Bombay High Court Orders Cyber Cell Probe Into "Extremely Grave" Allegations Of Forged Court Orders
The Court directed the Registrar General directed to lodge an appropriate complaint with the Cyber Cell and competent police authorities.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Registrar General to lodge a complaint with the competent police authorities and the Cyber Cell to investigate the alleged forgery and fabrication of judicial records.
The allegation was raised by the Applicant/Defendant No. 1, who accused his erstwhile counsel of transmitting fabricated variants of the court's orders.
The Bench of Justice Arif S Doctor observed, "In my view, before proceeding further in the matter, the issue of how and at whose instance the Orders annexed at Exhibits ‘E’ and ‘F’ have come into existence is crucial and must be investigated into...Let the Registrar General of this Court lodge an appropriate complaint with the competent police authorities as well as the Cyber Cell, and to take all necessary steps for conducting an inquiry into the circumstances in which the Orders annexed at Exhibits ‘E and ‘F’ have come into existence."
Advocate Ryan D’souza appeared for the Applicant/Defendant No. 1, while Advocate Vikramaditya Deshmukh appeared for the Plaintiff.
The applicant, who stood arrayed as defendant no. 1 in the captioned suit, preferred an interim application seeking the recall of two prior orders passed by the court in a connected interim application. The primary grievance of the applicant rested on the assertion that the said orders were passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Crucially, the applicant alleged that his erstwhile advocate, arrayed as additional respondent no. 2, had forged and fabricated the orders of the court and transmitted the fake variants to him instead of the actual orders passed by the court.
The additional respondent appeared in person and vehemently denied the allegations of forgery and fabrication, instead shifting the blame onto the applicant by contending that the alleged fabrication was committed at the hands of the applicant himself. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant flatly refuted this defence and submitted that the applicant was fully willing and open to face any inquiry or investigation into the said allegations to unearth the truth.
The court observed that an extremely grave and serious issue was brought to its notice regarding the existence of forged judicial orders. It held that before proceeding further into the merits of the interim application, it was crucial to investigate how and at whose instance the fabricated orders came into existence.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival allegations, the court deemed it fit to direct the Registrar General to lodge a formal complaint with the competent police authorities and the Cyber Cell.
The court further ordered that a comprehensive inquiry report be placed before it within four weeks, deferring the consideration of the main interim application until the completion of the said inquiry.
Cause Title: Shylender Jindal in the matter of Rekha Parmanand Jindal v. Shylender Jindal & Ors. [I.A. No. 2829 of 2025 in Suit No. 25 of 2025]
Appearances:
Applicant/Defendant No.1: Advocate Ryan D’souza, Advocate Shivam Laturiya, Advocate Sujit Bhuyare.
Plaintiff: Advocate Vikramaditya Deshmukh, Advocate Priya Chaubey, Advocate Sapna Rachure, Advocate Hitendra Parab, Advocate Sanket Lohote, Advocate Harsh Parte.