Delhi High Court Imposes One Rupee Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Applications

The Delhi High Court has imposed a symbolic fine of One Rupee on an applicant for filing frivolous applications to seek action against a petitioner and his Special Power of Attorney-holder for alleged perjury.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the allegations contained in the applications are so completely bereft of a factual basis or merit, no further judicial time or ink need be wasted on them.

"The applications are accordingly dismissed in-limine. In order to emphasize the frivolity of the applications, the dismissal is subject to payment of costs of Re.1/- by the applicant," said the court.

However, Justice Bhambhani also said that costs be treated as paid.

The applicant was seeking initiation of an enquiry in terms of Section 340 CrPC into the alleged offences committed by the petitioner, his SPA-holder and other person in relation to a case pending before the high court. 

He alleged that the SPA-holder "forged his own signatures on the vakalatnama, at the foot of the pleadings at various points, and in the affidavits filed in support of the pleadings/applications in the present matters".

The allegation was supported by a purported Forensic Analysis Report dated 04.08.2022 rendered by a private forensic laboratory which stated that the SPA-holder “…did not write the questioned signatures…” that appear on the various pleadings, applications and documents filed in the case.

It was also alleged that true name of the SPA-holder is is not Siri Chand Saini but Shri Chand Saini, that his father's name is not Pirthi but Prithwi; and that his true address is not House No.396 but WZ-396. This allegation was supported by the Electoral Roll 2022.

During the hearing on September 28, 2022, the petitioner confirmed to court that Saini is his SPA-holder and he had instructed him to sign the vakalatnama, pleadings and affidavits. Saini submitted his PAN Card and Aadhar card for verification of his identity details.

"On being queried as to whether the signatures appearing on the vakalatnama, pleadings and affidavits were his signatures, Siri Chand Saini confirmed that they are," the court recorded in the decision.

Observing that there is neither any dispute nor discord between the petitioner and SPA-holder in respect of authenticity and validity of the signatures of the SPA-holder appearing on the record of these proceeding and the contents of the documents, the court said, "Factually therefore, the applicant has no case to allege forgery, or creation of any false documents, on any count whatsoever."

The court further said to say that someone's name is not Siri Chand Saini but Shri Chand Saini; that his father's name is not Pirthi but Prithwi; that his address is not 396 but WZ-396; or that his age is not 62 but 71 as per some other records, "when there is no dispute about those aspects between the principal and the appointed attorney; nor does anything on merits even remotely turn upon these frivolous typographical errors or omissions, is, to say the least, an exercise in utter uselessness; which must be considered only to be summarily rejected."

The court said the allegation is of signatures having been forged on the vakalatnama, pleadings and applications before they were filed in court. "There is no allegation of any forgery having been committed during the time when the documents were in custodia legis. Clearly therefore, section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not be attracted," it added.

The bench said that the foundation of the allegation that "a person has forged his own signatures" falls once the person admits the signatures to be his own.

"It falls even further once the person on whose behalf he has signed also admits such person's authority to sign, as also the latter's signatures. That is not to mention that both the principal and the SPA-holder even admit to the contents of the documents so signed," it added.

The court explained that Explanation I to Section 464 (making a false document) IPC is contextualized by the illustration that follows, to say that a person signing a document (a bill of exchange in the illustration) intending that it may be believed that the document was drawn by some other person of the same name, commits forgery.

"There is nothing even remotely similar happening in the present case," Justice Bhambhani said.

The court further said what is alleged to have been done by the petitioner and the SPA-holder, though the allegations are meritless even otherwise, does not affect the administration of justice even minimally. "For this additional reason, the applications are wholly without merit," said the court.

Title: Milan Saini v. Kamal Kumar & Anr. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 155

Click Here To Read Order