr after being transferred on 20-6-2000. On 8-7-2000 an F. I. R. was lodged against him on false and friviolous allegations giving rise to the case Crime No. 429 of 2000 under sections 354/452 I. PC. PS. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar. He contacted Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal, Advocate through his friend Sri Guglani, Junior Engineer on 14-7-2000 and engaged him to move his bail application before the Courts at Bulandshahar. PS. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar. He contacted Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal, Advocate through his friend Sri Guglani, Junior Engineer on 14-7-2000 and engaged him to move his bail application before the Courts at Bulandshahar. Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal, Advocate Bulandshahar got prepared some documents pertaining to the bail application to be filed before the Courts at Bulandshahar. However, on 15-7-2000, Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal informed him that it was very difficult to obtain bail from the Courts at Bulandshahar and he would approach the High Court for staying the arrest and for quashing the entire criminal case against him. He expressed his difficulty in approaching the High Court and then he engaged Sri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate to move his bail application before the Courts at Bulandshahar. Sri Dhirendra Singh moved his bail application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who granted him bail on 27-7-2000. Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal met him on 27-7-2000 in the evening and requested him to write a letter addressed to his son Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad on the pretext that it was necessary to complete some formalities for filing a petition, which has already been prepared by his son Sunil Kumar, Advocate and assured him that criminal proceedings of case Crime No. 429 of 2000 would be quashed by the High Court. In the above circumstances, he wrote two letters addressed to Sri Sunil Kumar on the dictation of Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal and also signed a vakalatnama. That he had not signed any other paper except these two undated letters and vakalatnama engaging Sri Sunil Kumar, which were prepared on 27-7-2000. He never informed Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal with regard to proceeding of this Court and order dated 21-7-2000 passed by this Court. He had not instructed any other persons to file Writ Petition on his behalf. He had no information regarding filing and dismissal of earlier Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2000 on 18-7-2000 and subsequent Writ Petition No. 4230 of 2000 and order dated 21-7-2000. He had never instructed Sri Parvez Alam to file writ petition on his behalf nor he gave instruction to Sri Pratap, the deponent of the first petition. He had never engaged Sri V. Singh, Advocate to argue the first writ petition. 6. He had never instructed Sri Parvez Alam to file writ petition on his behalf nor he gave instruction to Sri Pratap, the deponent of the first petition. He had never engaged Sri V. Singh, Advocate to argue the first writ petition. 6. Sri Suresh Chandra the other contemner filed show-cause contending that he had filed affidavit alongwith Writ Petition No. 4230 of 2000 as he was clerk in the chamber of Sri R. K. Agarwal, Advocate, Collectorate, Bulandshahar. He had no knowledge of filing of earlier petition before this Court. One Sri Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, who was posted as Junior Engineer (Civil) in U. P State Electricity Board of Bulandshahar and was his friend, came to his house on 16 -. 7-2000 and introduced Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, Executive Engineer and told that Sri B. K. Agarwal and Parvez Alam were in trouble. Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal said that he alongwith his S. D. O. Parvez Alam were required in a case under sections 354 and 452 I. P. C. and requested for some help so that they might not be sent to jail and might also not appear in Court for bail. He informed Sri B. K. Agarwal to move the High Court for quashing the F. I. R. and also for staying of arrest and on his request he introduced Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, Chamber No. 134-A High Court, Allahabad and then he talked with Sri Sunil Kumar on telephone. He also requested him to visit Allahabad to file the petition on his behalf and on behalf of Parvez Alam. He also handed over the papers to him alongwith letters in the name of Sunil Kumar and then he came to Allahabad on 17-7-2000 and handed over papers and letters to Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate. The Writ Petition was drafted by Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate on evening of 17-7-2000 and next day he swore the affidavit at 10. 20 a. m. and Writ Petition was filed in the Registry for Court No. 35 on 18-7-2000. He committed bona fide mistake without any ill-will or design and in the absence of knowledge of the correct facts for which he tendered apology. 7. 20 a. m. and Writ Petition was filed in the Registry for Court No. 35 on 18-7-2000. He committed bona fide mistake without any ill-will or design and in the absence of knowledge of the correct facts for which he tendered apology. 