MP High Court Holds Advocate Guilty Of Contempt For Forging Signature On Affidavit; Directs Enquiry Against Oath Commissioner For Executing It

The Court, however, directed an enquiry against the oath commissioner for executing the document-

Thus, it is clear that the father of the prosecutrix never appeared before Shri D.V.S. Bhadoria, Oath Commissioner, inspite of that, the affidavit was executed by Shri D.V.S. Bhadoria, Oath Commissioner…Therefore, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislative Department, Madhya Pradesh or any other Competent Authority is directed to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of Shri D.V.S. Bhadoria, Oath Commissioner and to take a final decision as to whether he has misconducted himself or not and to take a final decision accordingly.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was dealing with a suo moto contempt petition, wherein a man and his minor daughter were accused of and later held guilty of suppressing facts in their writ petition to obtain permission of the Court to let the daughter abort her pregnancy.

Examining the facts of the case and documents on record, the Court discovered that the Counsel engaged by the Contemnor/Petitioner had forged his signature on the affidavit. After initially denying the allegation, he eventually conceded the mistake on his part. He accepted before the Court that he had committed a glaring mistake without realizing the gravity of the same. Accordingly, he pleaded for mercy and tendered his unconditional apology.

While holding the Counsel guilty of contempt, the Court noted that his behaviour reflected that he was apologetic about it. The Court opined that his unconditional apology could be considered even though he committed an unpardonable mistake-

Accordingly, the unconditional apology tendered by Shri Mehmood Khan, Advocate is hereby accepted with a warning that he should not repeat the same in future and if he is found indulged in such type of practice in future also, then no apologizes would be accepted. Apart from that, it is also expected from Shri Mehmood Khan, Advocate, that he would make an attempt to bring awareness amongst the lawyers, that they should not indulge in any kind of unpardonable tactics.

The Court then turned its attention to the role played by the oath commissioner who executed the affidavit. Considering the statement given by him to the police in the factual background of the case, the Court held that the Petitioner/ Deponent was not present before him at the time of execution of the affidavit.

Since the oath commissioner was not issued any notice in the contempt case, the Court decided not to comment on his role in the matter. Accordingly, the Court directed the State to conduct an enquiry against him to determine whether or not he engaged in misconduct.