• News
  • FIR against man who posed as judge's PA, forged HC order in Ahmedabad

FIR against man who posed as judge's PA, forged HC order in Ahmedabad

The Sola High Court police station registered an FIR against Smit Pandya for allegedly forging a high court order. The complaint, brought by the HC administration, states that Pandya altered an eviction deadline from 2025 to 2028 and demanded money for this service. An internal inquiry confirmed the malpractice.
FIR against man who posed as judge's PA, forged HC order in Ahmedabad
Representative image
AHMEDABAD: Sola High Court police station on Tuesday registered an FIR against one Smit Pandya on a complaint filed by the HC administration for forging a high court order. The police filed the FIR against Pandya under various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act for cheating, breach of trust, forgery etc.
In his complaint, HC's additional registrar Joshua Martin stated that Hardik Brahmbhatt, a practising advocate, brought to the notice of the court registry an alteration in the court's order and forgery.
He stated that his briefing advocate from Jamnagar, Gitaben Parghi, sent him the copy of the altered order.
The complaint said that the HC had passed an order on Aug 9, 2024, on two petitions directing a tenant to vacate the property by March 31, 2025.
Advocate Brahmbhatt received a call from the briefing counsel, who informed him that a man named Smit Pandya had allegedly offered to have modifications made to a court order by approaching a high court judge with this request. Furthermore, Pandya also posed as the judge's PA.
He allegedly asked for Rs 1 lakh for this service and then demanded Rs 5,000 for making alterations in the order. The lawyers were surprised at seeing the forged order, in which the deadline for vacating the property was changed from 2025 to 2028. Advocate Brahmbhatt wrote to the HC registry about this, and an inquiry was undertaken by the court registry.
The FIR further stated that after an internal inquiry, HC's registrar general reported that it appears that malpractice has been adopted in the present case and the court order dated Aug 9, 2024, received by the lawyers, "is a forged document with alteration made prima facie by the user with IP address 106.66.59.212 at the relevant time and date and purportedly, the person talking in the recorded call, changed/altered the content in the PDF copy of the original order".
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA