MP High Court Orders FIR Probe Into Forged Vakalatnama, Fake Withdrawal Application

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has ordered a detailed inquiry, with a possible FIR, after finding that a stranger to a first appeal had been entered as the appellant's counsel and had then moved to withdraw the appeal, using a Vakalatnama and an affidavit that the appellant, present in court, disowned entirely.

Justice Vivek Jain was hearing First Appeal, filed by Shalini Sharma against Dr. Rekha Baijal and others, along with a connected appeal, when informed that an application, had been filed seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Shri Joydeep Bhattacharya, counsel for the appellant, told the court that neither he nor local counsel Shri S.P. Mishra had received instructions from Shalini Sharma to withdraw the case.

On going through the record, the bench found that a fresh Vakalatnama had been filed on behalf of the appellant by one Ajay K. Yadav, described as bearing NOC from Shri S.P. Mishra dated 05.08.2026. Based on this document, the registry had already deleted the names of the original counsel, Sarvshri S.P. Mishra, Falguni Yadav, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Shailendra Kumar Patel, Joydeep Bhattacharya, Satyartha Balaji Sinha and Surendra Kumar, and substituted Ajay Kumar Yadav's name in the CMIS records. An application seeking withdrawal of the appeal, signed by "Ajay Kumar Yadav" as advocate, had followed on 11.08.2026, supported by an affidavit purportedly sworn by Shalini Sharma on 09.08.2026.

Appearing in person and producing her passport to establish her identity, Shalini Sharma told the court she did not know any advocate named Ajay Kumar Yadav and had never executed a Vakalatnama in his favour. Shri S.P. Mishra denied giving any NOC. The appellant further stated that she had never travelled to Jabalpur on 09.08.2026 and had not signed any affidavit that day, disputing the signature on record.

The court then summoned the oath commissioner who had attested the affidavit, Ms. Laxmi Devi Singh, and directed the matter to be taken up again later in the day so that the advocate named in the papers could also appear. When the hearing resumed at 4 p.m., a person identifying himself as Ajay Kumar Yadav appeared and, in the words of the order, submitted "that he does not know anything about this case," had "never filed any Vakalatnama," and did "not know the appellant." He produced his District Bar Association identity card and said he practised at the Jabalpur district court.

Ms. Laxmi Devi Singh told the court that a woman had come to her on 09.08.2026, a Sunday, for execution of an affidavit, recorded at serial number 1037 in her register. However, she stated that this woman was not the appellant standing before the court, and that the advocate present was also not the person who had accompanied her that day. The court recorded that neither the appellant nor the oath commissioner could identify the persons who had actually appeared before her.

Calling the episode "something mischievous," the bench dismissed the withdrawal application and rejected the Vakalatnama filed in Ajay Kumar Yadav's name, restoring the original counsel on record. It directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) to conduct a detailed inquiry within four weeks and, if any criminal activity is found, to have an FIR registered. The oath commissioner's register, which the order noted showed "various over-writings" and several blank pages, including four for 09.08.2026, was ordered seized as part of the inquiry record to verify signatures.

The court was also informed that respondent no.1, Dr. Rekha Baijal, had died on 07.08.2026. It allowed an application for change of counsel only for respondent no. 2, deferring the question for respondent no. 1 and directing the appellant to take steps for substitution within four weeks. In the connected appeal, the same reasoning led to rejection of the disputed Vakalatnama for respondent no.1 as well. Both matters have been listed after four weeks.

Case Title: Shalini Sharma vs. Dr. Rekha Baijal and Others

Date of Order: August 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Jain