Bombay HC Imposes Rs.10K Cost On Litigants For Forged Thumb Impression On Vakalatnama [Read Order]
The Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on three petitioners in a case seeking quashing of an order passed by an Additional Collector (Encroachment/Eviction) as they were unable to explain a 'forged' thumb impression that was embossed on behalf of the fourth petitioner on the vakalatnama praying for withdrawal of their writ petition. Division bench of Justice Ujjal...
The Bombay High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on three petitioners in a case seeking quashing of an order passed by an Additional Collector (Encroachment/Eviction) as they were unable to explain a 'forged' thumb impression that was embossed on behalf of the fourth petitioner on the vakalatnama praying for withdrawal of their writ petition.
Division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the writ petition on April 15, 2019 when Dr.Abhinav Chandrachud, counsel appearing for respondent number 5 pointed out that petitioner no. 4 was not a resident in India and he had not given instructions to file the present writ petition on his behalf. Nonetheless, his name was incorporated in the list of Petitioners and in support thereof a thumb impression stated to be of him was embossed on the vakalatnama.
Chandrachud further stated that petitioner no. 4 had lodged a complaint before Bandra Police Station on May 23, 2009. In the said complaint he had put his signature. He said-
"If Petitioner No. 4 could sign on his complaint before police, there was no question of him putting thumb impression on the vakalatnama. Therefore, the thumb impression stated to be of Petitioner No. 4 was a forged one"
Thus, on the same day Court prima facie came to the conclusion that the writ petition on behalf of petitioner no. 4 was either filed without his instructions or by forging his thumb impression on vakalatnama. Therefore, prayer to withdraw the writ petition was rejected.
The three petitioners were directed to file their response to the allegations made on behalf of respondent no. 5, more specifically as to how there was thumb impression of petitioner no. 4 on the vakalatnama when he had put his signature in the police complaint thereby indicating that he was not an illiterate person, capable of signing documents.
On behalf of the petitioner (no.1,2,3) an affidavit was filed which stated that signature of only three petitioners were taken while filing the petition and no thumb impression was taken. The affidavit said that the three petitioners were unable to fathom as to how a thumb impression was affixed to the vakalatnama and that they had no answer to this.
The three petitioners tendered their apology "for the inconvenience caused to the Court", requesting the Court to take a lenient view and to permit them to withdraw the writ petition.
Dr.Chandrachud further submitted that petitioners are guilty of making false statement before the Court thereby attracting provisions of Sections 191, 193, 205 and such other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. That apart, it is also a case of criminal contempt committed by the petitioners as it is an attempt to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding, he argued.
After concluding that there was no proper explanation for the said thumb impression, Court observed-
"It is trite that a person seeking equitable relief from the Court must approach the Court with clean hands. If the Court finds that such a person has not approached the Court with clean hands and has taken resort to means which are highly questionable, not only would he be dis-entitled to any relief from the Court but would also be liable to face such other action as is contempted in law, more particularly under the Indian Penal Code."
Imposing a cost of Rs.10,000 payable to Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, Court also directed the registry take necessary steps for lodging a criminal complaint in the case.