IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL W.P.No.11045 of 2003 A.Thiyagarajan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Road, Thanjavur. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Collector Office Road, Thanjavur. 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pattukottai Road, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District. 4.A.Indira 5.A.Ayyavu 6.A.Malar 7.The Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Madras. .. Respondents (R7 impleaded as the order Dated 25.11.2009 in W.P.M.P.15948/03) Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents one and two to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondents four to six by registering an F.I.R for offences under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 120-B I.P.C and investigate into the matter expediciously. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gopikrishna For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.V.Viswanathan, Additional Government Pleader For RR 4 to 6 : No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner is the brother of respondents 4, 5 and 6. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18395 of 2000 against the petitioner and the Revenue Authorities praying for issuance of patta in their names. The said writ petition was dismissed on 24.11.2000 with a direction to respondents 4, 5 and 6 to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 preferred an writ appeal in W.A.No.85 of 2001 on the file of the Bench of this Court challenging the aforesaid order passed in the said writ petition. 2. Finding that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18395 of 2000, the writ appeal preferred by respondents 4 to 6 stood dismissed. 3. The third respondent/Tahsildar, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District, based on a concocted order in W.A.No.85 of 2001 produced by the respondents 4 to 6 issued individual patta in their names. 4. The petitioner was served with the copy of the order passed by the third respondent granting individual patta to respondents 4 to 6. Shocked by the orders passed by the third respondent in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 on the strength of a manufactured order in W.A.No.85 of 2001 submitted by the respondents 4 to 6 without serving notice to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur District praying to set aside the order passed by the third respondent/Tahsildar. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer is still pending disposal. 5. The petitioner also gave a complaint to the first respondent/the District Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District praying for action against respondents 4 to 6 for the offence of fabrication of records they have committed. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the complaint already given by the petitioner to the first respondent, no tangible criminal action was taken against respondents 4 to 6. Therefore a direction is sought to be issued to the first respondent to plunge into action based on the complaint given by the petitioner. 7. Respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the petitioner did not submit the certified copy of the order passed by the Bench of this Court in the writ appeal, as the same was required for the purpose of comparison with the alleged fabricated order produced by respondents 4 to 6 before the third respondent. It is their further contention that the investigation could not be proceeded with on account of the non-cooperation of the petitioner by producing authenticated copy of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order passed by the Bench of this Court in the writ appeal. 8. Heard the submissions made on either side. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent has now entrusted investigation of the matter to the second respondent/Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur District. When a serious complaint is lodged with the Police, the Police should approach the authority concerned in whose custody the original documents are available for the purpose of securing the same for investigation. It is not as if there was not even an iota of material available at the time when he lodged a complaint as against respondents 4 to 6. Very serious allegation of fabrication of the order passed by the Bench of this Court has been alleged in the complaint given by the petitioner. The first respondent very causally referred the investigation to the second respondent/Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur District without understanding the gravity of the allegation made in the complaint. In all fairness, the first respondent/District Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District himself should have investigated the matter considering the gravity of the charge alleged as against respondents 4 to 6. Very surprisingly, the second respondent is waiting for the authenticated copy of the order passed by the Bench of this Court in the writ appeal without taking efforts to secure the original documents from the Registrar General of this Court. It appears that the first and second respondents have not given due attention to the grave allegation found in the complaint. 10. The entire file maintained by the third respondent/Tahsildar was produced before this Court. On a careful perusal of the entire records, it is found that respondents 4 to 6 who preferred not to appear before this Court either in person or through their counsel had produced a totally different order alleged to have been passed by the Bench of this Court before the third respondent/Tahsildar, who passed an order granting individual patta in the name of respondents 4 to 6. The photocopy of the order passed by the Bench of this Court in the writ appeal preferred by respondents 4 to 6 is also found on record. On account of the laxity on the part of the second respondent/Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur District, there is no marked progress in the investigation of the grave charge alleged as against respondents 4 to 6 by the petitioner right from the year 2002. Respondents 4 to 6 are also very blissful without even responding to the writ petition filed by the petitioner as against them. Had the second respondent bestowed his personal attention in the matter of investigation of such a grave charge, the investigation would have been completed long ago. 11. The Registrar General of this Court has also been impleaded as 7th respondent, but it appears that the Registry has not amended the cause-title of the writ petition, incorporating the 7th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent. The Registry is hereby directed to amend the cause-title of the writ petition incorporating the Registrar General, High Court, Madras as the 7th respondent therein. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, criminal action alone is not sufficient as against respondents 4 to 6 for the serious charge of fabrication of the order passed by the Bench of this Court. On a bare perusal of the fake order produced by respondents 4 to 6 before the third respondent for obtaining individual patta in their name, I find that the order in fact passed by the Bench of this Court in W.A.No.85 of 2001 was not produced by respondents 4 to 6 before the third respondent, but a fabricated order seems to have been produced before the third respondent. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for taking contempt as against respondents 4 to 6 for fabrication of the order passed by the Bench of this Court in W.A.No.85 of 2001. 13. The first respondent/District Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District is directed to retrieve the file now pending with the second respondent/Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur District forthwith and register a case on his file based on the complaint given by the petitioner without any loss of time and investigate the matter and file a report within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The 7th respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras is directed to give all access to the first respondent to the records relating to W.A.No.85 of 2001 for his perusal and render all assistance in the matter of investigation of this case to the first respondent/District Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. The 7th respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras shall also furnish a certified copy of the Judgment passed by the Bench of this Court in W.A.No.85 of 2001 dated 19.02.2001 for the purpose of investigation of this case by the first respondent. The 7th respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras shall also place the matter before My Lord the Honourable the Chief Justice seeking suitable direction to take contempt proceedings as against respondents 4 to 6 for fabrication of the order passed by the Bench of this Court in W.A.No.85 of 2001 dated 19.02.2001. 14. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. There is no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ps https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The District Superintendent of Police, Collector Office Road, Thanjavur. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Collector Office Road, Thanjavur. 3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pattukottai Road, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District. 4.The Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Madras. Copy to The Section Officer, Legal Cell, High Court, Madras-106. 1 cc To Government Pleader SR.24604 W.P.No.11045 of 2003 rv pmk.26.4.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/