Advocate’s Clerk Cannot Sign Petitions on Behalf of Litigants: Rajasthan High Court Declines to Quash FIR Alleging Forgery in Court Filing

“Court Records Cannot Be Tainted by Mischief in the Name of Procedural Lapses” — On 18 November 2025, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) refusing to quash an FIR alleging the misuse of a complainant’s name and forged signature in judicial proceedings. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that tampering with judicial records, even if procedural in nature, cannot be condoned under the guise of error or oversight.

The case involved a writ petition filed in the complainant’s name without authorization, with incorrect cause title and forged affidavit, allegedly signed by an advocate’s clerk. Although the petition was eventually disposed of with innocuous directions to the trial court, the High Court noted that the procedural manipulation involved a serious breach of the judicial process.

“The High Court is a Court of Record. It cannot permit its record to be compromised by any form of mischief — procedural or otherwise.”

The petitioner argued that he had not committed any forgery, and any defect in the filing process was the result of his advocate or the advocate's clerk, who might have mistakenly signed the documents. However, the Court rejected this defence, underscoring that such malpractices must be thoroughly investigated.

“Whether or not the petitioner benefited from the forged writ petition is not the point. The filing of court documents with false signatures amounts to an abuse of the judicial system.”

The Court relied heavily on the Registrar (Judicial)’s Enquiry Report, which concluded that several individuals — including two advocates, an advocate’s clerk, and oath commissioners — had submitted the petition without verifying the signatures or ensuring the physical presence of the deponent, in clear violation of their legal duties.

“The evidence strongly indicates that Advocate Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Sharda Gurjar, Clerk Omprakash Sharma, and Oath Commissioner Sundari Devi were responsible for allowing forged filings without proper verification.”

In light of this, the Court held that the FIR could not be quashed at this stage, as it raised substantial issues of cheating, forgery (Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC), and conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC). The Court also clarified that even though no actual harm or prejudice was caused by the order passed in the wrongly filed petition, the act of using judicial forums with forged documentation in itself warranted full investigation.

“Even if no prejudice has occurred, the very act of filing a petition with false documents violates the sanctity of court proceedings and public trust in justice.”

Refusing to dismiss the FIR, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to proceed independently, considering the findings of the judicial enquiry and acting strictly in accordance with law. It was also directed that if the officer finds that no cognizable offence is made out, or no prejudice resulted, the matter may be concluded accordingly.

“Allowing such acts to go uninvestigated would send a wrong message to society and undermine the faith in the justice delivery system.”

In a wider warning to the legal fraternity, the Court noted a growing trend of affidavits and court documents being signed by clerks or unauthorized persons, calling it a grave and impermissible practice.

“An advocate’s clerk cannot swear affidavits on behalf of litigants or file petitions without authority. Such practices are unacceptable and amount to a serious breach of court ethics.”

The Court called on the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court to consider issuing a general notice in all Stamp Reporter Sections, warning clerks against signing petitions or affidavits on behalf of litigants, failing which strict action would be taken.

“Justice May Be Blind, But It Must Not Be Deceived” — High Court Condemns Procedural Fraud in Filing Writ Petition

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition with the clear message that errors made during court proceedings involving forged documents are not mere technicalities, and courts cannot become safe havens for manipulative procedural tactics.

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025