ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The writ petition is filed by three individuals viz., Bodupalli Sathaiah, Yata Sathi Reddy and Akunuri Lakshmaiah, against the order dated 3-7-2000 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, under the A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act. The order passed by the Joint Collector, 15th respondent, was on an appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 12.
2. The writ petition was listed for admission on 30-8-2000 and was adjourned to 4-9-2000. On 4-9-2000, the writ petition was admitted and in WPMP No. 20353 of 2000, an interim order of status quo obtaining as on that date, was passed.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners and respondents 1 to 12 filed WPMP No. 9278 of 2002 under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC praying this Court to record compromise in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise. Respective Counsel representing the parties, vouched for the genuinity of signatures of the parties on the Memorandum of Compromise as well as its contents. Acting on the same, this Court passed the following order:
“During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners, on the one hand, and the respondent Nos. 1 to 12, on the other; have settled the matter among themselves, wherein the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 have admitted and acquiesced in the right of the writ petitions in respect of the land in question. They have also filed a Memo of Compromise and requested this Court o record the same.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 12, the writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the compromise. There shall be order as to costs.”
Respondents 1 to 12 in the writ petition filed WPMP No. 352 of 2003 (WPMP (SR) No. 123381 of 2002) for review of the above order dated 25-4-2002. They alleged that their thumb impressions or signatures, as the case may be, are forged and a fraud was played on the Court.
4. Sri K. Govardhana Chary, learned Advocate, represented respondents 1 to 12 in the writ petition. However, the review petition on their behalf was filed by another Advocate Sri A. Pulla Reddy. As the matter was very serious, this Court felt it proper to ascertain as to whether the thumb impressions and signatures, as the case may be, in the compromise petition were genuine or not. Therefore, respondents 1 to 12 were summoned to this Court. When they complained that there is a threat to their lives, police protection was accorded.
5. Respondents 1 to 12 appeared before this Court and denied their having put their thumb impressions or signatures on the compromise petition or the vakalat filed therein. On a comparison of the thumb impressions and signatures of respondents 1 to 12 taken from them in the Court, and those in the compromise petition and vakalat filed by Sri Govardhana Chary, this Court prima facie felt that the allegations of respondents 1 to 12 are true. With a view to reach a definite conclusion in the matter, this Court passed on order on 30-12-2002, directing the Additional Director General of Police, CID, to cause an enquiry into the matter and submit report as to the genuinity or otherwise of the thumb impressions or signatures, as the case may be, on the compromise petition and the vakalat.
6. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the Additional Director General of Police, CID, submitted a report dated 19-6-2003, wherein it was pointed out that the signatures and thumb impressions of respondents 1 to 12 were forged. It was stated that during the course of enquiry, the writ petitioners have reported that the signatures of respondents 1 to 12 were secured by one Shankar Reddy. Copies of the report were made available to the respective Advocates representing various parties. Learned Advocates have filed their affidavits disowning their role in the acts of forgery.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the material available on record is sufficient to hold that fraud has been played on this Court in securing an order in WPMP No. 9278 of 2002 and WP No. 16000 of 2000. Therefore, the order dated 25-4-2002 passed in WPMP No. 9278 of 2002 and WP No. 16000 of 2000, recording the compromise between the writ petitioners, on one hand, and respondents 1 to 12, on the other, is set aside. The Review Petition is accordingly allowed.
8. It is a settled universal principle of law prevailing in all legal systems across the world that fraud vitiates the entire state of affairs brought about by it. The Courts would be reluctant even to extend the ordinary protection available in law to a citizen who is alleged to have resorted to fraud. The parties who are victims of fraud would look to the Courts to protect their rights. It would be really startling where fraud is played on the Court itself. Fraud played by a person on another would only result in an undue benefit. However, where a fraud is played on the Court, apart from gaining a benefit out of the fraud, the person would be weakening the very legal system. If such frauds are not nipped out at initial stages, recurrence of such instances would render the relevance or the very existence of the system questionable. Those who are responsible for it deserve to be denied all the benefits or privileges, which the other law-abiding citizens are entitled to. All agencies are required to be alert to ensure that the persons guilty of such an outrageous act are properly dealt with and every effort should be made in this regard. The subject-matter, in such cases, assumes a greater significance and importance than the scope of the dispute between the parties to litigation.
9. The record has disclosed that respondents 1 to 12 did not submit any compromise petition nor did they sign vakalat filed on their behalf. Forged vakalat and compromise petition were filed in this Court and an order was obtained. Such acts of blatant fraud and misrepresentation cannot be countenanced. The persons who have resorted to such acts of fraud and misrepresentation are to be identified. This would be possible, if only an investigation and trial under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C., and I.P.C., is undertaken.
10. The Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh is directed to submit a complaint before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad narrating the incident and naming the main suspected persons in the matter. The Trial Court in turn shall cause necessary investigation through the police or through Special Agencies like CID or CBCID. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the persons who are found to be involved in the matter shall also be arrayed as accused in the proceedings.
11. Since the order of compromise is set aside, the writ petition is restored to file and it shall be posted for hearing in the usual course. The Registry is directed to sort out the record including the documents in original and forward the same to the Trial Court for appropriate steps in the investigation and trial.
Note :–This order is amended at penultimate para as per the Court order dated 7.8.2003 in Rev. WPMP. No. 352 of 2003 (on being mentioned).