Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a civil court’s direction to inquire into the authenticity of a sale agreement forming the basis of a suit for specific performance. Observing that the objective of every trial is to discover the truth and that placing fabricated material before a court amounts to fraud on the judicial process, the Court upheld the order for an enquiry into the genuineness of the purported sale agreement, alleged to be forged and executed by persons shown as already deceased. The Bench accordingly maintained the direction to the competent revenue authority to complete the enquiry into the document and submit its report to the trial court.

The case arises from a civil suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 04.04.2000 filed by the first petitioner before the Additional District Judge at Deeg. During the trial, a witness stated that the alleged executants of the agreement had died in 1995 and 1990, before the date of the document. On that basis the civil court decided the suit against the plaintiff and, in the same judgment, directed that an enquiry be conducted into the correctness and genuineness of the agreement.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings On Rs 5100 Crore Settlement In Sandesara–Sterling Group Bank Fraud

A petition was then filed by the plaintiff, another individual and the stamp vendor, challenging this direction. They submit that no death certificates were produced in the civil proceedings, that a prior police case regarding the alleged forgery ended in a negative final report, and that an enquiry cannot be ordered solely on the basis of an oral statement.

On behalf of the State, it is argued that the suit was founded on the claimed sale agreement, that the allegation of the executants having predeceased the agreement creates a factual dispute, and that the genuineness of the document therefore requires examination. The judgment refers to Section 340 and Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of proceedings relating to alleged use of forged documents in court.

The Court observed that “Truth is the foundation of justice…The entire judicial system has been created only to discover and establish the real truth…Justice founded on the truth would establish peace and harmony in the society. For the common man, truth and justice are synonymous and inseparable. So when truth fails, justice fails.”

The Court stated that a disputed fact had been placed before the civil court, namely, that the executants of the agreement dated 04.04.2000 had died prior to its alleged execution. It noted that “if a fact has been disputed on the record of the Court, then certainly the disputed fact is required to be examined… by way of conducting an enquiry.” It further recorded that if a forged document is submitted to obtain a judicial order, “such practice cannot be allowed on the part of any litigant in order to maintain the majesty of law.”

The Court discussed the settled position of law that when material is placed before a court indicating that a party has submitted a false or fabricated document, the court is bound to consider whether an enquiry is expedient in the interest of justice. It referred to the Supreme Court’s observation that “the court is not bound to make a complaint... as the section is conditioned by the words ‘court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice’.” The judgment further quoted that such expediency is determined not merely by the magnitude of injury to the affected party, but by the impact on the administration of justice.

The Court cited the principle that the stream of justice must remain unpolluted, stating that persons who take recourse to fraud “interfere with the administration of justice” and must be dealt with appropriately. It quoted that suppression of material facts and fraudulent acts “have no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.” The Court also reproduced the Supreme Court’s statement that litigants who attempt to pollute the stream of justice or approach the court with tainted hands “are not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

Ultimately, the Court observed that if any litigant approaches the court with fabricated documents, a thorough enquiry is necessary to ascertain the truth. It noted that filing false documents is a serious matter amounting to fraud on the court, potentially attracting legal consequences.

Also Read: Unreadable Post-Mortem Reports Undermine Justice; Rajasthan High Court Mandates Digital Medico-Legal Reports From Feb 2026 While Hearing Bail Plea In Murder Case

The Court stated that it found “no merit and substance in this petition and no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below, which requires any interference of this Court. The instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed.”

“It is made clear that whatever observations have been made in this order would not influence the concerned authority in any manner for conducting enquiry in the matter. It is also observed that the order was passed by the Court below way-back in the month of August, 2018, but inspite of passing of more than seven years, till date the matter has not been finalised. It is expected from the authority concerned to speed up the enquiry and submit the report of enquiry before the competent Court in strict compliance of the directions issued by the Court below.”

“Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Punia, PP

Case Title: Sundar Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:46415
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4021/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand