Delhi court orders inquiry, FIR against woman for “fabricating” court document

The court observed that applicant Pooja, based on the alleged fake order, attempted to get an award of Rs. 23,50,000, the amount which was originally awarded to the petitioner/victim in the case titled “Pushpa Rajwar v. Nawab Ali.”

A district court in Delhi ordered an inquiry and registration of a first information report (FIR) against a woman who allegedly prepared a “fake order” of the court and moved an application in an attempt to claim an award which was awarded to the victim in another case.

(Representative Photo)

Ekta Gauba Mann, presiding officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), ordered the Prashant Vihar station house officer (SHO) to inquire and register an FIR against the applicant for “wrongfully claiming the compensation.”

“SHO PS Prashant Vihar is directed to inquire and to register FIR as to how the fake copy of the order dated 01.12.21 in the name of this court has been placed on record by the applicant Pooja for wrongfully claiming the compensation of award amount which has been awarded to the actual victims of MACT case titled Pushpa Rajwar v. Nawab Ali,” the order from court stated.

The court has called for a report to be filed by the SHO on March 14.

The court observed that applicant Pooja, based on the alleged fake order, attempted to get an award of Rs. 23,50,000, the amount which was originally awarded to the petitioner/victim in the case titled “Pushpa Rajwar v. Nawab Ali.”

People familiar with the matter said that last week, when the matter came up for hearing, the reader of the court informed that an application moved by the applicant was “dismissed as withdrawn” on March 3 and there was no such matter to be presented before the court. However, a fresh application was received on March 6 along with an order dated December 12, 2021, due to which the reader requested a report from Ahlmad/Asst. Ahlmad as there appeared to be some doubt about the application, the people said.

A report was received from the Asst. Ahlmad stated that although the order attached with the fresh application resembled an order passed in case MACT No. 58/21 titled Pushpa Rajwar v. Nawab Ali, the order seemed “fake and fabricated” as there was no petition titled “Pooja v. The State and Ors” in case MACT No. 58/21

A report from the stenographers was also received by the court where it was pointed out that the order attached with the application moved by Pooja had the “wrong description” of the name of the court as Ekta “Gautam” Mann and was nowhere uploaded on the internet.

The stenographers had also placed on record the order whereby the earlier application moved by Pooja was “dismissed as withdrawn” on March 3.

The court after scrutinising the reports and the previous orders noted, “It appears that the applicant Pooja has prepared a fake order of this court dated 01.12.21 by getting it fabricated.”

“The application mentioned ‘Pushpa Rajwar v. Nawab Ali’ as ‘Pooja v. The State & Ors.’. The application also mentioned the name court name wrong as ‘Ekta Gautam Mann’ in place of the name of this court. It is a very serious issue as this court is dealing with award of compensation amount,” it added.

Meanwhile, the court allowed the counsel’s request, appearing for Pooja, to withdraw his ‘Vakalatnama’ (case document) stating that he was not aware of a fake order.

The court further directed for a copy of the order to be sent to the principal district and sessions judge, Rohini court.

A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the Bar Association of Rohini courts that the said litigant Pooja is moving “wrong applications” through counsels.