Telangana High Court Upholds Order Directing Inquiry Into 'Forged' Signatures On Vakalatnama

The Telangana High Court has upheld a single judge's order directing inquiry under Section 340 CrPC after finding a prima facie case that signatures of various flat-owners on the Vakalatnama filed in the writ petition–seeking demolition of alleged illegal construction, had been forged. Section 340 CrPC allows a Court to deal with offences affecting the administration of justice such as perjury, when such offences have been committed in relation to proceedings before the Court. The provision mandates a prior complaint and allows the Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into such an offence. Upholding the inquiry, a division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin observed:“This Court is under a solemn duty to preserve the sanctity and purity of its proceedings. When a strong prima facie case of forgery of a document filed before the Court is brought to its notice, supported by material such as a co-petitioner's affidavit disowning her signature, the same cannot be disregarded. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in taking cognizance of the issue and initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The direction issued to the Judicial Registrar constitutes the initial step in the statutory process, ensuring that an inquiry is conducted to ascertain the veracity of the allegations.” The Bench held that the order under challenge was only a procedural step for inquiry, and did not amount to imposition of any penalty as alleged by the petitioners. The dispute arose out of an apartment complex known as Elite Residency at Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad. The builders had originally obtained sanction in 2007 for a Ground + 3 floors structure comprising 24 flats. The controversy began when two additional terrace structures, styled as penthouses were allegedly constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan and later sold to two purchasers in July 2021 on the representation that the constructions had been regularised by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). Aggrieved by this construction and the alleged inaction of the authorities, a group of 24 flat owners instituted a writ petition before the single judge seeking demolition of the alleged unauthorised penthouses and also questioning the validity of the HMDA regularisation proceedings dated 21.06.2021, which they described as “fake”.During the pendency of that writ petition, one of the penthouse purchasers moved an application under Section 340 CrPC, alleging fabrication of evidence and perjury. The allegation was that although the vakalatnama dated 25.10.2021 purportedly bore signatures of all 24 writ petitioners, several of those signatures were fabricated. The basis of the allegation was that some of the petitioners were residing abroad in countries such as the USA, the UK and Gulf countries, while others were residing in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, and therefore could not have been present to sign the vakalatnama in Hyderabad on the relevant date. Reliance was also placed on an e-mail purportedly sent by one of the writ petitioners stating that he had not signed any vakalatnama in connection with the case.The Single Judge, by order dated 10.12.2025, recorded a "prima facie view" that certain signatures on the vakalatnama had been fabricated and directed the Registrar to take necessary steps for initiating proceedings. That order was assailed in an appeal before the division bench by some of the original writ petitioners. Before the Division Bench, the appellants argued that the Single Judge erred in directing inquiry on mere suspicion, that they had authority from the other flat owners to file the writ petition, and that even if not all co-petitioners had personally signed the vakalatnama, the dispute concerned a common grievance relating to common areas of the apartment complex. They further contended that no prejudice had been caused and that the perjury proceedings were being used to stifle a genuine grievance against the penthouses. On the other hand, the penthouse purchaser argued that filing a vakalatnama with forged signatures struck at the root of the administration of justice. It was pointed out that one of the co-petitioners had herself filed a separate application seeking deletion of her name from the writ petition, specifically asserting that she was in Abu Dhabi on the relevant date and had not signed the vakalatnama. It was further submitted that the appellants' replies were evasive, as they did not specifically deny the forgery allegations or produce any letters of authorisation from the other petitioners.The Division Bench held that Section 340 CrPC only requires a prima facie satisfaction at the threshold and not a conclusive finding of guilt. The Court found the Single Judge's view to be “well-founded”, particularly because one of the original co-petitioners had directly disowned her signature and the...

Telangana High Court Upholds Order Directing Inquiry Into 'Forged' Signatures On Vakalatnama

Ananya Tangri

Tags