Forging Court Records Which Are Not In Custody Of Court Does Not Attract Section 195 CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not apply where court records are forged or tampered with after the conclusion of judicial proceedings.

A Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “All the subsequent acts that is preparation of bogus documents and replacing these bogus documents to the court record were the acts post conclusion of the proceedings…In the factual matrix of the present case, Section 195 CrPC is not at all applicable.”

The Court added, “It is not in dispute that the object of imposition of the bar under Section 195 CrPC is to avoid the frivolous litigation and not to provide shelter or tool to a mischief player or an offender.”

Senior Advocate Huzefa A. Ahmed appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Deepanwita Priyanka represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant, acting as the power of attorney holder for a financial partnership firm, filed a civil suit for recovery of money against a borrower. Soon after, the dispute was resolved through an out-of-Court settlement in which the borrower’s brother agreed to pay Rs. 2.25 lakh in monthly instalments by post-dated cheques. On the basis of this settlement, the Appellant submitted a withdrawal pursis before the Court, stating the suit was being withdrawn unconditionally.

The Civil Court accepted the withdrawal and, since it was unconditional, no decree was drawn. The case record was archived and transferred to the Record Room of the District Court.

Subsequently, the Appellant allegedly conspired with court staff to tamper with the archived court record. It was claimed that the original withdrawal application was removed and replaced with a fabricated settlement pursis, and a fake decree was inserted into the record bearing forged signatures and rubber stamps. Based on these manipulated records, the Appellant filed an execution petition to recover the amount from the borrower.

On learning this, the Principal District Judge directed the Incharge Registrar to file an FIR. An investigation followed, and a chargesheet was filed against the Appellant and others for criminal conspiracy, forgery, use of forged documents, and tampering with court records.

The Appellant argued that the alleged offences were connected to court proceedings and therefore prosecution was barred under Section 195 CrPC unless initiated by a written complaint from the concerned judge. This contention was rejected by the High Court, and the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the offences occurred after the suit had already been withdrawn and were not part of any pending judicial proceeding. It held that documents stored in the Record Room after case closure are no longer in custodia legis, and hence tampering with such documents does not attract the protection of Section 195 CrPC.

The Court further observed, “…proceedings initiated by filing of Civil Suit were concluded on

submitted the withdrawal pursis. All the subsequent acts that is preparation of bogus documents and replacing these bogus documents to the court record were the acts post conclusion of the proceedings…In the factual matrix of the present case, Section 195 CrPC

is not at all applicable.”

The Bench relied on principles laid down in M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala, holding that Section 195 CrPC is intended to prevent frivolous complaints, not to insulate offenders from prosecution. It noted that the FIR was filed on the directions of the District Judge after a Vigilance inquiry initiated by the High Court, which satisfies procedural requirements.

The Court remarked, "...object of imposition of the bar under Section 195 CrPC is to avoid the frivolous litigation and not to provide shelter or tool to a mischief player or an offender."

The Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision refusing to quash the proceedings initiated by the FIR.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Parshottam Shantilal Chaddarwala v. State Of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 664)

Appearance: Appellant: Senior Advocate Huzefa A. Ahmed; AOR Ejaz Maqbool Respondents: AOR Swati Ghildiyal; Advocate Deepanwita Priyanka

Click here to Read/Download Judgment