JAIPUR, Nov. 27 - A somewhat tense courtroom at the Rajasthan High Court on 18 November saw Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismiss a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by three men accused of relying on a suspicious, possibly fabricated sale agreement dating back to April 2000. What appeared at first to be a routine dispute over property documents slowly unfolded into a deeper argument about truth, justice, and the dangers of forged paperwork in civil litigation.
Background
The petitioners - Sundar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Parashar, and Hariom Garg - had challenged a 2018 direction issued by the Additional District Judge, Deeg, ordering an official enquiry into the authenticity of a sale agreement the first petitioner claimed to have executed with two men allegedly long deceased.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Quashes Caste-Probe Orders Against Retired Headmaster, Calls Civil Rights Cell
According to the civil court record, a witness named Dulhe Ram stated that the supposed executants, Om Prakash and Chandra Prakash, had actually died in 1995 and 1990 - years before the disputed 04.04.2000 agreement was allegedly signed. No death certificates were filed, but the claim raised enough eyebrows for the trial court to reject the suit for specific performance and order a verification of the document.
The petitioners argued before the High Court that the enquiry order was based only on an oral statement without proper documentary backing. Their counsel insisted that “unless concrete evidence appears,” such directions should not be issued.
Read also: Gauhati High Court Partly Allows Appeals, Grants Only Retrospective Salary Benefits to Former
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhand was not persuaded. Throughout the hearing, he repeatedly emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to uncover the truth, even quoting Chanakya: “It is the power of truth that makes the sun shine.”
“The bench observed, ‘If any fact on record suggests that a litigant has placed a fabricated document before the Court, we are duty-bound to initiate an enquiry,’” reflecting a firm stance against fraudulent tactics.
Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents - including Iqbal Singh Marwah, Chandra Shashi, and K.D. Sharma - the judge recalled strong warnings issued over the years against parties who attempt to “pollute the stream of justice.” At one point, he remarked that courts cannot allow individuals to obtain judicial orders through documents that may have been “born out of manipulation rather than truth.”
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Orders Transfer of 63 Tribal Constables to TSP Areas After Years of Delay
The judge also noted with concern that despite the 2018 direction, the enquiry still had not concluded. On the record, he expressed disappointment that “more than seven years have passed” without a final report from the authorities. Sundar Singh son of Shri Nand R…
Decision
In the end, the High Court found “no merit and substance” in the petition and upheld the original order directing an enquiry into the 2000 agreement’s genuineness.
The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed, and the Court instructed the concerned authorities to expedite the enquiry and submit their report to the competent court without further delay.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Man Convicted in Fake Currency Case After Serving Nearly Half His Sentence
Justice Dhand clarified that the High Court’s observations should not influence the enquiry officer and that the investigation must proceed independently. With that, the matter concluded at the point of the Court’s directive itself.
Case Title: Sundar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4021/2024
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Challenge to enquiry order regarding alleged forged sale agreement)
Decision Date: 18 November 2025
