Allahabad HC Orders Preliminary Inquiry U/S 340 CrPC Into Alleged Forgery, Fabrication Of Judicial Records In Anticipatory Bail Proceedings

A bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed the order on an application moved by one Ankita Priyadarshini, who claimed that her husband (Arpan Saxena) had secured an order while tampering with the judicial record by causing a counter affidavit to go missing, adding unauthorized pages to the counter affidavit to a recall application, and allowing another person to sign multiple applications and affidavits.

The single judge also restrained the husband from leaving the country until further orders and directed the preservation of all original files and documents to prevent tampering.

Briefly put, the Husband and wife are involved in a matrimonial dispute, and several criminal cases are ongoing between them. In one such case, he was granted anticipatory bail on February 17, 2021, subject to surrendering his passport.

However, on March 7, 2025, this condition was deleted on his plea that the passport had expired and was required for renewal. The HC also directed the return of the passport for renewal.

Subsequently, the applicant-wife filed a Recall Application alleging that the order in question was passed without her being heard, that the husband had failed to comply with the passport surrender condition and that he intended to abscond.

However, her recall application was dismissed on March 26, 2025 with the Court relying on a counter-affidavit stated to have been filed by the respondent.

Subsequently, the wife filed the instant plea under Section 379 BNSS, in which she prayed that criminal proceedings be initiated against the husband by filing a complaint against him under Section 340 CrPC, read with Section 195 CrPC, for offences affecting the administration of justice.

She specifically referred to Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as she alleged that her husband had indulged in impersonation, cheating, forgery and had used forged documents.

She alleged that her husband manipulated judicial records by filing an unsworn counter-affidavit, inserting unauthorised documents into the case file and suppressing material records.

She also presented photocopies showing significant discrepancies between the husband's signature and the signatures on the anticipatory bail application, rejoinder affidavits and the Vakalatnama.

She further alleged that the respondent made false submissions regarding his passport status, misleading the court to believe he had surrendered it when he had not.

She also alleged that the husband submitted a misleading and incomplete counter affidavit, which included an illegally obtained Final Report from the District Court in Udaipur.

She claimed that she was not served with this document, which resulted in prejudicing her and depriving her of the opportunity to respond.

Lastly, she also claimed that the counter affidavit dated March 23, 2025 was not traceable in the official filing records which indicated intentional suppression or manipulation.

She claimed that unauthorised pages were inserted into her recall application and that the first two pages of the counter affidavit were deliberately titled 'Short Counter' to evade scrutiny.

Hearing the matter on April 28, 2025, the High Court found that the counter affidavit relied upon for modifying the bail order was not sworn before the Oath Commissioner. The Court termed it a 'serious procedural irregularity'.

Therefore, the orders of March 7 and March 26 were recalled, and the husband was directed to deposit his passport with the trial court.

The Court also expressed a prima facie view 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.

"These actions squarely fall under the jurisdiction of Section 340 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Court to direct an inquiry and, if expedient, to lodge a formal complaint before the competent Court", the Court remarked.

Therefore, the single judge directed the Registrar General to conclude the inquiry within one month. The Court said the matter would be taken up again on September 23, 2025, for further order after reviewing the findings of the preliminary inquiry before the appropriate court.