Litigants Should Not Be Allowed To Pollute Judicial System: Kerala High Court Criticizes Advocates Attesting False Affidavits of Clients

A Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed, “Advocates are officers of the Court. They should not allow the litigants to pollute the judicial system. Advocates should not allow their clients to make false statements when the Advocates fully know from the documents available to them that their clients are making false statements in the Pleadings."

The Court while dismissing the petition, strongly deprecated the practice of Advocates attesting affidavits of their clients fully knowing that the statements contained in the affidavit are false.

The Court observed that it is well settled that Advocates are officers of the Court and said they should not allow litigants to “pollute the judicial system”.

Advocate Sadiqali. M appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Mohan Jacob George appeared for the Respondents.

The case arose from a petition filed by petitioner seeking a direction to unfreeze his account maintained with Federal Bank.

The bank submitted that it had received five requisitions for debit freeze with respect to the petitioner’s account for a total amount of Rs.21,00,000. According to the bank, the account was opened in January 2023 and remained largely inactive, with only negligible low-valued transactions.

The bank stated that a sudden and abnormal spike in account activity was observed from May 15, 2023 onwards. A large number of high-valued credit and debit transactions aggregating to more than Rs.50 lakhs were routed through the account within approximately 15 days.

The Court noted that the abrupt change in the transaction pattern, coupled with multiple Law Enforcement Agency notices in connection with the transactions, rendered the account activity highly suspicious.

In his reply affidavit, the petitioner stated that he was a working partner of two businesses. He claimed that he received a monthly salary of Rs.35,000 and share of profits from Ripi Foods, a wholesale business dealing in dates, nuts and dry fruits. He also claimed to receive a salary of Rs.40,000 and business profit from Nipolta Media – LED Wall and media-related business.

The petitioner stated that the account was his primary business account and that customers of the businesses were regularly crediting amounts into the account as part of normal business operations. He also stated that his father was employed in a Gulf Country and occasionally sent family funds to his bank account.

However, the Court noted that the petitioner had not explained the disputed amounts of Rs.21,00,000 even in his reply. It also noted that no document was produced to prove the existence of the businesses.

The Court further recorded that the bank’s counsel confirmed that there were no regular deposits of the alleged salary amounts of Rs.35,000 and Rs.40,000 in the petitioner’s account.

The petitioner had withdrawn the entire amounts credited to his account and the credit balance as on June 5, 2023 was only Re.1/-, according to the account statement.

“Since the Account of the Petitioner is having only a credit balance of Re.1/-, there is no question of permitting the Petitioner to operate the account limiting the lien to Rs.21,00,000/-,” the Court said.

“The documents produced before me would reveal that the Petitioner has stated utter falsehood in his Reply Affidavit,” the Court observed.

“This Court strongly condemns the conduct of the Counsel for the Petitioner and strongly deprecates the practice of Advocates attesting Affidavits of their clients fully knowing that the statements contained in the Affidavit are false,” the Court stated.

The Court, however, did not take any action against the petitioner and his counsel in this regard, considering their young age.

The Court also held that the facts clearly reveal that the petitioner had been using his account for “money mule”.

Relying on its decision in Sinana Farvin v. Kerala Gramin Bank and Others, the Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed and that the police was liable to be directed to register an FIR against the petitioner under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and investigate.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Safwan Muhamed Sherif v. Federal Bank & Ors., [2026:KER:63639]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Sadiqali. M, Shamnad.E., Ajish K Bose, Mohamed Shafi M., Muhammad Sabik

Respondents: Advocates Mohan Jacob George, P.V. Parvathy, Reena Thomas, Nigi George, Ananthu V.Lal, Sherin Varghese, Antony Thomas Mohan, Fabi Abdul Latheef, Meena P., V.K. Rafeek