Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vinod Prasad, appearing for

the petitioner, the learned HCGP Smt.K.P.Yashodha for

respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Swarnith Satya

Prasad, appearing for respondent No.2.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

an order dated 09.03.2020 passed in Crl.R.P.No.772/2019

rejecting the revision petition where the petitioner had sought

his discharge from the array of charges.

3.

The facts in brief, germane for a consideration of

the lis are as follows:

The petitioner was a counsel who represented a litigant in

W.P.No.37558/2009, in which, the claim is that this Court had

passed an order directing the petitioner therein not to be

dispossessed for fifteen days. When this came to be verified by

- 3 -

the respondent, it was noticed that no such order was passed

but the communication by fax had emanated from the

petitioner to one Mr.Ramesh.

4.

A complaint was registered by this Court on

16.11.2012 against the petitioner and the counsel alleging that

the record of the Court has been tampered with by addition to

the effect that the petitioner should not be dispossess for 15

days. The complaint having been investigated into, the Police

have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for offences

punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471, 420 and 201 read

with Section 34 of IPC.

5.

On filing of the charge sheet and the charges

sought to be framed, the petitioner files an application seeking

his

discharge

before

the

learned

Sessions

Judge

in

Crl.R.P.No.772/2019, which comes to be rejected by an order

dated 09.03.2020. It is this order that is called in question in

the subject petition.

6.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that he has not appeared before the Court on that date

- 4 -

and has not communicated anything, as is alleged, who has

done it, is a mystery but would submit that the order of

discharge bears no application of mind, as the petitioner is not

guilty of any of those offences even prima facie.

7.

On

the

other

hand,

the

learned

counsel

representing respondent No.2 would take this Court through

the compliant and the charge sheet that is filed by the Police to

contend that it is a mater of trial, as admittedly there has been

tampering of the records of the Court.

8.

He would further contend that criminal contempt

was initiated against the present petitioner and his client in

Crl.C.C.C No.3/2013, which came to be disposed on 08.10.2013

by accepting unconditional apology being tendered by the

petitioner and his client and therefore, would contend that it is

a matter of trial for the petitioner or his client to come out

clean.

9.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

- 5 -

10.

The afore-quoted facts are not in dispute and are

therefore not reiterating. The juxtaposition of the two

documents would unmistakably demonstrate tampering of the

record of the Court, as what is communicated to the client

bears the words "NOT TO DISPOSES FOR FIFTEEN DAYS".

11.

A perusal at the original records indicates no such

order being passed by the leaned Judge in W.P.No.37558/2009.

Therefore, the complaint is registered against the petitioner

and his client and proceedings have gone on since then. The

matter is set for trial, on the discharge application being

rejected by the concerned Court.

12.

In the teeth of such seriously disputed questions of

fact, interference at the hands of this Court at this juncture, is

unwarranted, as the petitioner or his client will have to come

out clean in the trial, as these disputed questions of fact, if

sought to be considered, at this juncture at the hands of this

Court would run foul of the judgment of Apex Court in the case

of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported

in (2021) 9 SCC 35. The Apex Court in the said judgment has

held as follows:

- 6 -

“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted

that in the present case the High Court in e