Supreme Court Questions Advocate Over FIR on 50-Year-Old Sale Deed Forgery Allegation

The Supreme Court of India has directed an advocate to explain why exemplary costs should not be imposed on him for lodging an FIR in 2023 alleging forgery of a sale deed executed in 1971, over five decades ago. The Court expressed concern that the FIR might be an abuse of the process of law.

Case Involves 71-Year-Old Woman Accused in FIR

The FIR names a 71-year-old woman as the accused. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and NK Singh was hearing the petition filed by the woman, who had been denied anticipatory bail by the Allahabad High Court.

Supreme Court Criticizes Allahabad High Court’s “Casual” Bail Rejection

The bench criticized the High Court for its "casual" dismissal of the anticipatory bail plea. The Court observed: “It is quite unfortunate that the Allahabad High Court has illogically turned down the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a 71-year-old woman who is neither seller, purchaser, witness, nor beneficiary of the sale deed dated 21.08.1971.” The Court stayed her arrest and indicated that the High Court’s order warrants introspection.

Court Takes Action Against Complainant Advocate

The Court noted that the complainant in the FIR is an advocate by profession and is evading service. Consequently, the Court issued bailable warrants for his appearance and warned that non-bailable warrants would follow if he continues to avoid service.

Court Directs SHO to Produce Records and Show Cause

The Supreme Court ordered the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station to produce the original records that led to the FIR and show cause as to why the proceedings should not be quashed, since they appear to be a prima facie abuse of process of law.

Supreme Court’s Previous Criticism of High Courts’ Bail Orders

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has rebuked High Courts for their “casual” or “callous” approach in bail matters. Earlier in April, the Court had criticized the Allahabad High Court for granting bail to 13 accused persons in inter-State trafficking cases, who subsequently absconded.

Last year, the Supreme Court also expressed displeasure with the Madhya Pradesh High Court for refusing to consider the plea of a 70-year-old ailing man for suspension of sentence in a routine manner. The Court had emphasized a liberal approach to bail in fixed-term sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist.

In November 2024, the Supreme Court condemned High Courts for routinely denying bail while simultaneously imposing time-bound schedules for trial conclusion.  The matter is listed for further hearing on October 8, 2025.

Case Title: USHA MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.