In Brief
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order directing criminal prosecution of political figures for allegedly forging a vakalatnama (power of attorney) filed with a bail application. The appellant had stated the document was signed on 17–18 August 2016 in Madurai, but she had actually travelled to Singapore. The appellants claimed it was a clerical error: they had signed it on 16 August in Delhi/Bangalore, and it was mistakenly dated in Madurai. The Court held that fraud requires intention to deceive for wrongful gain; mere date errors in a vakalatnama, without evidence of intentional misrepresentation or injury, do not constitute forgery. The Court quashed the criminal case and FIR, emphasizing that Section 340 CrPC requires a finding that prosecution is expedient in justice—not mere allegations.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.