7. On perusal of affidavits filed by above contemner and allegations made by them against Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate and Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal, we felt it necessary to issue notice to Ram Bharosey Agarwal, Advocate alongwith copy of affidavit to Sri B. K. Agarwal for showing cause, vide order dated 12-1-2001. Ram Bharosey Agarwal filed reply by way of counter-affidavit contending that Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal engaged one Sri Charanjeet Lal as his counsel in the bail application as well as surrender application moved by him on 12-7-2000. The above applications, however, could not be taken up on 12-7-2000 and 15-7-2000 due to strike by lawyers. On 17-7-2000 the above applications were rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar. The above applications were signed by Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal himself, who was identified by Charanjeet Lal, Advocate. By concealing the above facts Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal, contacted him through one Guglani, Junior Engineer for moving an application for surrender and bail on his behalf and he prepared the surrender application, which was moved on 14-7-2000. In the meantime, he came to know that Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal had already moved surrender application and bail application, which was pending in the Court. Therefore, he did not appear to press the application on 17-7-2000, which was dismissed for default. Subsequently, his four bail applications were rejected on 17-7-2000 and 27-7-2000 in default. He denied the allegations made by Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal contending that he never misrepresented Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal that he would get any order staying arrest through Sunil Kumar, Advocate. 8. Sri V. Singh. Advocate, filed his reply contending that one Pratap, s/o Murari Lal, r/o Mohalla Kannongaon, Sikarpur, district Bulandshahar came to his place for filing Criminal Writ Petition for quashing the F. I. R. in case Crime No. 429 of 2000 under sections 354 and 452 I. P. C. lodged on 8-7-2000 at P. S. Kotwali on behalf of Sri Parvez Alam and Sri B. K. Agarwal and on his instruction he filed Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2000, which was dismissed. The above writ petition was filed on the instruction of Sri Pratap and he had never met Sri B. K. Agarwal on telephonic call of Sri Parvez Alam. 9. Sri Parvez Alam filed his reply contending that after lodging First Information Report in case Crime No. 429 of 2000 against him and Sri B. K. Agarwal, he alongwith B. K. Agarwal discussed matter with several persons including Advocates and finally Sri B. K. Agarwal met one Sri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Junior Engineer (Civil) on 16-7-2000 at his house alongwith him and requested him to suggest the way, so that they might not go to jail. Sri R. K. Agarwal advised them to discuss the matter with Sri Suresh Chandra, On 16-7-2000 Sri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal called Suresh Chandra and the matter was discussed with him and then he informed them about Sri Sunil Kumar to file petition before the High Court to get the order of stay of arrest. Sri B. K. Agarwal further discussed the matter with Sri Sunil Kumar on telephone and subsequently, the papers relating to the case including vakalatnama and letters were given to Suresh Chandra for taking Allahabad and to hand over to Sri Sunil Kumar to file writ petition before High Court and an amount of Rs. 1000/- was also given to him to be paid to Sri Sunil Kumar. Sri Sunil Kumar then filed writ petition on 18-7-2000 and on 21-7-2000 he informed him on telephone that petition was dismissed. He also informed that some other petition filed on their behalf was already pending, which was dismissed earlier. He and Sri B. K. Agarwal both had instructed Sri Sunil1 Kumar to file writ petition for quashing F. I. R. in case Crime No. 429 of 2000, who in pursuance of their instructions filed writ petition No. 4230 of 2000. He showed his ignorance about the earlier writ petition and contended that he had not signed any paper or vakalatnama filed in the earlier writ petition. 10. In reply to the affidavit filed by Sri V. Singh, Advocate, the contemner Parvez Alam contended that he had never met Sri Virendra. Singh or Pratap, S/o Sri Murari Lal and had no knowledge that such a person was having any existence or not. He never instructed Sri Virendra Singh. 10. In reply to the affidavit filed by Sri V. Singh, Advocate, the contemner Parvez Alam contended that he had never met Sri Virendra. Singh or Pratap, S/o Sri Murari Lal and had no knowledge that such a person was having any existence or not. He never instructed Sri Virendra Singh. Advocate to file any petition on his behalf and never engaged him as his counsel by signing any vakalatnama. He has not signed any vakalatnama engaging Sri Virendra Singh as Advocate in his case. His signatures on affidavit of Writ Petit:on No. 4152 of 2000 were forged. 11. In reply to the affidavit of Sri Parvez Alam, the contemner Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal contended that he never discussed the matter with Parvez Alam and never met Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, J. E. Sri Parvez Alam had made above allegations under the influence of Sri Suresh Chandra. 12. In reply to the affidavit filed by Sri Ram Bharosey Agarwal, Sri B. K. Agarwal contended that he never engaged Sri Charanjeet Lal, Advocate and had not moved any application through him. He had also not engaged Sri A. K. Sharma, Advocate and his signatures on surrender/bail applications were forged. He had also not engaged Sri Dharmendra Singh, Advocate. 13. In reply to the affidavit of Sri Sunil Kumar, Sri B. K. Agarwal contended that he never engaged or instructed Sri Sunit Kumar to file and argue writ petition on his behalf. He never handed over any document, vakalatnama, authority fee or instruction to Sri Sunil Kumar for filing criminal writ petition. 14. In reply to the affidavit of Suresh Chandra, Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Agarwal contended that he never instructed to Sri Suresh Chandra to go to Allahabad and to prepare and file writ petition on his behalf. Sri Suresh Chandra was a professional deponent and was filing his affidavit without the authority of persons and the litigants. 