Sri Nanjappa vs State By Chikkajala Police ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5322 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022          R
                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1653/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI NANJAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED 40 YEARS
R/O 7, NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA
BHOVIPALAYA, JALA HOBALI
SADAHALLI
BENAGALURU RURAL-562110
KARNATAKA
                                               ... PETITIONER

          (BY SMT. MANDAVI PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR
               SRI MANJUNATHA M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION
REP. BY LEARNED SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
                                           ... RESPONDENT

              (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.136/2021
REGISTERED    BY   THE    CHIKKAJALA     POLICE  STATION,
DEVANAHALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC AND ETC.
                                  2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his

arrest in respect of Crime No.136/2021 registered by the

Chikkajala Police Station, Devanahalli, for the offences

punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that this petitioner who had been arraigned as accused No.1 had

indulged in creation of documents in order to make wrongful

gain along with accused Nos.2 and 3 claiming that accused Nos.2

and 3 are the original owners of the property bearing Sy.No.3,

new No.3/253, to the extent of 2 acres 30 guntas of the land at

Navarathna Agrahara, Jala hobli, Yelahanka taluk, Bengaluru

North. The allegation in the complaint that the complainant had

stated that his mother had purchased this property on

04.05.1981 and thereafter, she was in possession of the same

and in view of the order passed in LRF (INA) 246/80-81, 243/80-

81, 242/80-81, 369/81-82, 379/81-82, the very said property

was re-granted in favour of the mother of the complainant. The

mother of the complainant passed away in the year 2015 and

regarding entries pertaining to the year 2011 to 2014 in RTC,

the matter was pending with the Special Deputy Commissioner

and after the death of the mother, the khatha was not

transferred in favour of any other persons. It is also alleged in

the complaint that on 28.10.2021, some unknown persons were

moving around the said property and suspecting the same,

enquired and came to know that there was a sale agreement in

favour of M/s.Blue jay Enterprises Private Limited and when the

said fact came to know to the knowledge of his brothers and

sisters had been to the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Malleshwaram, Bengaluru on 11.11.2021 and came to know that

this petitioner, even though the mother of the complainant was

passed away in the year 2015, indulged in creation of the

documents and created fictitious persons i.e., one Akkayamma

and also in the name of the complainant, a sale agreement was

executed in favour of M/s.Blue jay Enterprises Private Limited on

24.10.2019 and hence the complaint was lodged stating that the

petitioner as well as other accused persons have collected the

amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- from the prospective purchaser.

Hence, requested to take action against the persons who have

indulged in creation of the documents and made an attempt to

make wrongful gain i.e., against this petitioner and also the

other two fictitious persons i.e., Akkayamma and Anjanappa.

Based on the complaint, the case was registered on 15.11.2021

in Cr.No.136/2021 of Chikkajala Police Station, Devanahalli.

4. After the registration of the case, the petitioner had

approached the jurisdictional District and Sessions Judge,

Devanahalli seeking an anticipatory bail in

Crl.Mis.No.15236/2021 and having taken note of the contents of

the complaint as well as the gravity of the offences, the V

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District

sitting at Devanahalli rejected the anticipatory bail on

01.12.2021. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner

had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.9705/2021 in

respect of the very same crime for the aforesaid offences, but

the said fact is not stated in the present petition and suppressed

the same. It is also important to note that when the said petition

came up before this Court on 12.01.2022, the counsel for the

petitioner sought time on the ground of ill-health and hence, this

Court adjourned the matter to 19.01.2022. On 19.01.2022, the

counsel on record appeared through video conference and

sought permission to dismiss the same as withdrawn.

Accordingly, this Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn in

view of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner.

5. The fact is that when the petition was pending before

this Court till 19.01.2022, one more bail petition was filed before

the District and Sessions Judge at Tumkur on 13.01.2022 in

Crl.Mis.No.76/2022 and thereafter again during the pendency of

the said petition before the District and Sessions Court, Tumkur,

one more bail petition was filed before the District and Sessions

Court, Mysuru and when the Public Prosecutor at Mysuru came

to know about all these facts, a detailed objections was filed

before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Mysuru and

after hearing the arguments, the Principal District and Sessions

Court, Mysuru, reserved the matter for orders and when the

matter was reserved before the Mysuru Court for orders, on

07.02.2022, the bail petition filed before the Tumkur Court was

got dismissed as withdrawn in view of the memo for withdrawal.

