Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed continuation of the investigation into allegations that a writ petition was filed using an incorrect cause title and signatures attributed to the opposing party, and instructed the Investigating Officer to act independently on the basis of the judicial enquiry report. The matter concerns claims that documents were submitted with signatures not belonging to the concerned litigant. The Court also noted the broader issue of legal representatives or their clerks signing affidavits and filings without personal knowledge of their contents, stating that such acts amount to a serious breach of duty and constitute impermissible conduct.

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The FIR related to allegations that a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of a pending civil suit had been submitted before the High Court with an incorrect cause title and signatures. The petitioner stated that the complainant had filed a civil suit for partition in which the petitioner was one of the defendants. Due to slow progress of the suit, a writ petition was filed by counsel on behalf of the petitioner. The office noted defects regarding mismatch of signatures and cause title. The petitioner asserted that the petition had been filed by an advocate who received papers from a local counsel, and that the advocate’s clerk may have placed his own signatures under the petitioner’s name. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the trial court. A subsequent application was later filed with original signatures, but defects again remained, and the application was dismissed for non-compliance of a peremptory order.

Also Read: “Sins Of An Accused Cannot Be Visited On Family Members”: Supreme Court Quashes Bail In NDPS Case, Orders Surrender Over 731 Kg Ganja Seizure

The complainant later filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which was withdrawn. A complaint was also made by the petitioner against his local counsel before the Bar Association and Bar Council. The complainant thereafter lodged the FIR alleging that forged signatures were created to obtain an order and use it before the trial court. The petitioner contended that he never signed on behalf of any other person and that the FIR was filed with vague allegations. The respondents argued that the forged signatures led to an order being obtained for personal gain and that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation. A judicial enquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial), recording statements of multiple individuals connected with the filing of the petition and related documents, and drawing prima facie conclusions about lapses by certain advocates, clerks and oath commissioners.

The Court recorded that “Justice is often metaphorically termed to be blind, but the officers of Courts must not dare to betray the trust of the Bench deeming the Judges to be sightless…The practice of Advocates or their clerks in filing the affidavit/petition/application/reply without proper representation with their own signatures cannot be appreciated and the same is liable to be deprecated.”

The Court referred to the judicial enquiry and noted that the Registrar (Judicial) concluded “that although there is no single person who can be definitively called the ‘miscreant/wrongdoer’ the evidence strongly indicates that Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava advocate, Ms. Sarda Gurjar advocate, Sh. Omprakash Sharma advocate clerk and Ms. Sundari Devi, as oath commissioners has committed the mistake/fault.” It recorded the finding that they “appears to have filing of writ petition No. 12503/2023 with the wrong cause title… without verifying the facts.” The enquiry further noted that “both Mr. Jai Singh and Ms. Sundari Devi, as oath commissioners, verified the documents without the physical presence of the person making the affidavits. This is a serious breach of the duties of an oath commissioner.”

The Court stated that “this Court cannot ignore this fact that mischief has been committed with the record of this Court.” It observed a “growing trend” where “Advocates’ Clerk or Advocate signing the affidavits for applications/petitions/counter affidavit etc. imperviously and oblivious of the contents therein.” The Court stated that “an Advocate or his clerk signing any petitions/applications/reply or affidavit instead of the party himself… is unacceptable and such attempts to subvert the law is impermissible.”

While noting the petitioner’s contentions, the Court stated: “This Court cannot adjudge the correctness of the allegation leveled in the FIR at this stage as to exactly who is responsible… Certainly, it is a task of the Investigating Officer to investigate.” It added that quashing the FIR “would give a wrong message to the society at large.” The Court recorded that if such practices are allowed, “the citizen of the State/Country would lose faith in the judicial administration system.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Coparcenary Claim, Directs Son To Vacate Father’s Self-Acquired Property, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

The Court stated that “this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition with direction to the Investigation Officer to proceed with the investigation in the light of judicial enquiry conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and draw an independent conclusion and proceed further strictly in accordance with law. Let a copy of the enquiry report be supplied to the Investigating Officer.”

“if the Investigation Officer ultimately comes to the conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against anyone, then before proceedings further in the matter, a notice under Section 35 of the BNS would be given to such person. if the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that the order dated 27.02.2024… has not caused any prejudice to anyone, then he may conclude the matter and submit his report accordingly.”

 Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Harshita Sharma, Mr. Vivek Yadav, Mr. Tushar Sharma, Ms. Swadha Bhargav for Dr. Mahesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma

Case Title: Rakesh Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Another
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 8097/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand