Ankita Priyadarshini vs. Arpan Saxena, 2025
It reaffirms that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, especially where false representations might mislead the judiciary.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
27 August 2025
Judges
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The husband and wife are engaged in ongoing matrimonial and criminal disputes.
-
The husband (Arpan Saxena) was granted anticipatory bail on February 17, 2021, with a condition to surrender his passport.
-
On March 7, 2025, this condition was removed on his plea regarding passport expiry, and the passport was ordered to be returned.
-
The wife (Ankita Priyadarshini) later filed a recall application, alleging that:
-
The order was passed without hearing her,
-
The husband manipulated records,
-
He never actually surrendered the passport,
-
He committed forgery, impersonation, and submitted unsworn or falsified affidavits.
-
-
Her recall application was dismissed on March 26, 2025, based on a counter affidavit said to be submitted by the husband.
-
She then filed a plea under Section 340 CrPC, alleging suppression of material facts, forged documents, and unauthorised changes in judicial records.
Issues
-
Whether the respondent-husband committed forgery, impersonation, and manipulation of judicial records to obtain a favourable court order?
-
Whether the Court should initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC based on these allegations affecting the administration of justice?
Judgement
-
The High Court found prima facie evidence of procedural irregularities.
-
Notably, the counter affidavit was not sworn before an Oath Commissioner, which the Court described as a serious procedural irregularity.
-
The orders dated March 7 and March 26, 2025, were recalled.
-
The husband was directed to deposit his passport with the trial court.
-
The Court ordered a preliminary judicial inquiry under Section 340 CrPC to be conducted by the Registrar General within one month.
Held
-
There is prima facie evidence of forgery, suppression, and misuse of judicial process.
-
These actions fall squarely within the ambit of Section 340 CrPC, justifying a preliminary inquiry and potential prosecution.
Analysis
-
The Court’s decision reflects a strict stance on judicial integrity and misuse of legal processes.
-
By ordering a Section 340 CrPC inquiry, the Court underscores the seriousness of tampering with court records and forging documents.
-
The ruling sets a precedent that courts will not tolerate procedural fraud, even in matrimonial or bail proceedings.
-
It reaffirms that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, especially where false representations might mislead the judiciary.