15. We have given above contentions of the contemners concerned in detail to show how they shift their liability and complicity in the offence upon pairokars just to escape the legal consequences. This practice in prevalent rampantly in the Courts just to fleece the poor litigation which requires deft handling. 16. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties submitted that there was no intentional maneuvring and the 2nd writ petition was filed in ignorance of the earlier writ petition. This practice in prevalent rampantly in the Courts just to fleece the poor litigation which requires deft handling. 16. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties submitted that there was no intentional maneuvring and the 2nd writ petition was filed in ignorance of the earlier writ petition. Be that as it may, since parties and the counsel who filed the later writ petition have tendered unconditional apology and Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate stated before us that he will be more vigilant in future in such matters, we deem it appropriate to discharge the show-cause notices. Accordingly, show-cause notices are discharged and no further action is necessary. Record be consigned. Before parting with the order we may point out that learned counsel representing the parties and other advocates present in Court placed before us their problems which they have to face quite often on account of affidavits being sworn in by fictitious person. They submitted that the litigants and their pairokar give instructions and they have to believe the information given by them and also the identity of the litigants as they have no personal knowledge. Some times affidavits sworn in at district headquarters are supplied to them, which in some cases, were found to have been sworn by fake person. The integrity of the advocates is unnecessarily doubted. It was suggested by them that in order to ensure that affidavits filed in the Court are sworn by genuine person, certain amendments are necessary to be carried in Rules 3,9,10 and 13 of Chapter IV of the Rules of the Court. 17. We have carefully considered the above submissions. On going through the Rules 9, 10 and 13 of the chapter IV of the Rules of the Court 1952, hereinafter referred to as rules, we feel that the particulars of the person swearing in the affidavit as required by Rule 9 of the Rules are not sufficient to ascertain the identity of the person swearing in the affidavit. We also feel that- Rule 10 of the Rules is so liberal that anybody, not being party to the proceeding, claiming to have knowledge of the facts, can swear an affidavit. 18. We also feel that- Rule 10 of the Rules is so liberal that anybody, not being party to the proceeding, claiming to have knowledge of the facts, can swear an affidavit. 18. We suggest that passport size photograph of the person swearing in the affidavit taken at the High Court should be affixed on the affidavit and it should be made compulsory that the affidavit, save in exceptional cases, be sworn in by the party to the proceeding. 19. In the above backdrop and in view of the increasing tendency of filing false affidavits by fake persons to misguide the Court in obtaining favourable order, we suggest that following amendments be made in Rules 3,9,10 and 13 of Chapter IV of Rules: (1) Amendment of Rule 3 Following new clause (1) be added in existing Rule 3: (1) Photograph of the deponent, taken in the manner given hereinafter and bearing signature or thumb Impression of deponent. (2) Amendment of Rule 9 Existing Rule 9 be numbered as sub-rule (1) and thereafter following; new sub-rules be added : (2) A passport size photograph of the deponent taken in the manner specified in the sub-rules (3) to (5) shall be affixed is of the deponent. The photograph shall clearly show a districtive on the affidavit with a declaration that the photograph affixed serial number and date on which the deponent has been photographed. (3) The deponent shall put his signature/thumb impression on the photograph in such a manner that a part of It is on the photograph affixed and remaining part on the affidavit. (4) The photograph of the deponent shall be taken in the High Court by an authorized photographer. The photographer shall maintain a register showing serial number allotted to each deponent, his name, parentage full address and the date on which photograph is taken. The deponent shall sign the relevant entry of the register in token of receipt of the photograph. (5) A placard shall be placed in front of the deponent showing the serial number and date of the register maintained under sub-rule (4) and the above placard shall be clearly visible in the photograph. The deponent shall sign the relevant entry of the register in token of receipt of the photograph. (5) A placard shall be placed in front of the deponent showing the serial number and date of the register maintained under sub-rule (4) and the above placard shall be clearly visible in the photograph. (3) Amendment of Rule-10 The words "an affidavit may be sworn in by any person having knowledge of the facts deposed to therein" occurring after word "court" in Clause 1 of Rule 10 be deleted and in place of it following be substituted, "every affidavit shall be sworn by a party to the proceeding. Where there are more than one party, the affidavit may be sworn in by any one of them as on behalf of all or some of them clearly stating therein the authority given on behalf of other parties. " " Provided that the above rule shall not apply to the person on whose behalf the affidavit is being sworn is in jail or for reasons expressly stated and substantiated in the affidavit, he is unable to swear in the same. (4) Amendment to Rule 13 In the Form of declaration after words "making this affidavit" and before "and alleging" the following be inserted: " and whose photograph has been affixed. The Registrar General is directed to place copy of this order before Honble the Chief Justice for necessary action. Order Accordingly. .