SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
D. Shanthi - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep By Its, The Commissioner Of Police, Chennai & Others - Respondent
H.C.P.No. 728 of 2022
Decided On : 28-07-2022

Fabrication of documents and interference in the administration of justice are serious offenses that warrant criminal action and thorough investigation.

Headnote:

Habeas Corpus - Illegal Detention - Adoption - Property Dispute - Fabricated Degree Certificate - Criminal Case - Interference in Administration of Justice

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition to produce her adopted son, who was allegedly illegally detained by the third and fourth respondents. The detenu was born to the aunt and uncle of the petitioner's husband and was given in adoption to the petitioner and her husband. A property dispute arose when the third respondent, claiming to be the step sister of the detenu, with the help of the fourth respondent, kidnapped the detenu to grab the property executed in his favor by the uncle. The petitioner sought the intervention of the court as the police took no effective steps.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the fourth respondent had produced a fabricated degree certificate before the court, which led to a criminal case being registered against him for interference in the administration of justice. The court directed the Commissioner of Police to depute an Officer to arrest the fourth respondent, conduct a thorough investigation, and give wide publicity to find out if any other persons were deceived by him. The Bar Council was also directed to conduct an inquiry into his claim of being an Advocate.

Issues: The issues involved the illegal detention of the adopted son, property dispute, and the fabrication of the degree certificate by the fourth respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fabricated degree certificate produced before the court, leading to the registration of a criminal case and the direction for thorough investigation and inquiry by the police and Bar Council, respectively.

Final Decision: The court directed the Commissioner of Police to register a criminal case, arrest the fourth respondent, conduct a thorough investigation, and give wide publicity to find out if any other persons were deceived by him. The Bar Council was also directed to conduct an inquiry into his claim of being an Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: To direct the 2nd respondent to produce my adopted son namely A.P.DHEERAJ MAAL, 17 AGE S/O.LATE PANDURANGAN who is illegally detained in the hands of the respondents 3 and 4, before this Honble Court and hand over the petitioner and set him at Liberty.)

S. Vaidyanathan, J., & A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to produce the petitioner's adopted son, namely, A.P.Dheeraj Maal, aged 17 years, S/o.Late Pandurangan, who is said to be illegally detained by third and fourth respondents, before this Court.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was married to one Durairaj and there was no child born to them. While so, the detenu, who was a test tube baby, born to the aunt and uncle of the petitioner's husband, was given in adoption to the petitioner and her husband on 10.02.2006. It is further case of the petitioner that her husband, aunt and uncle met their demise and since then the detenu has been under her custody. In the meanwhile, the 3rd Respondent / claiming herself to be the step sister of the detenu, with the help of 4th Respondent, who claims himself to be an Advocate had kidnapped the detenu from her house in order to grab the property, which was executed by her uncle in favour of the detenu. Though a complaint in this regard has been given to the respondent Police, no effective steps were taken by the Police, on account of which, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

3. It is seen that there was a dispute between the petitioner, who is admittedly the step mother of the detenue by way of adoption deed dated 10.02.2006 and the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court dated 29.04.2022, the detenue is now in the custody of the petitioner.

4. When the matter is taken up today, this Court posed a question to the 4th Respondent (Aadhar Card No.2071-5610-7825) about the allegation of the petitioner in respect of his fake posture as an Advocate, he drew our attention to the Degree certificate, alleged to be issued by the Bharathidasan University, which is annexed in the typeset of papers, on perusal of which, even a naked eye would be able to establish that it is a fake one. In the certificate, in Tamil version, it has been mentioned, as if the 4th Respondent had studied “History” and secured “First Class” in Law and to the contrary, in the English language, it has been ascribed as if the 4th Respondent had secured “Second Class” in “Law”. The scanned copy of the degree certificate produced by the 4th respondent is affixed hereunder:

5. On 27.07.2022, we had a cloud of suspicion over his qualification and therefore, we sought the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for Bharathidasan University to ascertain and inform this Court about the genuineness of the Law Certificate, which is said to be obtained by the 4th Respondent. We have also informed the 4th respondent that in the event of the Degree Certificate being found to be false, stringent action would be taken against him for playing fraud with the Court.

6. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the Bharathidasan University has produced an Email communication dated 27.07.2022 received from the Controller of Examination, wherein it has been stated as follows:

“With reference to the mail cited above, I am by direction to inform you that the referred BL Degree Certificate in respect of S.Babu with Reg. No.SL 1378 is not genuine and it was not issued by the University.”

From the above reply, it is crystal clear that the Degree Certificate produced by the 4th Respondent is not a genuine one. Despite the same being pointed out to him, the 4th Respondent, who is present before this Court, instead of repenting for his act, has the audacity to state that he had studied and completed Law in Government Law College, Trichy and is a Law Graduate, besides producing the Degree Certificate, claiming it to be original, along with a hand-written le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top