Use of Fake Notarial Seals in Judicial Proceedings Is Not Part of Original Transaction — It's a Fresh Offence with Independent Legal Consequences: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash FIR

“Forgery to Subvert Justice Is a Distinct Offence — Not a Sequel to Cheating”, Allahabad High Court refused to quash an FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting the contention that it was a “second FIR” based on the same facts as a prior case. A Division Bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla clarified that “subsequent acts of forgery committed with the intent to influence judicial proceedings are distinct and self-contained offences, not covered by the earlier FIR based on inducement to invest.”

The Court emphasized that the test of sameness, laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and reaffirmed in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., was not satisfied in the present case because the second FIR disclosed "a new legal injury, separate in time, nature, and purpose."

“Second FIR Is Not Barred When Allegations Arise from New Acts Aimed at Misleading Authorities”: High Court

The petition arose from FIR No. 230/2024 lodged by Rishabh Agnihotri at Police Station Link Road, Ghaziabad, following judicial directions under Section 156(3) CrPC. The complaint alleged that after registration of FIR No. 38/2021 (relating to alleged inducement by the petitioners in a business venture under the QNet brand), the accused forged documents—including a false 'Declaration' and 'Distributor Application Form'—bearing counterfeit signatures of Rishabh, Shubham, and their mother, and submitted them during proceedings to secure relief and mislead authorities.

The fabricated documents bore a forged notarial seal allegedly of Advocate and Notary Public, Shri Virendra Singh. Upon being served legal notices, the Notary categorically denied ever attesting or signing such documents, confirming that his seal and signature were fabricated.

The petitioners challenged this second FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming that it was based on the same transactions as the previous FIR, and thus hit by the bar against multiple FIRs laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001).

However, the High Court rejected this submission. Referring to the factual divergence between the two FIRs, the Court held that “the offences alleged in the second FIR do not stem from the same transaction but arise from fresh acts committed to interfere with the course of justice.”

“Forgery Meant to Mislead Courts and Police Is Not Continuation of Earlier Cheating — It Is a Separate Legal Wrong”: Court Distinguishes Between Transaction and Consequence

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, speaking for the Bench, stated:

"The gravamen of FIR No. 38/2021 was cheating and inducement in a financial investment scheme. In contrast, the present FIR concerns forgery and fabrication of documents intended to mislead investigating agencies and judicial forums. These acts constitute a separate legal wrong requiring independent investigation."

The Court observed that while both FIRs had a common factual background relating to financial disputes, “the similarity ends there.” The second FIR, the Court said, “brings forth a new species of criminality — that of creating false evidence in a judicial proceeding — which is alien to the scope of the original cheating case.”

Quoting the ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2023), the Court reiterated:

"The bar against a second FIR operates only where both relate to the same incident or transaction. If the second FIR reveals a larger conspiracy, a new dimension, or fresh facts not covered in the earlier FIR, its registration is not only lawful but imperative."

The Court underscored that: "Registration of an FIR is not barred merely because there is a factual connection or continuity in the parties involved. The nature, intent, and legal injury of the acts complained of must be assessed independently."

“When Offence Targets the Justice System, It Demands Fresh Scrutiny — Prior FIR Doesn’t Immunize Subsequent Fabrication”: High Court on Need for Independent Investigation

The Bench also addressed the judicial discretion under Article 226, restating the settled position that FIRs can be quashed at the pre-investigation stage “only in rarest of rare cases where the allegations are patently absurd, inherently improbable or maliciously instituted.” Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court emphasized that “interference under writ jurisdiction is not warranted where the FIR discloses cognizable offences on the face of it.”

The Court reasoned that: "The veracity of the allegations — particularly the authenticity of forged signatures and counterfeit seals — involves disputed questions of fact which are best left to the investigating agency and, if necessary, to the trial court."

Accordingly, the Court declined to quash the FIR and dismissed the writ petition. The judgment concludes with the direction: "The investigation shall continue in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made here-in-above."

Date of Decision: October 30, 2025