Continuation of Criminal Proceedings Will Be an Abuse of Process: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Advocate Accused of Forging Vakalatnama After ‘Victim’ Confirms Her Consent

We find that the allegations have been categorically denied by the very person alleged to have been impersonated... Continuation of proceedings against the appellant will be nothing but an abuse of process of law.” - Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR and pending criminal case against Advocate Nizamuddin Abdulhamid Jariwala, who was accused of fabricating vakalatnamas and other court pleadings by forging thumb impressions and signatures of his clients. The Court held that the allegations were “disproved by none other than the complainant herself,” and continuing the proceedings would amount to “a grave misuse of the criminal justice system.”

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who held that the High Court had erred in rejecting the petition to quash the case, especially in light of a clear affidavit by the complainant admitting to having lawfully authorized the appellant.

“We Had Engaged the Petitioner as Our Advocate” – Affidavit by Alleged Victim Ends Criminal Case

The case arose from FIR No. I-110/2009 registered at Katargam Police Station, Surat, Gujarat, wherein the appellant, a practicing lawyer, was made Accused No. 31 in a series of allegations involving forgery, fraud, and impersonation in court proceedings. The FIR alleged that the appellant had falsely affixed the thumb impressions of Manuben and her siblings, who were involved in civil disputes over property.

The FIR alleged: “The accused No.31 N.A. Jariwala, in RCS No.122/03 without the knowledge and consent of my brother and sisters, by putting false signatures, thumb impressions of some third persons, and producing the Vakalatnama... has committed a criminal deed.”

However, the narrative collapsed entirely when Manuben, one of the individuals allegedly impersonated, filed a sworn affidavit before the Supreme Court on 1 March 2025, declaring:

“I state that me and my sister Kokilaben Maganbhai Patel had affixed our thumb impressions in the vakalatnamas, caveat applications and other pleadings... We had engaged the Petitioner namely Mr. Nizamuddin Abdulhamid Jariwala as our Advocate in these cases.”

Justice Oka observed that this declaration “nullified the very basis of the allegations.” With this statement, the key premise of forgery disappeared. The Court accepted that the vakalatnamas and pleadings were indeed lawfully authorized, and not forged, as originally claimed.

“High Court Erred in Declining Relief” – Supreme Court Sets the Record Straight

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the continuation of the criminal case, observing that it amounted to nothing more than an unwarranted legal pursuit. In dismissing the FIR and trial proceedings, the Court stated:

“Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant will be nothing but an abuse of process of law.”

The Court also noted that the High Court’s decision, dated 13 June 2019, refusing to quash the FIR was legally untenable. That order was set aside.

Importantly, the Court clarified that its relief applied only to the present appellant, and that it had expressed “no opinion on the merits of the case as against the other accused.”

An Advocate’s Reputation Restored – “Allegations Were Not Only Baseless But Refuted by the Complainant Herself”

The case against Advocate Jariwala was serious in nature, involving sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, all of which relate to cheating and forgery. However, the Supreme Court noted that the most critical evidence came from the very person who was said to have been impersonated.

Justice Bhuyan concurred with the view that criminal proceedings must not be allowed to proceed “once the allegations are disproven by material that is unimpeachable and comes from the source of the complaint itself.”

The Court's approach aligned with its established jurisprudence on quashing criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process, particularly when the foundational facts of the prosecution case are rendered false or implausible.

Supreme Court Reiterates: Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Harass or Intimidate Professionals Acting Lawfully

While allowing the appeal and quashing all proceedings against the appellant, the Court made it clear that this order was case-specific:

“We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the case as against the other accused.”

The judgment serves as a strong affirmation that criminal law cannot be misused to harass professionals—especially advocates—who are lawfully performing their duties. Once the primary complainant disowns the core allegations, the continuation of trial is not only unjustified but an affront to legal fairness.

Date of Decision: 18 March 2025