Delhi High Court Commands Police Probe into Alleged Court Order Forgery
The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step by instructing the Commissioner of Police to investigate an alleged fabrication of a court order from 2024. The order in question was found to contain an additional paragraph stating “interim stay granted,” which the court did not authorize. This development emerged during proceedings in the case of Meena Devi & Anr. v The State & Ors..
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who presided over the matter, identified that the original order dated November 19, 2024, was comprised of only three paragraphs. The court had simply adjourned the proceedings to January 14, 2025, with instructions to requisition the trial court record. However, a modified version of this order, presented later, contained an unauthorized fourth paragraph with the words “interim stay granted.”
In its order on September 18, Justice Kaurav remarked, “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 matter pertains to a petition alleging inaction by the police concerning a complaint of fraud and forgery linked to a property dispute over a 175-square-yard land in Khera Khurd, Delhi. The complaint, filed with the Commissioner of Police on September 7, accused parties of engaging in serious fraudulent activities concerning the property.
During the hearings, the petitioners pointed out discrepancies between two versions of a court order issued in 2024 in related legal proceedings. While the authentic court order merely postponed the hearing, the altered version purportedly imposed a stay on trial court proceedings.
In its directive on September 18, the court allowed the petitioners to present their concerns about the forged court order to the police. The Commissioner of Police has been tasked with conducting a thorough inquiry into the matter, ensuring all legal measures are implemented within two months of receiving the complaint.
The court further permitted the petitioners to submit a detailed representation, along with copies of both order versions, to the Registrar General. Justice Kaurav stated, “If the said complaint is filed before the Registrar General, let the same be taken to its logical conclusion.”
The court concluded by closing the petition but left the rights and contentions of all involved parties open. Representing the petitioners were Advocates OP Agrawal, MA Khan, and Aashish Pratap Singh. Additional Standing Counsel Anand V Khatri appeared for the State, while Advocates VP Rana and Roopanshu Malik represented other respondents.