The bail petition filed before the Mysuru Court was dismissed

vide order dated 08.02.2022 observing the fraud on the Court

like, approaching different Courts for anticipatory bail. After

dismissal of the bail petition on 08.02.2022, again on

21.02.2022, the petitioner has filed the present bail petition

before this Court without disclosing the earlier petition. This

Court has to take note that in the Tumkur Court as well as

Mysuru Court, the petitioner has given fake addresses.

6. When this Court came to know the said fact, directed

the counsel for the petitioner to produce the documents in

respect of filing of the petitions before the Tumkur Court as well

as the Mysuru Court, accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner

has produced the copies of order sheet of Crl.Mis.No.76/2022

along with memorandum of criminal petition filed under Section

438 of Cr.P.C dated 13.01.2022 before the Tumkur Court which

disclose that the said petition was filed during the pendency of

the earlier bail petition i.e., Crl.P.No.9705/2021 filed before this

Court. The copy of the order dated 08.02.2022 in

Crl.P.No.184/2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions

Court, Mysuru which also discloses that when the matter was

heard and reserved for orders, the bail petition filed before the

District and Sessions Court, Tumkur dismissed as withdrawn on

07.02.2022. After dismissal of the bail petitions filed before the

Tumkur Court as well as Mysuru Court, again on 21.02.2022, the

petitioner has filed the present bail petition before this Court

seeking an anticipatory bail. But in the present petition, in

paragraph 26, the petitioner has suppressed the filing of the

earlier bail petition before this Court as well as approaching the

Courts at Tumkur and Mysuru. Hence, it is nothing but a fraud

on the Court and stooped into the level of suppressing all the

facts before the Court and an attempt is made to get the bail

order by hook or crook at the hands of this Court.

7. This Court would like to rely upon the following

judgments of the Apex Court on the conduct of the seekers of

justice, committed fraud on the Court. In the case on hand, not

only committed fraud to the original owner of the property but

also created fictitious persons with an intention to knock off the

property and received crores of rupees and also made an

attempt to commit fraud on the Court and also involved in bench

hunting act.

8. The Apex Court in the case of KISHORE SAMRITE

vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in

(2013) 2 SCC 398 held in paragraph 32 with regard to practice

and procedure, abuse of process of court/law/fraud on the Court.

The principles governing the obligations of a litigant while

approaching the court and the consequences of abuse of process

enumerated in this judgment. The Apex Court held that the

cases of abuse of process of court and such allied matters have

been arising before the courts consistently. It is observed that

this Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases

of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would

govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court

for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of

process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the

principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and

with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of

case. These are:

32.1. Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with "unclean hands". Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are entitled to any relief.

32.2. The people, who approach the court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.

32.3. The obligation to approach the court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.

      32.4.      Quests       for       personal    gains     have
become      so   intense       that       those     involved    in

litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have overshadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.

32.5. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

32.6. The court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of process of court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the court would be duty- bound to impose heavy costs.

32.7. Wherever a public interest is invoked, the court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.

32.8. The court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain the strictest vigilance over the abuse of process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well justifies it.

9. This Court also would like to rely upon the decision

of the Apex Court in the case of DALIP SINGH vs STGATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 2 SCC

114 wherein also the Apex Court taking note of abuse of process

regarding new creed of dishonest litigants, noticed and strongly

deprecated and further observed that denial of any relief to such

persons and also held that for may centuries Indian society

cherished two basic values of life i.e., "satya" and "ahimsa"

propounded by Mahavir, Gautham Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi

guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life.

Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system

which was in vogue in the pre-Independence ear and the people

used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the

consequences. However, the post-Independence period has

seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has

overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has

become so intense that those involved in litigation do not

hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and

suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40

years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who

belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They

shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for

achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by

this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time,

evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant,

who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the

pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any

relief, interim or final.

10. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2014)

8 SCC 470 in the case of SUBRATA ROY SAHARA vs UNION

OF INDIA AND OTHERS held that calculated psychological

offensives and mind games adopted by counsel to seeks recusal

of Judges, held, need to be strongly repulsed (as done herein)

such tactics deprecated and similar approach commended to

other courts when they experience such behaviour, held, any act

of bench-hunting or bench-hopping or bench-avoiding cannot be

allowed, Judge not to rescue himself from the matter unless

he/she should not be hearing it for reasons of direct of indirect

involvement. Further held, benchmark that justice must not

only be done but should also appear to be done, has to be

preserved at all costs. Hence, even in the face of calculated

psychological offensives and mind games as adopted by counsel

in the present case, oath of office of Judge, to decide every case

without fear or favour, requires the Judge concerned to press on

with the hearing of the matter and bear the burnt of rhetoric of

the counsel or party seeking to dissuade him/her from hearing

the matter.

11. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment

of the Apex Court reported in (2016) 3 SCC 70 in the case of

SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. vs BOC INDIA LIMITED AND

OTHERS wherein also observed with regard to imposition of

exemplary costs filing of false or misleading affidavit, imposition

of cost fully justified of Rs.10 lakh on petitioner for filing a false

or misleading affidavit in court and also observed that there is no

reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and time

granted to the petitioner to make deposit of costs.

12. Having considered the principles laid down in the

judgments referred supra, this Court has to take note of events

which are relevant to make mention herein. The relevant dates

and events are mentioned in a tabular column as follows:

    Date                       Particulars of events

01.12.2021      The bail petition in Crl.Mis.No.15263/2021 was

dismissed by the V Additional District Judge,

Bengaluru Rural, sitting at Devanahalli.

08.12.2021 The Crl.P.No.9705/2021 was filed before this

Court.

12.01.2022 The case was listed before this Court and the

counsel for the petitioner sought time on the

ground of ill-health.

13.01.2022 During the pendency of bail petition before this

Court i.e., Crl.P.No.9705/2021, this petitioner

had filed Crl.Mis.No.76/2022 before the Tumkur

Court furnishing fake address.

19.01.2022 The petitioner fraudulently got dismissed the

Crl.P.No.9705/2021 since one more petition was

filed before the Tumkur Court.

01.02.2022 During the pendency of Crl.Mis.No.76/2022, one

more bail petition was filed before the District

and Sessions Court, Mysuru furnishing fake

address and the same is numbered as

Crl.Mis.No.184/2022 and Crl.Mis.No.76/2022 on

the file of Tumkur Court got dismissed as

withdrawn on 07.02.2022.

08.02.2022 The Crl.Mis.No.184/2022 filed before the Principal

District and Sessions Court, Mysuru dismissed

observing the fraud on the Court.

13. Having considering these events , it is clear that it is

nothing but fraud on the Court and the petitioner has gone to

the extent that by hook or crook, he has to get a bail order even

the petitioner had indulged in committing fraud on the Court

when the matter was pending before this Court, approached the

different Courts at different districts and apart from that the said

fact is not stated in the present petition and by suppressing the

same, the present petition is filed. Hence here is a case of

suppression of true facts and also committed fraud on the Court

approaching the different forum furnishing the fake address and

an attempt is made to get the bail order by hook or crook

invoking the provisions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and an

attempt was made to pollute the stream of justice. The Court

must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to

prevent abuse of process of Court, Court would be duty bound to

impose heavy cost. The stream of justice should not be allowed

to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants .

14. The counsel for the petitioner who appears before

this Court also after having directed to produce the documents of

Tumkur and Mysuru Courts, produced the same and made the

submissions before the Court that this petitioner has not given

any instructions to the respective counsel to file a petition before

the Tumkur Court as well as Mysuru Court. Hence, it is a fit case

to refer the matter to the jurisdictional police to investigate since

there is a fraud on the Court suppressing the facts during the

pendency of the petition before this Court, the bail petitions filed

before the Tumkur Courts as well as Mysuru Court by making a

false submissions and also giving fake addresses. Now, making

an allegation against the advocates who have filed the respective

petitions stating that the petitioner has not given any

instructions to file the said petitions before the respective

Courts. In view of the said submission, it is directed to register

the case and investigate the matter as who have all indulged in

committing the fraud on this Court as well as Courts at different

districts by seeking a relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and

investigate that whether this petitioner has given instructions to

the respective advocates who have filed the petition before the

Tumkur and Mysuru Courts or not and if no such instructions are

given to the respective advocates, array the advocates as

accused since this type of fraud on the Court has to be curbed

with an iron hand and also to be dealt with identify the persons

who have indulged in doing mischief and fraud also the black

sheep involved in committing the offence of fraud. The

petitioner gone to the extent of denying the giving the

instructions and unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to

pollute the stream of justice.

