JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R no. 93 of 2018 lodged under Sections 354, 323, 504 of I.P.C at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. In support of the contents of the writ petition, an affidavit on behalf of Smt. Anju Bala Rajput, wife of one Shri Praveen Kumar Rajput, resident of house no. 129-130, Omega Green Park, Faizabad Road, Lucknow has been filed. It is contended in paragraph no. 1 of the said affidavit that deponent is the sister of petitioner no. 1 is doing pairvi on behalf of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition as both the petitioners are in jail, as such the deponent is fully acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the case and he is in a position to depose as under. 3. Vakalatnama has been filed by Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate in criminal writ petition no. 975 of 2018, Hitendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand. The name of the person, who engaged Mr. Lalit Sharma, is mentioned Anju Bala Rajput, wife of one Shri Praveen Kumar Rajput resident of house no. 129-130, Omega Green Park, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. 4. Mr. Lalit Sharma would submit that Vakalatnama was sent for signature to the jail and the petitioner has signed the vakalatnama, duly attested by the Jailor of sub-jail, Haldwani. 5. A perusal of Vakalatnama, would reveal that the Vakalatnama though have been signed by the accused petitioners and attested by the Jailor, sub-Jail, Haldwani but the name of the persons, on whose behalf Mr. Lalit Sharma is appointed to conduct the case is not mentioned, rather name of Anju Bala is mentioned. 6. A writ petition or a suit or proceedings in a Court of law can be filed by the party concerned itself or by an authorized agent. Authorized agent and pleader has been defined in Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., which are extracted hereunder: 1. 6. A writ petition or a suit or proceedings in a Court of law can be filed by the party concerned itself or by an authorized agent. Authorized agent and pleader has been defined in Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., which are extracted hereunder: 1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader:-Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader 11 [appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be,] on his behalf: Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person. 2. Recognized agents The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are- (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties; (b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts. 7. The authority to appoint the pleader is defined in Order 3 Rule 4 of C.P.C. which is extracted hereunder: 4. Appointment of pleader- (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. Appointment of pleader- (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. (2) Every such appointment shall be 13 [filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be] deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. 14 [Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,- (a) an application for the review of decree or order in the suit, (b) an application under section 144 or under section 152 of this Code, in relation to any decree or order made in the suit, (c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and (d) any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of moneys paid into the Court in connection with the suit.] 15 [(3) Nothing in sub-rule (2) shall be construed- (a) as extending, as between the pleader and his client, the duration for which the pleader is engaged, or (b) as authorising service on the pleader of any notice or document issued by any Court other than the Court for which the pleader was engaged, except where such service was expressly agreed to by the client in the document referred to in sub-rule(1)] (4) The High Court may, by general order, direct that, where the person by whom a pleader is appointed is unable to write his name, his mark upon the document appointing the pleader shall be attested by such person and in such manner as may be specified by the order. (5) No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in Court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating- (a) the names of the parties to the suit, (b) the name of the party for whom he appears, and (c) the name of the person by whom he is authorized to appear: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party.] 8. Admittedly, the petitioners have not authorized Smt. Anju Bala Rajput to file the writ petition rather she filed writ petition on their behalf, mentioning that she is doing pairvi on their behalf. Unless she is not appointed as recognized agent to the petitioners, she has got no authority to file the writ petition on their behalf. It is no where mentioned in the memo of the petition that she has filing the writ petition as an authorized agent. Neither any authority nor Power of Attorney has been filed by her on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, Smt. Anju Bala Rajput has not been appointed as recognized agent by the petitioners and she has filed the writ petition claiming herself to their Pairokar. Secondly, without any authority of law she has engaged Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate to conduct the aforesaid case, who has filed Vakalatnama on her behalf. 9. The Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate is not in consonance of the Rule 4 of Order 3 of CPC. The writ petition was drafted and filed by Mr. Lalit Sharma in the name of the petitioners without their being any authority or power of attorney by them in favour of Smt. Anju Bala Rajput to file the writ petition in the name of the petitioner, mentioning that Smt. Anju Bala Rajput is the pairokar of the petitioners and doing pairvi on their behalf. Further more, the Vakalatnama has been executed by Smt. Anju Bala Rajput in the name of Mr. Lalit Sharma without their being any authority of law. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate has also failed to note that Smt. Anju Bala Rajput has got no authority to engage him as a lawyer as she is not recognized agent of the petitioners. Further more, the Vakalatnama has been executed by Smt. Anju Bala Rajput in the name of Mr. Lalit Sharma without their being any authority of law. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate has also failed to note that Smt. Anju Bala Rajput has got no authority to engage him as a lawyer as she is not recognized agent of the petitioners. But best reasons known to Mr. Lalit Sharma he has filed the Vakalatnama in the name of Smt. Anju bala Rajput. 10. At the time of hearing, this Court has noticed all these things after perusal of the Vakalatnama. 11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since, signatures of the petitioners exists on the Vakalatanama, therefore it should be treated as Vakalatnama on their behalf. There is no force on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, as he himself has not mentioned that he has been engaged by the petitioners in the writ petition. 12. Filing of the writ petition, in such a manner is not a mere irregularity or simply illegality but in view of this Court it amounts to fraud committed by the petitioners or the counsel. Now in a day's tendency is increasing in filing the false cases in the name of the others, sometimes with their knowledge or without their knowledge, if the person, in whose name, the case is contested came to know the fact that an adverse order came, the person says that he has not filed the same, otherwise he would happy. 13. Registry is directed not to entertain any petition where Power of Attorney is not filed by the alleged Pairokar claiming deponent and filed an affidavit showing that he/she has been authorized by the petitioner/applicant to contest the case on his/her behalf. Since, it is a first case noticed by this Court on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel prays that it is first time mistake committed by him and on his request that he will not repeat such mistake in future; this Court is not taking any action against the counsel for the petitioner. 14. Since, the writ petition has been filed for ulterior motive without their being any Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Anju Bala Rajput, the writ petition is dismissed. Considering this as an abuse of process of law, exemplary cost of Rs. 14. Since, the writ petition has been filed for ulterior motive without their being any Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Anju Bala Rajput, the writ petition is dismissed. Considering this as an abuse of process of law, exemplary cost of Rs. 2 lacs has been imposed upon Smt. Anju Bala Rajput. The Cost shall be deposit before the Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocate Welfare Fund within one month, failing which, the amount of Rs. 2 Lacs shall be recovered from Smt. Anju Bala Rajput through the Collector Lucknow as arrears of land revenue, who shall after recovery of the amount from Smt. Anju Bala Rajput sent to the Registrar of this Court.