Allahabad High Court
Laxmikant Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208621
Reserved on 12.11.2025
Delivered on 21.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 379 BNSS No. - 21 of 2025
Laxmikant Dwivedi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Udai Prakash Deo Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Praveen Kumar Singh
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. This application under Section 379 of BNSS has been moved by the applicant with a prayer to make an enquiry into the false and fabricated evidence created and submitted by opposite party nos. 2 and 3, which constitute an offence of perjury.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is employed as an Operator in Hindalco Industries and has been an active and continuous member of duly registered trade union registered in the name of "Aluminium Karmchari Union" Renukoot, District Sonbhadra. He was duly elected as an Executive Member of the Union in its triennial election held for the years 2018-2020. In subsequent elections held for term 2021-2023, applicant was again elected as Executive Committee member. Shri Brahma Nand Singh was elected as President. The Form 'J' containing the details of elected members was submitted and duly received by the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Region, Pipari, Sonbhadra, U.P. for registration on 9.1.2021. Initially, Form 'J' was submitted before the Sub-Registrar, Trade Unions, Uttar Pradesh and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur, Region, Pipari, Sonbhadra. The Form 'J' is page no.21 of this application. It was further submitted that name of opposite party no.3 has been shown at serial no.9 in form 'J' by using fluid whitener and removing the name of respondent no.4. It is relevant to mention that there is no initial of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and also of the President upon the aforesaid interpolation and said interpolated document was filed by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 at the time they filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13275 of 2025 (Nilesh Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.).
3. The said criminal writ petition was filed by the opposite parties after an FIR registered as Case Crime No.099 of 2025 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC was lodged against them. Said FIR was lodged because the name of applicant was deliberately excluded from the Form 'J' and the name of opposite party no.3 was interpolated. The said tampering and forgery was carried out by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 alongwith other conspirators. Several complaints and applications regarding the said fraud committed in respect of Form 'J' were filed collectively against the opposite parties before Registrar Trade Unions, Kanpur Uttar Pradesh, and Sub-Registrar/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Region, Pipari, Sonbhadra.
4. It was further submitted that the opposite parties not only filed the interpolated Form 'J' before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13275 of 2025 (Nilesh. Singh & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), but they were also successful in securing a relief from this Court. A relief of arrest stay was granted in favour of them on 7.8.2025. The conduct of the opposite parties in committing forgery in documents and placing them before this Court to secure a favourable order is covered within the definition of Section 379 of BNSS. Therefore, it will be expedient in the interest of justice to take a suitable action against the opposite parties under Section 379 BNSS.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused the records.
6. Crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel is that opposite party no.2 interpolated the Form 'J', excluded the name of the applicant and thereafter secured an order of arrest stay after an FIR in the said regard was lodged against the opposite parties. So far as the scope of Section 379 is concerned, it is settled law that prosecution in the said cases can only be initiated if the court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice. Time and again it has been repeated by the Superior Courts that it is not mandatory that prosecution shall be launched in each and every case where allegation of forgery or giving false evidence is made.
7. While explaining the term "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice", the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr.) reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 held as under :-
"This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. ?"
8. In case at hand, even if it is assumed that a false affidavit before this Court was filed by the opposite parties by claiming a forged Form 'J' as to be true, then also it cannot be said that the aforementioned false affidavit and forged Form 'J' were the basis of order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.13275 of 2025. It is settled that a forged document submitted intentionally in a proceeding itself is not sufficient to attract prosecution under Section 379 BNSS (Old 340 Cr.P.C.). Unless it prejudices court at the time it takes decision relying upon it. Supreme Court in Babu Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 4 SCR 957, (5-Judge Bench ) held as under :-
"But the important ingredient which constitutes fabrication of false evidence within the meaning of Section 192 Indian Penal Code beside causing a circumstance to exist or making a false document ? to use a compendious expression ? is the intention that the circumstance so caused to exist or the false document made may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or before a public servant or before an arbitrator, and lead to the forming of an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of the proceeding."
9. Therefore, the forged Form 'J' which has compelled the aggrieved parties to lodge FIR against respondent may cause serious injury to applicant, but it is of not such a nature which led the Court to form an opinion.
10. Perusal of the order dated 7.8.2025 shows that neither the contents of the affidavit nor the Form 'J' was considered by the Court at the time of passing judgment. Another important aspect is ; whether the alleged interpolation was done after the alleged Form 'J' was submitted in the Court or said interpolation was in existence prior to it. It prima-facie appears that alleged interpolation had taken place before the document was submitted in the Court. Applicant himself has mentioned in petition that various complaints regarding alleged forgery were made by them. In this regard, it will be relevant to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Mangal v. Ramesh Chand (2015) 15 SCC 729, where Supreme Court, after considering the ratio laid down in Iqbal Singh Marwah (Supra), held as under:-
"A Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah case held that the protection engrafted under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offence enumerated in the said provisions has been committed with respect to a document after it had been produced or given in evidence in proceedings in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. Where the forgery was committed before the document was filed in the Court, the High Court was held not justified in quashing the prosecution of the accused under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472 and 477-A IPC on the ground that the complaint was barred by the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis. "
11. Therefore, the application lacks merit as applicant has miserably failed to establish any of ingredients required to attract the prosecution under Section 379 Cr.P. Had the Court considered the said facts, and thereafter it passed order by placing reliance upon them, then it was possible to presume that the Court was misled by the said affidavit and the alleged forged Form 'J'. The applicant has failed to make out a case for initiating proceedings under Section 379 BNSS against the opposite parties.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the application under Section 379 BNSS is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
November 21, 2025
SK
