Court grants liberty to petitioner to approach Registrar General and Commissioner of Police; directs inquiry and appropriate legal action within two months
In a significant judgment delivered on September 18, 2026, the Delhi High Court uncovered a serious instance of forgery involving a fabricated order purportedly passed by the Court in a pending appeal related to a property dispute. The case, Smt. Meena Devi and Another v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others, raised grave concerns about fraud and police inaction in the face of allegations of forgery and property grabbing.
The petitioner, Smt. Meena Devi, approached the Court alleging that the police had failed to act on her complaint regarding a forged court order which was used to falsely claim an "interim stay" in a pending Regular Second Appeal (RSA) No. 101/2024 concerning property bearing Khasra No. 307 in Village Khera Khurd, Delhi. The property in question spans 175 square yards situated in the extended Lal Dora area.
During the hearing, the Court examined the order dated November 19, 2024, which was supposedly passed by the Court in RSA 101/2024. The genuine order contained three operative paragraphs primarily listing the matter for a future date and directing requisition of trial court records. However, the document submitted by the petitioner included an additional fourth paragraph stating, "Interim stay granted." The Court found this addition to be a fabrication, not part of the original order, indicating that some unknown person had unlawfully altered the High Court's order to mislead parties and authorities.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the matter, highlighted the seriousness of the forgery and noted that such manipulation of judicial records undermines the integrity of the justice system and affects property rights. The Court observed that this matter warranted a thorough investigation and appropriate action against those responsible.
To address this, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a detailed representation with the Registrar General of the High Court, enclosing both the actual and fabricated orders. The Registrar General was directed to ensure that any complaint filed is taken to its logical conclusion.
In parallel, the petitioner was also granted liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters. The Commissioner was directed to conduct an inquiry into all aspects of the complaint, including police inaction, and to take appropriate action in accordance with the law within two months from receipt of the representation.
The Court disposed of the petition with these directions while expressly leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open for future adjudication.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary's vigilance against fraud and the necessity of prompt police action in cases involving forgery and property disputes. It reinforces the commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from illegal encroachments aided by fraudulent documents.
Bottom Line:
Fabrication of High Court order by insertion of false line "interim stay granted" in pending RSA matter - Court granted liberty to petitioner to approach Registrar General and Commissioner of Police - Commissioner of Police directed to inquire into all aspects and take appropriate action in accordance with law within two months.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code relating to forgery (likely Sections 463, 464, 465 IPC).
Smt. Meena Devi v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983435
