Rajasthan HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against Petitioner in Forged Signature Case, Orders Continued Investigation [Read Order]

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has declined to quash an FIR filed against Rakesh Jain, who was accused of cheating and forgery in connection with filing a writ petition that allegedly contained incorrect signatures and an incorrect cause title. Instead, the Court directed the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation in light of the detailed judicial inquiry. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, addresses the growing concern over the integrity of court records, emphasizing that “mischief has been committed with the record of this Court.”

The case originated from an FIR registered at the High Court Police Station, Jaipur, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner, Rakesh Jain, sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the petition in question was filed only to seek expeditious disposal of a partition suit against him, and that any error in the documents—including the mismatch of the cause title and signatures—was due to the negligence of his local counsel or their clerk. The petitioner, through his counsel Ms. Harshita Sharma, Mr. Vivek Yadav, Mr. Tushar Sharma, and Ms. Swadha Bhargav for Dr. Mahesh Sharma, argued that he had not committed any offense of cheating or forgery as he did not receive any financial benefit from the order obtained.

However, the complainant-respondent, represented by Mr. Amit Gupta, PP, and Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, opposed the quashing, alleging that the petitioner created forged signatures to obtain an incorrect order, thereby playing fraud on the court.

Following a directive from a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, a judicial inquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Judicial). Statements were recorded from several witnesses, including advocates and advocate clerks. The inquiry concluded that, prima facie, a mistake or fault had been committed by Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava (Advocate), Ms. Sarda Gurjar (Advocate), Sh. Omprakash Sharma (Advocate Clerk), and Ms. Sundari Devi (Oath Commissioner). The report noted a “serious breach of the duties of an oath commissioner,” as documents had been verified without the physical presence of the affiant.

In its order, the Court underscored the gravity of the situation:
“This Court is not going into the controversy as to whether the petitioner has been benefited from the order dated 27.02.2024 or not, or whether he has cheated the complainant or not. The petitioner may be right in saying so, but this Court cannot ignore the fact that mischief has been committed with the record of this Court by submitting a petition in the complainant’s name with incorrect signatures. Such practice of filing a petition with incorrect signatures of a party is not appreciable on the part of the litigant, the lawyers, or their clerks.”

Justice Dhand emphasized the fiduciary relationship between the Bar and the Bench, noting that advocates are “officers of the Court” and “wheels of justice.” The judgment strongly deprecated the unauthorized signing of court documents:
“An advocate’s clerk cannot swear affidavits in a perfunctory manner for petitions/applications on behalf of a party before the court, especially those which include facts beyond his personal knowledge or where he cannot completely explain how he derived knowledge of the facts he has affirmed.”

Ultimately, the High Court held that it could not adjudicate the truthfulness of the allegations at this stage, as that responsibility lies with the Investigating Officer.
“Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR, inasmuch as it would give a wrong message to society at large. This Court would not allow anyone to commit mischief with the record of this Court, as the High Court is the Court of Records. If such unwarranted practice of filing petitions with incorrect signatures is allowed to continue, the citizens of the State/Country would lose faith in the judicial administration system.”

The Court disposed of the petition with a clear directive to the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation in light of the judicial inquiry and reach an independent conclusion strictly in accordance with law. It also ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side to consider issuing a cautionary notice to all Stamp Reporter Sections, warning advocate clerks against signing on behalf of litigants or lawyers.

Case Details:

Case Name: Rakesh Jain S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Sethiya v. State of Rajasthan and Another

Case Number: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8097/2024

Coram: JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Date of Pronouncement: 18/11/2025

Advocates Appearing:

For Petitioner: Ms. Harshita Sharma, Mr. Vivek Yadav, Mr. Tushar Sharma, Ms. Swadha Bhargav for Dr. Mahesh Sharma

For Respondents: Mr. Amit Gupta, PP; Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma

[Read Order]