Allahabad High Court refuses withdrawal after forged documents filed in writ, dismisses petition with ₹25,000 costs

The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition.

The State filed instructions alleging that the petition had been supported by forged documents, including an Aadhaar card. The petitioner did not controvert that allegation.

The Court declined withdrawal, treated the filing as an abuse of process, and considered the petitioner’s age—over 70 years—in deciding not to initiate contempt proceedings.

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition after the State alleged, without rebuttal, that it had been filed with forged documents

2. Whether the filing of the petition warranted dismissal with costs and contempt proceedings

The Court relied on Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421, for the principle that filing a fabricated document with intent to deceive the court or defraud may amount to contempt by interfering with the administration of justice.

It relied on K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, for the rule that suppression or misrepresentation of material facts is an abuse of process and disentitles a litigant to equitable writ relief.

It also referred to Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114, on the denial of relief to litigants who pollute the stream of justice with falsehood, and Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash, (2013) 9 SCC 199, on suppression of truth as equivalent to falsehood.

The Court considered the State’s instructions to indicate that forged documents had been filed and noted that the petitioner had not answered the allegation. In those circumstances, it viewed the request to withdraw—made after the petitioner had been unable to succeed—as an attempt to avoid the consequences of the proceedings and refused to permit it.

Applying the cited principles concerning fraud on the court and abuse of writ jurisdiction, the Court held that the petition could not be withdrawn and warranted dismissal with costs.

It refrained from initiating contempt proceedings because the petitioner was over 70 years old.

The petitioner was directed to file proof of payment with an affidavit of compliance before the Senior Registrar. In default, the Senior Registrar was directed to recover the costs in accordance with law as arrears of land revenue.

The Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings.