Pursuant to the order of a court here, the Delhi Police has registered an FIR against five members of a family, including four women, for allegedly stealing documents from court's records and forging the order of a magistrate.
The FIR was registered on the order of Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Singh Rajawat.
It names north Delhi residents Parul Verma, Pooja Verma, their father Vijay Narain Verma and mother Isha Narain and a relative Rupali Verma as accused.
The court had directed the police to register the FIR on a complaint of one Sameer Saxena, the estranged husband of Pooja Verma, alleging theft and forgery of judicial records.
"I am satisfied that this is a fit case to direct the police authorities to conduct a thorough investigation on the allegation of the complainant regarding theft and forgery of judicial records," the magistrate had said, adding that the accused should not be arrested till the police found concrete evidence against them.
The case dates back to an FIR registered against Sameer in 2009 under section 498A IPC (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) on a complaint made by Pooja.
Sameer's counsel Rohit Nagpal had alleged that Pooja had annexed many forged bills with respect to 'stridhan' which is given to a woman at the time of marriage.
A complaint was made in this regard by Sameer before Metropolitan Magistrate Neeraj Gaur who had directed the police to register an FIR for the offence of forgery on January 19, 2012.
Pooja had moved a revision petition challenging this order.
Nagpal had said when Sameer was issued a notice about the revision petition, he realised that the accused had attached with her petition a copy of his complaint on which the magistrate Gaur had passed the order with regard to the FIR.
He had said the complaint was stolen from the court records by the accused persons and photocopied.
He had alleged that he found that the January 19 order of the magistrate, which was under challenge in the revision petition, was also stolen and forged by the accused as it was materially altered.
The counsel had contended that none of the accused had ever sought permission to inspect the court records.
The staff of the court had denied before the magistrate having supplied any document to the accused persons.
