Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹25K Costs On Litigant For Filing Forged Documents, Disallows Withdrawal

The Allahabad High Court has held that a litigant who files a writ petition along with forged documents cannot be permitted to withdraw it in order to escape the consequences of the proceedings.

Dismissing the petition as an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,

“The entire process adopted by the petitioner of “taking a chance” and, upon being unable to succeed, seeking to withdraw the writ petition is deprecated by this Court. Such a prayer for withdrawal cannot be countenanced by this Court at this stage.”

Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, filed instructions stating in categorical terms that the petition had been filed along with forged documents. The petitioner did not controvert the allegation of forgery, and also did not answer the submissions made by the State with regard to the Aadhaar Card. The instructions were kept on record.

The Court observed that a litigant who resorts to fraud diverts the course of judicial proceedings, and that anything done with an oblique motive interferes with the administration of justice. Such litigants, it held, must be dealt with appropriately, both to punish the wrong committed and to discourage others from conduct which erodes public confidence in the justice system.

“The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may be given vitality to all the organs of the State.”

The Court noted the legal position that a fraud practised to deceive the court could amount to contempt, since it interferes with the administration of justice.

It referred to Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma, where the Supreme Court, dealing with forged documents filed before a court, held the perpetrator of the fraud guilty of contempt, and to K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, which reiterated that concealment of material facts amounts to misrepresentation and abuse of the process of the Court, having no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.

It also relied on Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and Moti Lal Songara vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another, where it was observed that suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood.

Taking into consideration that the petitioner was an old person aged more than 70 years, the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings. It nonetheless dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 25,000, since forged and fabricated documents had been filed in it. The costs are to be deposited within fifteen days with the Mediation & Conciliation Centre, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, and proof of payment, along with an affidavit of compliance, is to be furnished to the Senior Registrar. On failure to pay within that period, the Senior Registrar has been directed to recover the costs as arrears of land revenue.