Delhi High Court directs police inquiry into fabrication of court order

The Delhi High Court recently directed the Commissioner of Police to inquire into the alleged fabrication of a 2024 court order on finding that an additional paragraph stating “interim stay granted” - which the Court had not added - was found in a version of its order [Meena Devi & Anr. v The State & Ors.].

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found that the original order passed on November 19, 2024 contained only three paragraphs. It had merely adjourned the matter till January 14, 2025, while directing that a trial court record be requisitioned.

However, a version of the same order produced before the Court contained an additional fourth paragraph stating, “Interim stay granted.”

While examining the discrepancy, the Court in its September 18 order held,

"Some unknown person seems to have fabricated the order passed by this Court and added para. 4 containing the words 'interim stay granted'. The said aspect requires to be investigated and appropriate action has to be taken."

The issue arose in a petition alleging police inaction on a complaint of fraud and forgery as part of an attempt to grab a 175-square-yard property in Khera Khurd, Delhi.

The complaint, submitted to the Commissioner of Police on September 7, alleged serious fraud and forgery concerning the property.

During the hearing, the petitioners highlighted a discrepancy in two versions of a court order passed in 2024 in related proceedings. While the original court order merely adjourned the case, a second version also indicated a stay on trial court proceedings.

By its September 18 order, the Court gave the petitioner liberty to approach the police with a representation on this issue of a court order being forged.

The Court directed the Commissioner of Police to inquire into all aspects of the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with the law within two months of receiving the representation.

The Court also granted the petitioners liberty to approach its Registrar General with a detailed representation enclosing copies of both versions of the order.

"If the said complaint is field before the Registrar General, let the same be taken to its logical conclusion," said the Court.

The Court proceeded to close the petition, while leaving the rights and contentions of all parties open.

Advocates OP Agrawal, MA Khan and Aashish Pratap Singh appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Standing Counsel Anand V Khatri represented the State.

Advocates VP Rana and Roopanshu Malik appeared on behalf of other respondents.

[Read Order]