No Right to be Heard? Bombay High Court Rules Advocates Accused of Courtroom Forgery Cannot Demand a Hearing Before the Court Initiates Criminal Prosecution Under Section 340 CrPC.
In the high-stakes arena of Indian litigation, the integrity of the record is sacrosanct. But what happens when the very officers of the court—the advocates—are accused of polluting that record with forged documents? A recent and provocative judgment from the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has peeled back the layers of procedural law to answer a critical question: Does a person accused of committing fraud upon the court have a right to be heard before the court decides to prosecute them? The answer is a stark reminder of the court's inherent power to protect the administration of justice.
The Myth of the Pre-Complaint HearingThe most striking takeaway from this judgment is the clarification that the principles of natural justice—specifically the right to be heard—do not apply at the stage when a court is deciding whether to file a criminal complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 379 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The petitioners, a group of advocates, argued that the Reference Court’s direction to lodge an FIR and a judicial complaint against them was "vitiated" because they were never given an opportunity to explain themselves.
The High Court dismantled this argument, noting that providing a hearing at the stage of reporting a criminal offence would effectively "frustrate the proceedings" and "obstruct taking of prompt action of law". In essence, the court held that the right to be heard belongs to the trial stage, not the preliminary stage where the court is merely setting the law in motion.
Expediency Over GuiltThe judgment emphasizes that an inquiry under Section 340 is not a mini-trial to determine guilt or innocence. Instead, the court’s only duty is to determine whether it is "expedient in the interest of justice" that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence. This is a nuanced but vital distinction for legal practitioners to understand.
"The purpose of preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was not to find out whether a person is guilty or not, but only to decide whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence."
This means the court acts as a gatekeeper, not a punisher, at this juncture. The threshold is not "is this person a criminal?" but rather "does this look suspicious enough to warrant a Magistrate’s attention?"
The Dual-Track Prosecution StrategyAnother fascinating aspect of this ruling is the court's approval of two simultaneous but distinct legal actions for the same set of facts. The Reference Court had directed the District Collector to lodge an FIR for forgery and simultaneously directed the Assistant Superintendent of the Court to file a complaint before a Magistrate. The petitioners argued this was redundant and fallacious.
However, the High Court upheld this "dual-track" approach. It reasoned that offences committed outside the court (the preparation of forged documents) can be handled via a standard FIR, while offences committed on the record of the court (using those documents in a proceeding) must follow the specific procedure under Section 195/340 of the CrPC. This ensures that no part of the criminal enterprise escapes the reach of the law, regardless of where the specific act occurred.
The Shield of Professional TimelineWhile the court was firm on procedural law, it showed a keen sense of equity regarding the individual petitioners. Two of the advocates were exonerated simply because the math didn't add up. They had joined the case years after the allegedly forged documents were first submitted, and in one instance, the advocate wasn't even licensed to practice when the fraud began.
This highlights a practical lesson for junior advocates: the act of signing a Vakalatnama (a document authorizing a lawyer to represent a client) carries significant weight, but it cannot retroactively make you liable for a fraud that was already "baked into" the case before your arrival. The court noted that these juniors were merely assisting senior counsel and had no hand in the inception of the forgery.
A Forward-Looking WarningThis judgment serves as a stern warning to the legal fraternity. While the court protected those who were clearly not involved in the document's creation, it refused to quash the proceedings against the advocate who was on record when the suspicious documents were first introduced. The ruling reinforces the idea that the court is not a passive observer of the evidence placed before it. When the "majesty of the law" is undermined by fabrication, the court will act swiftly, and it will not wait for the accused to offer an excuse before setting the wheels of justice in motion.
Case: AKSHAY RAVINDRA BORNARE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Law: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Code of Criminal Procedure, Land Acquisition Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Evidence Act.
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:21518
Decision Date: 06-05-2026