Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Per contra, learned HCGP in his arguments contended that when divorce petition was dismissed, the petitioner has indulged in creating the document that it was allowed.

14. In reply to the arguments of learned HCGP, petitioner's counsel contend that the document of Family court are verified and there is no tampering or creating of the Court documents. Only at the instance of the Advocate who has been arraigned as accused No.6, document came into existence. Petitioner has no knowledge about the manipulation of said document.

16. Now, it is the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the Family court records was not tampered and the learned counsel did not dispute the fact that document was tendered before the Police which shows decree of divorce allowed instead of dismissed. Learned counsel also submits that the petition filed by this petitioner before the Family Court was rejected. Now the question is, who has manipulated the documents.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made an allegation against the learned counsel, who has appeared before the trial Court has manipulated the document and has given the same to the petitioner. Petitioner is in judicial custody and investigation is not yet completed. During the course of investigation, the police have to investigate the matter that at whose instance the document came to be manipulated and was indulged in forgery of making petition as allowed instead of dismissal. No doubt, document of Family Court was not the document which was produced before the Police by the petitioner when he was called upon to appear before the Police but the manipulated document is produced.

18. On perusal of allegation, document is manipulated that too Court Order and offence is serious in nature and I am of the opinion that when the Court order was tampered substituting the dismissal as allowed, it requires detailed investigation that at whose instance document has been manipulated. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (Supra) wherein a direction was given that if the offence is under Section 498A of IPC, the right of liberty of the accused cannot be contained. But the factual aspect is different from the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. In this case, not only the offence of Section 498A of IPC is invoked but also the other offences of Sections 468 and 471 of IPC are invoked apart from Section 420 of IPC.