15. This Court having great respect to the legal

luminaries who have rendered their service before the

independence and even after the independence also even for

adopting the constitution to this country. Now the trend is

changed as observed by the Apex Court in the case of DALIP

SINGH and those persons indulged in such acts have to be

identified with an intention to uphold the dignity of the

institution. If such persons are allowed to continue this type of

practice of committing fraud on the Court, the same will

disrepute the institution and hence, the matter has to be

investigated and it is a high time to initiate appropriate action to

curb the unethical practice.

16. The Registrar General is directed to file a complaint

before the jurisdictional police narrating all these aspects either

by himself or authorizing a person to file a complaint before the

Vidhana Soudha police and matter has to be probed.

17. Now, coming to the merits of the case. The very case

of the prosecution is that this petitioner had indulged in

committing an offence of impersonation and also setting up of

two fictitious persons as owners of the property which belongs to

the mother of the complainant and it is the specific case of the

complainant that the property was purchased by his mother on

04.05.1981 and the same was re-granted in the year 1982 in

favour of the mother of the complainant and she passed away in

the year 2015 itself. In the name of the mother who is no more

in the year 2019, created a sale agreement which was registered

before the Sub-Registrar on 24.10.2019 not only in the name of

the mother of the complainant and also in the name of the

complainant and hence, there is an impersonation of his mother

and the complainant having received an amount of Rs.3 crore

and agreed amount of sale consideration is of Rs.5,83,00,000/-.

Out of the sale consideration of Rs.5,83,00,000/-, this petitioner

had received an amount of Rs.2 crore as a confirming party and

an amount of Rs.50 lakh each was paid in favour of the other

fictitious persons i.e., Akkayamma and Anjanappa, in total Rs.3

crore has been received by this petitioner as well as the other

two fictitious persons.

18. It is also important to note that in the sale

agreement, it is stated that this petitioner is having an

unregistered agreement of sale dated 16.10.2019 with respect to

the schedule property by paying 90% of the sale consideration

and balance would be paid at the time of registration of the sale

deed hence, he has been arraigned as confirming party. When

this Court noticed the averments in the sale agreement referring

the sale agreement dated 16.10.2019, directed the counsel for

the petitioner to produce the said sale agreement since nowhere

in the petition stated with the said sale agreement executed in

favour of this petitioner. Today, the counsel for the petitioner

filed a copy of the GPA and claims that there is no any sale

agreement in favour of this petitioner and GPA is produced

before the Court i.e., executed by those two fictitious owners

and claims that no such agreement of sale was executed in

favour this petitioner but in the registered sale agreement, there

is a reference. The Apex Court in the judgments referred supra

has categorically held that the persons who have indulged in

committing the fraud, such person is not entitled for any relief,

interim or final.

19. Having considered the allegations made in the

complaint, it is clear that the sale agreement is created in the

name of the person who is no more and apart from that the

complainant is also made as party in the said sale agreement but

the sale agreement is executed by the fictitious persons and this

petitioner is also a confirming party in the sale agreement which

has been registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at

Malleshwaram. The specific allegation is that not only

impersonation but also the offences of forgery and fraud

committed on the original owner who is the complainant and the

petitioner also not disputes the fact that original owner is the

mother of the complainant but sets up the fictitious persons and

indulged in creation of property documents and the property is

also worth of crores of rupees and in the alleged sale agreement

itself, it is shown as value of the Rs.5,83,00,000/- and out of

that, this petitioner had received an amount of Rs.2 crore.

When the allegations of impersonation, fraud and forgery are

concerned, this type of person who has indulged in such acts is

not entitled for exercising the discretion in his favour who seeks

the relief of anticipatory bail.

20. The counsel for the petitioner would submits that

this petitioner was not aware of all these things and not

committed any fraud, the said allegation is of serious in nature

against the petitioner, the matter has to be probed and the

presence of this petitioner is required for the investigation of the

matter. Apart from that this petitioner also committed fraud on

this Court by filing the petitions one after another during the

pendency of the petition before this Court and also made an

attempt to get the order by filing the petition before the Tumkur

Court as well as Mysuru Court furnishing the fake address.

