Introduction: This case study delves into the dispute between KG Marketing India (the appellant) and Rashi Santosh Soni & others (the respondents) concerning allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents, and the misuse of a trademark “SURYA.” The matter primarily concerns the appropriate legal proceedings for handling forged evidence filed in court, and the Court’s authority to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Delhi High Court's judgment underscores the importance of truthfulness in legal pleadings and demonstrates the Court’s powers to impose costs and direct criminal complaints against dishonest conduct during litigation.
Factual Background: KG Marketing India claimed prior rights and extensive use of the trademark "SURYA" since 2016, supported by newspaper advertisements. These advertisements were relied upon in its suit to establish prior user rights and branding dominance. The appellant filed a civil suit, CS (COMM) No. 18/2023, which included the newspaper advertisements as evidence, supported by a Statement of Truth affirming their authenticity. Subsequently, the respondents challenged the genuineness of these documents, asserting that they were fabricated and produced with malicious intent to secure an interim injunction favoring the appellant’s market position. The respondents alleged that the advertisements used by the appellant in the court proceedings were forged and that the appellant had intentionally misrepresented facts.
Procedural Background: Initially, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the appellant and authorized a search and seizure of allegedly infringing goods. However, the respondents later filed I.A. 10033/2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, alleging that the documents filed by the appellant were maliciously fabricated for the purpose of securing the injunction. The Court found merit in this contention and vacated the interim relief, dismissing the appellant’s application. Subsequently, the respondents filed a cross-suit seeking to restrain the appellant from using the mark “SURYA,” and to prove the alleged forgery, they provided original newspapers dated 17.06.2016 and 12.07.2017 to establish that the advertisements relied upon were fabricated. During the proceedings, the Court considered whether proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC should be initiated against the appellant for allegedly filing forged documents and false statements.
Legal Issue: The principal legal issue in this case is whether the Court has the authority to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC against a party who files forged documents and makes false statements supporting their case, particularly in the context of fabricated evidence in a civil suit? The case raises questions about the nature of proof admissible in trademark disputes, the limits of the Court’s power to take suo-motu cognizance of forgery, and the sanctity of Statements of Truth filed in pleadings, especially when they are allegedly false and fabricated.
Discussion on Judgments: The parties cited multiple judgments to substantiate their respective arguments. The appellant referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Gulabrao Bondre v. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh (2023) 9 SCC 539, which clarified interpretations surrounding forgery and the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 340 of the CrPC, especially when relating to documents filed in court. The respondent’s counsel relied on the earlier Supreme Court decision in Mahadev Bapuji Mahajan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 748, which clarified that criminal proceedings can be initiated even if the offence preceded the registration of a complaint, thus establishing that the Court has the power to act upon suspicion or evidence of forgery, regardless of the procedural stage.
Additionally, the Court referred to Iqbal Singh Marwah and Ors. v. Meenakshi Marwah, (1981) 4 SCC 523, where the Supreme Court discussed the interpretation of Section 195 of the CrPC concerning offences related to documents produced in court. The decision clarified that where offences involve an act committed in respect of a document that was produced or given in evidence during proceedings, a complaint by the court would be necessary. The Court examined whether the production of forged documents with falsified Statements of Truth warranted criminal action under Section 340 of the CrPC, emphasizing the importance of truthfulness in court pleadings.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: The learned Judge analyzed the available judgments and the facts of the case to arrive at a reasoned conclusion. The Court noted that the documents relied upon by the appellant were explicitly admitted to be forged and fabricated, and these false documents were filed along with the suit to obtain interim relief. The Court further observed that the Statement of Truth filed affirming the genuineness of these documents was false, which undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Gulabrao Bondre, the Court clarified that the offence of forgery committed in respect of documents filed in a court proceeding is prosecutable under Section 340 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that it has the authority to cause a complaint to be filed if it is satisfied that a false statement or forged document has been deliberately filed, thereby obstructing the course of justice. The Court acknowledged that filing forged evidence under the guise of genuine documents is a serious offence, warranting criminal action along with appropriate costs to deter such misconduct.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the filing of false pleadings violates the principles of honesty and fair dealing in litigation. It reinforced that the Court can initiate proceedings suo-motu or upon an application to ensure that falsehoods do not undermine judicial integrity. The Court, therefore, imposed costs on the appellant and directed the Registrar General to lodge a criminal complaint, affirming its jurisdiction to enforce accountability for litigatory misconduct.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the order directing the Registrar General to lodge a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate under Section 340 of the CrPC, and imposed a cost of ₹2,00,000 on the appellant. The Court declared that the appellant’s conduct in filing forged documents and false Statements of Truth was unjustifiable and amounted to an abuse of the judicial process. The scheduled hearing was canceled, and the appellant was directed to deposit the imposed costs with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. This decision reaffirmed the Court’s authority to act against falsification and forgery in proceedings and underscored the importance of honesty in presenting evidence.
Law Settled in This Case: This case establishes that if a party files forged or fabricated documents in court, supported by false affidavits or Statements of Truth, the Court has the authority to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC against the offending party. The decision clarifies that the Court can act suo-motu in such cases, emphasizing that the integrity of judicial proceedings depends on honest and truthful conduct of parties. The case also emphasizes that the imposition of costs serves as a deterrent against misconduct, and that the disposal of forged evidence can have both civil and criminal consequences.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
