Delhi High Court – Orders
Dr. Syeda Azra Khursheed vs Jamia Millia Islamia on 27 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13791/2023
DR. SYEDA AZRA KHURSHEED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Srijan Sinha, Mr. Siddharth Garg,
Ms. Nitya Prabhakar and Mr. Rishi
Chouksey, Advocates.
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, SC with Ms.
Shweta Singh Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 27.04.2026
CM APPL. 27892/2026 (for initiation of proceedings against the
Petitioner)
1. By this application, the Applicant seeks initiation of proceedings
against the Petitioner under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakssha
Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19732) read with Sections 229, 236, 246, 336(1), 336(3) and 340(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,3 on the allegation that the Petitioner has
filed false and fabricated documents before this Court.
2. The case set up by the Applicant is that the Petitioner has placed on
record certain documents, including Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-4, which
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/04/2026 at 21:36:52
are certificates purportedly issued by Kabir Girls’ Degree College and dated
4th February, 2026 and 4th March, 2026 respectively. These documents are
stated to bear the signatures of one Mr. A.G. Ansari, described therein as
Secretary of the said institution.
3. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, counsel for the Applicant, submits that the
aforesaid documents are ex facie forged and fabricated, inasmuch as Mr.
A.G. Ansari had expired in the year 2002. In this regard, reliance is placed
on the death certificate placed on record as Annexure R-10 to the present
application. It is contended that the Petitioner has knowingly relied upon
fabricated documents in the present proceedings and has thereby attempted
to mislead this Court.
4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Applicant. The question which arises for consideration at this stage is
whether this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 340 CrPC
for initiating proceedings in respect of the alleged offences.
5. The legal position in this regard stands clarified by the Supreme Court
in Arockiasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu,4 following the Constitution Bench
judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah.5 It has been held
that where the alleged forgery of a document is committed prior to its
production in Court, the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would
not be attracted, and there is no embargo on initiation of criminal
proceedings through ordinary remedies such as registration of an FIR or
filing of a complaint.
6. In the present case, the allegation of the Applicant is that the
3
“BNS”
4
In SLP (Crl.) No. 5805/2023, decided on 10th September, 2024.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/04/2026 at 21:36:52
documents in question were forged prior to their being placed on record
before this Court. Thus, the alleged offence, if any, is not one committed in
respect of a document while it was in custodia legis. Consequently, the
Applicant is not precluded from availing appropriate remedies in accordance
with law for initiating criminal proceedings against the Petitioner.
7. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are not to
be initiated as a matter of course, and the Court must be satisfied that it is
expedient in the interest of justice to do so. The provision confers a
discretionary jurisdiction, to be exercised with circumspection, particularly
where alternative remedies are available.
8. In view of the above, and considering that the Applicant has an
efficacious remedy to pursue independent criminal proceedings in respect of
the alleged acts of forgery, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 340 CrPC in the present case.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case, and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
The Applicant shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available
in law for initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings against the
Petitioner.
10. The application is accordingly disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 27, 2026/as
5
(2005) 4 SCC 370.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/04/2026 at 21:36:52
