JUDGMENT By the Court.—Shri Sushil Kumar Tripathi has approached this Court to seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 87 of 2016, under Sections 193, 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli. 2. The facts in brief are that one Basu Dev, husband of Ramawati, died in an accident on 28.2.2012 while driving a motorcycle. Ramawati reported the matter to the police vide F.I.R. Dated 5.3.2012 registered as Case Crime No. 84 of 2012 under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C., Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli. The said F.I.R. has been appended as Annexure 3 to this petition. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet bearing No. 13 of 2012 dated 18.3.2012 was submitted before the Magistrate concerned indicating therein that the offending vehicle was a Mini Truck (Loader) bearing Registration No. U.P.-33 T-4802 driven by Lalit Kumar. 3. It is the claim of the petitioner that Ramawati engaged the petitioner for filing a claim petition to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of her husband for which all the documents were handed over by her, to the petitioner. It has been pleaded that accordingly the petitioner filed a claim petition titled ‘Ramawati, wife of Basu Dev, Ranjit Kumar and Sandeep Kumar, sons of Basu Dev v. Lalit Kumar Yadav driver of vehicle Mini Truck bearing Registered No. UP-33 T-4802 and owners of the vehicle as also I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited who was the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle above mentioned. The claim petition is dated 22.3.2012 and has been placed on record as Annexure 5. 4. We have noticed that the claim petition has been filed just after three days of preparation of the charge-sheet. A claim in the sum of Rs. 36,57,160/- has been made. We have also taken note of the fact that allegedly there are two witnesses to the alleged incident of accident, namely Vinod Kumar son of Guptar Verma, and Guptar Verma, son of Sankata. Both appear to be son and father. 5. If the facts are considered in sequence of events, it stands demonstrated that the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. objected to being sued in context of vehicle insured by the said company (U.P.-33 T-4802) primarily on the ground that vehicle U.P.-33 T-4802 had been shown involved in two accidents. Both appear to be son and father. 5. If the facts are considered in sequence of events, it stands demonstrated that the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. objected to being sued in context of vehicle insured by the said company (U.P.-33 T-4802) primarily on the ground that vehicle U.P.-33 T-4802 had been shown involved in two accidents. Through fabrication of facts, the same vehicle was planted into high amount claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act. In fact the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. 6. A limb of litigation was carried to this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 49 of 2015 : I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company v. Smt. Ramawati and others, in which this Court after taking into account various facts and circumstances and precedents, directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by Additional Director General (Special Inquiries). The order passed by the Court in deference to which Special Investigation Team was constituted, has been appended with the petition as Annexure 2 and is dated 7.10.2015. 7. It further appears that the said Insurance Company pointed out before the Court in the civil revision petition that 64 fake claim petitions had been filed in various districts of Uttar Pradesh, rather 29 fake claims had been decided in which more than one crore rupees had been awarded as claim. Giving similar instances, the Insurance Company pleaded that eight fraudulent cases had been preferred in context of one vehicle namely Truck bearing Registration No. HR-47 6566 for the reason that the said vehicle was insured. In regard to involvement of Advocates in preparing and abetting fabrication of false claim petitions, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had been approached against a number of Advocates. 8. It appears that Special Investigation Team, after investigation, furnished a report dated 2.3.2016 and is available on the record as a part of Annexure 1. The Special Investigation Team found as a fact that husband of Ramawati namely Basu Dev had not died on account of head on collision with vehicle U.P.No. 33 T-4802, rather Basu Dev while coming back to his house in Shakti Nagar Colony, Ambedkar Nagar, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli ran into a vehicle loaded with timber parked on the left side of the road, bearing Registration No. U.P.-33 T-7651. It has been found in the inquiry that Ramawati wife of Basu Dev in collusion with her lawyer Sushil Kumar Tripathi, petitioner (Advocate) and owner of Vehicle U.P.33 T-4802 and others entered into a criminal conspiracy, prepared fabricated documents so as to file bogus claim petition while changing the nature of accident and place of accident through concocted story so as to cause wrongful loss to I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company and wrongful gain to themselves. The Special Investigation Team recommended registration of case against Ramawati, her advocate Sushil Kumar Tripathi (petitioner), purchaser of Vehicle U.P.-33 T-4802, Nanhey Mistri and driver Lalit Yadav, under Sections 193, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Consequent to the said inquiry, impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that documents were furnished by Ramawati to him whereupon the petitioner filed a claim petition on behalf of Ramawati and her sons. The petitioner was not aware as to which vehicle was involved in the accident. The petitioner is an advocate of substantial standing and role of the petitioner is not required to be investigated in the impugned F.I.R. The impugned F.I.R. accordingly be quashed as against the petitioner. 10. We have considered the contention -of learned counsel for the petitioner in context of facts and circumstances of the case, the gist of which has been noticed above. 11. The issue of quashing F.I.R. is required to be considered in context of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while taking notice of various judgments on the issue in Ch. Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), has summed up as follows in paragraph 108. The said para when extracted reads as under : “108. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while taking notice of various judgments on the issue in Ch. Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), has summed up as follows in paragraph 108. The said para when extracted reads as under : “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. Perusal of order dated 7.10.2015 rendered in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2015 (supra) indicates that alarming facts have come to light. Fraudulent claims are being filed all over the State under the Workmen Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act. One vehicle is shown involved in a number of cases only because it happens to be insured. 14. We can take judicial notice of the fact that it is easier to get a claim from Insurance Company, rather from a private person. Pursuing the said modus oparandi as many as eight cases have been filed in context of one truck bearing H.R.-47 6566. The vehicle at issue bearing U.P. -33 T-4802 has been shown involved in two cases. Reports have been called from different District Judges. District Judge, Raebareli reported that 11 claim petitions had been filed based on fraud. 15. We find that the impugned F.I.R. Has been lodged on the basis of an inquiry ordered by this Court under a judicial order and has been conducted by a Special Investigation Team. The inquiry report clearly indicts the petitioner. The investigation in context of the incident mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. is at inceptive stage. The role of the petitioner in filing fabricated and concocted claim cannot be ruled out. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter-affidavits to hold that inquiry conducted by the Special Investigation Team is baseless and the facts stand disproved in view of what has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. 16. The role of the petitioner in filing fabricated and concocted claim cannot be ruled out. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter-affidavits to hold that inquiry conducted by the Special Investigation Team is baseless and the facts stand disproved in view of what has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above and the discussion on the issue, we do not find that the case of the petitioner is covered under any of the categories given in the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ch. Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). 17. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 18. Before parting with the order, we hereby direct that the trial in context of Case Crime No. 84 of 2012, under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C., Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli (Charge-sheet No. 13 of 2012), shall remain stayed till the investigation in the present case is concluded. In case charge-sheet in the present case is filed, we hereby direct that both the cases would be taken up by the same Court so that in regard to one incident (death of Basu Dev) contradictory findings are not recorded. 19. Senior Registrar shall ensure that copy of this order is conveyed to Superintendent of Police, Raebareli. 20. We also direct Superintendent of Police, Raebareli to ensure that the investigation of the case is entrusted with a Circle Officer and is conducted under his own supervision (supervision of Superintendent of Police, Raebareli). Investigation be concluded, expeditiously. 21. This direction is being issued considering that allegedly process of law and process of Court is being used for causing wrongful loss to a party and wrongful gain to others by way of filing concocted claim petitions. Purity of stream of justice is being polluted. 22. Senior Registrar shall ensure that copy of this order is conveyed to Superintendent of Police, Raebareli. 23. We make it clear that nothing said hereinabove is an opinion or finding of fact. The facts have been considered only in context of prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. ———————