Delhi HC detects fabricated Court order in property dispute, orders probe by Registrar General, Police Commissioner

New Delhi [India], September 22 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has flagged what appears to be tampering with one of its own judicial orders, surfacing during the hearing of a property dispute, and has directed that the matter be probed by the competent authorities.
The order was passed on September 18 by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in a petition filed by Meena Devi and another petitioner. The petitioners had complained of police inaction over their allegations of fraud and forgery relating to a 175-square-yard plot of land in the extended Lal Dora area of Khera Khurd village, Delhi.
According to the court's order, the petitioners had already submitted a detailed complaint on September 7, 2026, to the Commissioner of Police at Delhi Police Headquarters. During arguments, their counsel placed reliance on what was presented as a High Court order dated November 19, 2024, passed in RSA 101/2024.
When the court cross-checked this against its own records, it found a discrepancy between the order actually passed on that date and the copy produced before it. The authentic order merely recorded that counsel for the respondents had sought time to take instructions, listed the matter for January 14, 2025, and called for the trial court's records to be requisitioned.
The document placed before the court, however, carried an extra line not found in the original a fourth paragraph reading "Interim stay granted."
Comparing the two versions, the bench remarked that it appeared some unidentified individual had fabricated the court's order by inserting this additional line. The court held that the matter warranted formal investigation and appropriate follow-up action.
Accordingly, the petitioners were given liberty to file a detailed representation before the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, enclosing both versions of the order for comparison. The court directed that any such complaint, once filed, be pursued to its logical conclusion.
Separately, the petitioners were also permitted to move a detailed representation before the Commissioner of Police, who has been directed to examine all aspects of the matter and take appropriate legal action within two months of receiving the complaint. (ANI)