Bombay High Court Orders Criminal Prosecution Of Trio For Producing Fake HC Order Before Small Causes Court

The Bombay High Court ordered criminal action against three individuals for producing fake High Court orders before the Small Causes Court in order to gain advantage in a dispute related to a property in Bandra.Justice Madhav Jamdar ordered action against Satish Sakla, Manisha More and Sagar Patil, who were plaintiffs before the Small Causes Court and submitted the forged documents along with an application to produce additional documents.“Prothonotary and Senior Master, Original Side, High Court Bombay…to file complaint with the jurisdictional Magistrate as I am prima facie satisfied that offence of forgery, fabricating false evidence and making false statement in a declaration which is receivable as evidence, offences under the Information Technology Act etc. are made out”, the court directed.The Small Causes Court had allowed the trio’s request to produce additional documents in the case. Thus, the opposite parties in the suits - Radheshyam Jangad, Nemichand Gupta, Suresh Diwakar and Mukesh Khowal filed writ petitions challenging the order. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions in the morning session of March 30, 2023, but recalled the decision later in the day when it came to light that the plaintiffs submitted fake documents in the Small Causes Court.On March 30, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the court received a complaint by Advocate VM Parker alleging that he received bogus High Court judgement on WhatsApp in a 2018 testamentary petition by Shanti Sakla, Satish Sakla’s mother. Parkar was a lawyer in the matter.The Prothonotary reported to the bench that the alleged judgment passed allegedly by Justice RD Nalawade on April 9, 2019, was never passed in the case. In fact, the testamentary petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, the Prothonotary reported. Therefore, the court restored the writ petitions considering the serious allegations.From the sitting list effective in April 2019, the court noted that Justice TV Nalwade, not RD Nalawade as mentioned in the judgment, was sitting in a division bench with Justice Mangesh Patil and that too at the Aurangabad bench.The court said that Satish Sakla didn’t just produce the fraudulent order but also three fraudulent challans worth Rs. 16,55,000/- for payment of court fees towards Bombay High Court testamentary jurisdiction. The court noted that as per records, court fee of only Rs.75,000/- was deposited in the testamentary petition.Sakla, while responding to the complaint in an affidavit, produced two orders by court officer Sonali Dighe dated February 7, 2023, and November 17, 2022. These two orders were also not found in the court records. In fact, the testamentary petition was never placed before Sonali Dighe, the court noted.Advocate Ashok Kumar Dubey appearing for Sakla submitted that Sakla earlier believed the orders to be genuine but now he is also of the opinion that the orders are fabricated.The court noted that none of the five plaintiffs before the Small Causes Court, including Sakla, More, and Patil contended that the concerned document or some of the documents are genuine.Senior Advocate Godbole, Amicus Curiae, and Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf submitted that this amounts to interference in administration of justice and contempt action is required.The court noted that the enquiry under section 340 read with section 195 of CrPC is merely to access whether prima facie case is made out and there is reasonable likelihood that offence under in section 195(1)(b) of CrPC is committed.In this case, prima facie case is made out, the court said directing the Prothonotary and Senior Master to file a complaint before the magistrate who has appropriate jurisdiction.The court directed Satish Sakla, Manisha More and Sagar Pawar to furnish cash security of Rs. 15,000/- each before the Registrar for their appearance before the magistrate when summoned.The court clarified that it would consider the direction regarding suo moto issuance of contempt on the next date, i.e., June 12, 2023.Case no. – Writ Petition No. 4002 of 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 248Case Title – Radheshyam Jangad v. Shanti Pralhad Sakla through her attorney Satish SaklaClick Here To Read/Download Judgment

Bombay High Court Orders Criminal Prosecution Of Trio For Producing Fake HC Order Before Small Causes Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags