The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that documents declared false by a competent criminal authority and accepted as such by a criminal court cannot be admitted as evidence in a pending civil suit, regardless of the stage of trial or the absence of intentional delay. This ruling reinforces the principle that evidentiary value, not procedural timing, governs admissibility in civil proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, seeking to restrain them from constructing any structure on the northern side of the plaintiff’s property, specifically along Point Nos. G to H of the plan annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were encroaching upon a shared pathway. During the pendency of the suit, the husband of the second defendant, Surya Narayana Reddy, who had actively contested the suit, passed away. Subsequently, the plaintiff allegedly constructed a compound wall encroaching upon the northern pathway used by the defendants for ingress and egress.
Key Facts
- The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 130 of 2021 seeking permanent injunction on the alleged encroachment
- The second defendant, widow of the deceased defendant, filed I.A. No. 149 of 2024 seeking removal of the allegedly illegal compound wall
- In support of I.A. No. 149 of 2024, the second defendant submitted photocopies of an FIR and photographs without the corresponding CD
- The defendants then filed I.A. No. 251 of 2025 seeking permission to mark the certified copy of the FIR and the CD containing the photographs as evidence in O.S. No. 130 of 2021
- The Station House Officer, Vettapalem, submitted a final report in the criminal case arising from the FIR, referring to it as false
- The criminal court accepted the final report and closed the criminal proceedings
- The defendants did not supply a copy of the CD to the plaintiff, nor did they file the original negatives of the photographs
Procedural History
- 2021: O.S. No. 130 of 2021 filed by plaintiff seeking permanent injunction
- 2024: I.A. No. 149 of 2024 filed by second defendant seeking removal of compound wall; photocopies of FIR and photographs submitted
- 28.07.2024: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, dismissed I.A. No. 251 of 2025 seeking to mark certified FIR and CD
- 02.04.2026: Civil Revision Petition No. 2328 of 2025 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the dismissal
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioners/Defendants: Argued that the certified FIR and CD were necessary to substantiate their claim that the plaintiff constructed the wall during the pendency of the suit, and that the earlier submission of photocopies was an inadvertent error, not intentional delay
- Respondent/Plaintiff: Contended that the FIR had been declared false by the competent criminal authority and accepted as such by the criminal court, rendering it inadmissible and irrelevant to the civil dispute
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought permission to mark the certified copy of the FIR and the CD containing photographs as evidence in O.S. No. 130 of 2021, arguing that without them, the photocopies already on record would become inadmissible and prejudice their defense.
The Legal Issue
Can a certified copy of an FIR and accompanying digital evidence be admitted in a civil suit under Order VIII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC, when the same documents have been declared false by a competent criminal authority and the criminal proceedings have been closed on that basis?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Ramratan (Dead) through LRs v. Ramkali Bai and Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma to argue that documents may be permitted to be marked even at a belated stage in a civil suit, provided there is no prejudice to the opposite party and the trial is still ongoing. It was contended that the trial was still in progress, with cross-examination pending, and that the certified copies were necessary to validate the photocopies already on record. The omission was attributed to inadvertence, not malice.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel argued that the FIR had been formally declared false by the Station House Officer and accepted as such by the criminal court, which had closed the proceedings. He submitted that documents declared false by a competent authority and confirmed as such by a court cannot be admitted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, as they lack evidentiary value. He further contended that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were inapplicable because the documents in those cases were valid and enforceable, unlike the present case where the documents were judicially declared void.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and status of the FIR and CD sought to be introduced. It noted that the trial was at an advanced stage, with the plaintiff’s evidence concluded and only the defendants’ cross-examination pending. The Court emphasized that the documents in question pertained to alleged altercations between the parties - incidents of quarrel, both verbal and physical - which had no direct bearing on the civil claim of encroachment and injunction.
"The said FIR and CD were reported to be false by the competent authority before the criminal court by way of a final report moreover the said report was accepted by the competent court."
The Court held that the criminal court’s acceptance of the final report, which declared the FIR false, rendered the documents legally inadmissible. The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that in Ramratan and Levaku Pedda Reddamma, the documents sought to be admitted were valid and legally enforceable, even if filed belatedly. In contrast, the documents here were not merely late - they were judicially declared void.
The Court further observed that the failure to supply a copy of the CD or the original negatives compounded the procedural irregularity, and that the defendants had ample opportunity to correct the defect but failed to do so. The Court concluded that admitting documents declared false by a criminal court would undermine the integrity of civil proceedings and permit the use of tainted evidence to influence the outcome of a civil dispute.
The Verdict
The civil revision petition was dismissed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, dated 28.07.2024, which refused permission to mark the certified copy of the FIR and the CD containing photographs. The Court held that documents declared false by a competent criminal authority and confirmed as such by a criminal court are inadmissible in civil proceedings, regardless of the stage of trial. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Documents Cannot Be Salvaged by Belated Filing
- Practitioners must recognize that even under Order VIII Rule 14(3) CPC, documents with no evidentiary value - especially those judicially declared false - cannot be admitted merely because the trial is ongoing
- The doctrine of belated filing under Section 151 CPC does not override the foundational requirement of evidentiary legitimacy
- If a document has been invalidated in a parallel criminal proceeding, its admission in a civil suit is legally impermissible
Evidentiary Value Trumps Procedural Flexibility
- Courts will prioritize the substance of evidence over procedural technicalities when the substance is tainted
- Counsel must verify the status of any criminal document (FIR, charge sheet, closure report) before seeking to rely on it in civil litigation
- Failure to supply copies of digital evidence (CDs, photographs) to the opposite party may be viewed as prejudicial, even if the document itself is otherwise admissible
Procedural Lapses Cannot Compensate for Legal Invalidity
- Inadvertent omission of certified copies does not cure the fundamental defect of a document declared false by a court
- The burden shifts to the party seeking to introduce such evidence to demonstrate not just reason for delay, but also legal validity of the document
- Courts will not permit the use of evidence that has been formally rejected by another court of competent jurisdiction
