Allahabad High Court | Section 340 CrPC Invoked for Inquiry into Alleged Forgery, Fabrication of Judicial Records, and Misrepresentation | Respondent Restrained from Leaving India
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav has directed the Registrar General to conduct a preliminary judicial inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 into allegations of forgery, impersonation, suppression of material facts, and fabrication of judicial records. The Court has further restrained the respondent from leaving India until further orders. The inquiry is to be concluded within one month, with all original files and documents preserved to prevent further tampering. The matter has been scheduled to be listed again for review on 23.09.2025.
The case arose from a series of proceedings connected to a criminal matter wherein the applicant, wife of the respondent, moved the Court under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent for alleged offenses affecting the administration of justice. The reliefs prayed included direction to lodge a complaint against the respondent under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C., initiation of an inquiry against him for alleged violations under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, a judicial inquiry into alleged tampering of records including disappearance of affidavits and unauthorized insertion of documents, and an order restraining the respondent from leaving the country during the pendency of the matter.
The applicant alleged that the respondent had committed multiple offenses including forgery and fabrication of judicial records, impersonation, and misrepresentation of facts in order to secure judicial relief. Specifically, she claimed that the respondent tampered with the judicial record by causing a counter affidavit to go missing, inserting unauthorized pages into a recall application, and permitting another individual to sign applications and affidavits in his stead. She also alleged that he made false statements regarding the status of his passport, misleading the Court to believe it had been surrendered when it had not.
The applicant presented photocopies purporting to demonstrate discrepancies between the respondent’s genuine signature and signatures affixed on various judicial documents including the anticipatory bail application, rejoinder affidavits, and Vakalatnama. Further allegations included misleading submissions about the respondent’s passport and the filing of a counter affidavit that was substantially shorter than the original version and which included a final report allegedly obtained illegally from the District Court at Udaipur. This report, according to the applicant, was never served upon her, thereby depriving her of an opportunity to respond.
The Court record noted that the counter affidavit dated 23.03.2025 could not be traced in the official filing records, suggesting possible suppression or manipulation. The applicant claimed that unauthorized pages were inserted into her own recall application and that the counter affidavit was labeled as a “Short Counter” to evade scrutiny.
The record reflected that the respondent was initially granted anticipatory bail on 17.02.2021 in Case Crime No. 194 of 2020, subject to certain conditions including surrender of his passport. Subsequently, in 2024, the respondent moved Modification Application No. 2 of 2024, seeking deletion of the condition requiring surrender of the passport on the ground that it had expired and that he required international travel for employment. On 07.03.2025, the Court allowed the modification application, deleted Condition No. 3, and directed that the passport be returned for renewal.
Thereafter, the applicant filed Recall Application No. 5 of 2025, challenging the modification order on grounds that she had not been heard, that the respondent had failed to comply with earlier passport-related conditions, and that he intended to abscond. She also contended that the release of the passport would prejudice pending divorce proceedings. This recall application was dismissed by order dated 26.03.2025. In doing so, the Court relied upon a counter affidavit said to have been filed by the respondent. That order specifically addressed the applicant’s submissions and noted the reliance upon legal precedents and other orders cited by the respondent.
Following dismissal, the applicant once again approached the Court through Recall Application No. 7 of 2025. In this application, she reiterated her claims and alleged that the counter affidavit relied upon in the order dated 26.03.2025 had not been properly sworn. Examination of the record by the Court led to the finding that the counter affidavit was indeed unsworn, though it bore the Court’s markings and had been relied upon when passing the order. On 28.04.2025, the Court recorded that the filing of an unsworn counter affidavit amounted to a serious procedural irregularity and recalled its previous orders of 07.03.2025 and 26.03.2025. It directed the respondent to deposit his passport before the trial court within one week and restrained him from leaving India without the Court’s permission.
The present application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. followed, wherein the applicant asserted misrepresentation of passport status, fabrication of judicial records, impersonation, and suppression of material facts. To support her submissions, she relied on precedents including Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370, M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, and Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 1367.
The Court carefully examined the submissions, documentary record, and previous proceedings. It recorded that the allegations, if proven, constitute a deliberate and concerted attempt to mislead the Court, obstruct the course of justice, and impair the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The Court noted from the record that the respondent had been granted anticipatory bail on 17.02.2021 with conditions including surrender of passport. Subsequently, on 07.03.2025, the modification application was allowed, deleting the condition concerning the passport. When Recall Application No. 5 of 2025 was moved by the applicant, the order dismissing it on 26.03.2025 relied on a counter affidavit later found to be unsworn. The Court stated: “Filing of the unsworn counter affidavit on behalf of the applicant is also a ground for recall of the orders of this Court dated 7.3.2025 and 26.3.2025.”
It was further observed: “When the order dated 26.3.2025 was passed by this Court, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant to the recall application but later it has been found that it was not sworn before the Oath Commissioner… The same is on record. It contains marking at places made by the Court… the submission… that he filed duly sworn copy… is not correct.”
On this basis, the Court concluded that the filing of the unsworn counter affidavit and the reliance placed upon it vitiated the orders previously passed. The Court recorded that such conduct represented a serious abuse of the judicial process and necessitated further inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
The Court issued specific directions. It directed that the Registrar General of this Court shall immediately conduct a preliminary judicial inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. into the allegations of forgery, impersonation, suppression of material facts, and fabrication of judicial records made against the respondent in relation to Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9565 of 2020. It further directed that the inquiry shall be concluded within a period of one month from today and shall determine whether a prima facie case exists for lodging a formal complaint.
Additionally, the Court restrained the respondent from leaving India until further orders. It also directed the Registrar General to ensure the immediate preservation of all original files and documents in judicial custody related to Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9565 of 2020 and the present proceedings to avoid any further tampering, replacement, or alteration of the judicial records.
Finally, the Court directed that the matter shall be listed again on 23.09.2025 for further order, after reviewing the findings of the preliminary inquiry, before appropriate court.
Case Title: Ankita Priyadarshini v. Arpan Saxena
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Application U/S 379 BNSS No. - 7 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
