Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Ankita Priyadarshini v. Arpan Saxena, dealt with a very serious issue involving allegations of forgery, impersonation, manipulation of judicial records, and misleading the court in connection with a matrimonial dispute. The matter was heard by a single bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, who was faced with shocking claims that the respondent-husband had secured favorable orders from the High Court by engaging in fabrication of judicial documents, suppression of material facts, and even inserting unauthorized documents into case files. The petitioner-wife approached the High Court under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), praying that proceedings be initiated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), read with Section 195 CrPC, for criminal acts such as cheating, forgery, impersonation, and use of forged documents which directly affect the administration of justice. The case reflects the larger concern of how misuse of the judicial process through falsification of records can undermine the credibility of courts, distort the course of justice, and prejudice the rights of opposing parties. The High Court, acknowledging the gravity of these allegations, directed a preliminary judicial inquiry by the Registrar General and imposed restrictions on the husband, including restraining him from leaving the country and requiring surrender of his passport, while also recalling earlier orders that had been obtained under questionable circumstances.
Arguments of the Petitioner-Wife:
The petitioner, Ankita Priyadarshini, narrated a disturbing sequence of events to highlight how her husband, Arpan Saxena, had misused the court process to secure favorable orders. She emphasized that the dispute between them arose out of matrimonial discord, and multiple criminal proceedings were already pending in different courts. In one such proceeding, the respondent had been granted anticipatory bail on February 17, 2021, with a clear condition that he must surrender his passport. However, she alleged that he never complied with this condition. Later, on March 7, 2025, this condition was modified by the High Court upon the husband’s plea that his passport had expired and needed renewal. The Court had, therefore, directed that his passport be returned for renewal purposes. According to the wife, this modification order was obtained by fraud, impersonation, and suppression of facts. She filed a recall application pointing out that the modification order had been passed without her being heard and that the husband had misled the Court by misrepresenting facts about his passport status.
In her detailed application, she alleged that her husband had committed multiple illegal acts: he had tampered with judicial records, ensured that a counter-affidavit filed by her went missing, inserted unauthorized documents into the case file, caused other persons to sign documents on his behalf, and fabricated affidavits which were not sworn before the Oath Commissioner. She relied on photocopies of documents where the signatures appearing on different applications, affidavits, and the Vakalatnama did not match the respondent’s known signature, thus suggesting impersonation. She further claimed that the husband deliberately misrepresented his passport status, falsely indicating to the court that he had surrendered it when in fact he had not, thereby misleading the court into relaxing the bail condition.
The petitioner also raised grave concerns about the authenticity of the counter-affidavit dated March 23, 2025, which had been relied upon by the Court to dismiss her recall application on March 26, 2025. She submitted that this document was not traceable in the official filing records, thereby indicating suppression or manipulation. Furthermore, she alleged that unauthorized pages were inserted into her recall application, and the first two pages of the so-called “short counter” were deliberately titled in that manner to evade scrutiny. The petitioner stressed that the actions of her husband constituted serious offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, namely impersonation, cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents. These actions, according to her, not only affected her personally but also struck at the very heart of the judicial process by undermining the integrity of court proceedings. She prayed that the High Court initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC to direct a complaint against her husband before a competent criminal court.
Arguments of the Respondent-Husband:
The respondent-husband, on the other hand, opposed the wife’s allegations and attempted to justify his actions. He argued that the modification of his anticipatory bail condition regarding his passport was a legitimate request since his passport had expired and he required it for renewal. According to him, the Court had, after due consideration, allowed his plea and returned the passport. He denied allegations of forgery or impersonation, contending that the documents relied upon by the petitioner were either misinterpreted or fabricated by her to create a false case. He claimed that he had complied with all conditions of bail and that there was no attempt on his part to abscond or evade the legal process.
Regarding the counter-affidavit, the respondent maintained that it had been properly filed and considered by the Court while dismissing the wife’s recall application. He alleged that the wife was making baseless claims simply to harass him further in the ongoing matrimonial dispute. The discrepancies in signatures, according to him, were either clerical in nature or a result of differences in penmanship over time, and did not indicate forgery or impersonation. He also denied any suppression of material records and asserted that the allegations of inserting unauthorized pages into the case file were unfounded and unsubstantiated.
The respondent attempted to portray the wife’s application under Section 340 CrPC as an abuse of process and argued that criminal proceedings could not be lightly initiated merely on the basis of accusations in matrimonial disputes. He claimed that the wife was misusing the judicial system to settle personal scores, and that her plea lacked sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal inquiry.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully examining the rival submissions and perusing the case record, the Allahabad High Court found that the matter raised grave concerns about the integrity of judicial proceedings. Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav noted that anticipatory bail had indeed been granted to the respondent in 2021 subject to surrender of his passport, but this condition was modified on March 7, 2025, without the petitioner-wife being heard. The Court further noted that while dismissing the recall application on March 26, 2025, it had relied upon a counter-affidavit which, upon later verification, was found to be unsworn and not placed before the Oath Commissioner.
The Court described this as a “serious procedural irregularity” and observed that such irregularities, if allowed, could impair the administration of justice. The Bench emphasized that the allegations made by the wife regarding manipulation of records, forgery, and impersonation were of a nature that struck directly at the credibility of the judicial system. If documents relied upon in judicial proceedings were found to be fabricated or unsworn, it would amount to misleading the court and obstructing the course of justice.
The Court recalled its earlier orders dated March 7 and March 26, thereby reinstating the original condition requiring the husband to surrender his passport. It directed that the respondent deposit his passport with the trial court immediately. Moreover, the Court restrained him from leaving the country until further orders, ensuring that he could not abscond or evade judicial scrutiny.
Most importantly, the Court expressed a prima facie view that the allegations, if proven, would constitute a deliberate and concerted attempt to mislead the Court, manipulate records, and obstruct justice. Such acts, according to the Court, squarely fell within the ambit of Section 340 CrPC, which empowers courts to direct an inquiry into offences affecting the administration of justice and, if expedient, to lodge a complaint before the competent magistrate.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registrar General to conduct a preliminary judicial inquiry into the allegations and to submit findings within one month. The Court ordered preservation of all original files and documents to prevent further tampering. The matter was listed for further hearing on September 23, 2025, when the Court would review the inquiry report and decide the next course of action.
The ruling sent a strong message that the judicial process cannot be compromised by manipulation of records or false representations. Justice Yadav made it clear that courts have a duty not only to adjudicate disputes but also to safeguard the sanctity of their proceedings. Any attempt to mislead the court through forgery, impersonation, or suppression of facts must be dealt with firmly, as it not only prejudices the opposing party but also undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.