When such persons stooped into the level of committing fraud on

the Courts, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour

of the petitioner and the same should be dismissed with

exemplary cost as observed by the Apex Court .

21. Now, coming to the aspect of role of the

Investigating Officer. Though the case was registered long back

making an allegation of fraud, impersonation, forgery, the

Investigating Officer has not taken any steps either to

apprehend the petitioner or investigate the matter. Instead of

allowed the petitioner to approach the different forums i.e., this

Court, District and Sessions Court at Tumkur and District and

Sessions Court at Mysuru and had the knowledge of the same

and till date even not investigated the matter and allowed him to

play fraud on the Courts. Hence, it shows that he is also hand in

glove with the petitioner. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the

Director General of Police to change the Investigating Officer and

appoint new Investigating Officer for the investigation.

22. With regard to avoid these type of fraud on the Court

all over the State by filing several petitions before different

Courts by filing a memo of appearance and not filing vakalat of

the petitioner but the petitioner counsel claims that he has not

given any instructions to file the petitions before the Tumkur

Court as well as Mysuru Court. When such being the material on

record, it is appropriate to direct the registry to evolve a

machanisum in view of the modern technology to trace all these

fraud committed on the Court and appropriate to give directions

to both the registry as well as the District Courts to evolve a

mechanisum, as well as the Public Prosecutors who represents

before the different Courts to assist the Court and bring it to the

respective Courts notice with regard to the fraud committed on

the Court with the assistance of the Investigating Officers and

hence, it is necessary to give directions to the registry to adopt

modern technology and find out the mechanisum to identify the

persons who involves in committing the fraud. Now a days, the

bench hunting or bench hopping or bench avoiding acts are

increased and the same has observed by the Apex Court in the

judgment referred supra. The trend is filing more number of

petitions in the same Court and observe the trend of the Court

and filing of not pressing the petition before the Court are

increasing and it is necessary to give certain directions to the

registry to evolve mechanism and though criminal rules of

practice Rule 6(2) provides provision for filing vakalath or memo

of appearance in view of change of trend in committing the fraud

on Court filing of memo of appearance to be avoided in case of

petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C since the

accused/petitioner will not be in custody.

23. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The bail petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.

The cost is payable within 4 weeks. If not paid, the registry is

directed to recover the same in accordance with law.

(ii) The following guidelines are given to the registry and

also to the District Courts all over the State to evolve mechanism

with modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on the

Court and verify every application for being filed for regular or

anticipatory bail as to whether such similar petitions for bail has

been made before any other Courts and issue necessary circulars

with the approval of Hon'ble Chief Justice.

(iii) The Director of the Prosecution of the State shall

instruct the Public Prosecutors of their respective States that

they are duty bound to supply necessary information to the

concerned Court regarding pendency or the decision of the

earlier bail application of the accused in the same offence after

taking information from the concerned Investigating

Officer/Police official.

(iv) The registry and District Courts are directed to insist

for vakalat when a bail petition is filed seeking for an

anticipatory bail since the accused is not in custody in order to

avoid fraud on the Court since the petitioner denies the very

instructions given to the counsel and it is safer on the counsel

also.

(v) The registry is directed to issue a circular to the said

effect and also make endeavour to identify the number of

petitions being filed and make it clear that the first petition is

maintainable and subsequent petitions are not maintainable to

avoid bench hunting/bench hopping/bench avoiding.

(vi) The Director General of Police is directed to change the

Investigating Officer immediately who has not taken any steps

when the serious offence of impersonation, fraud and forgery is

alleged and appoint a new Investigating Officer to investigate

the matter.

(vii) The Registrar General is directed to file a complaint

before the jurisdictional police i.e., Vidhana Soudha police to

investigate the matter with regard to fraud on this Court and

other Courts as observed in the order.

(viii) The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to

Director General of Police to comply with the order.

(ix) The jurisdictional police is directed to investigate the

matter based on the complaint to be filed by the Registrar

General as directed and submit a report within three months

from the date of registration of the case.

(x) The Registrar General is directed to send this order to

all the Principal District and Sessions Judges in the State to

comply with the order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN