Full Text
Date of Decision: 11th December, 2025
55086/2025, CM APPL. 59748/2025 ADITY SHIVCHARAN RATHOD .....Petitioner
Through: None.
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Yash Narain and Ms. Pragya Yadav, Advocates for R-2/SHO
Email: rajesh.laws@gmail.com Mob: 8802991089 Insp. Ram Yadav, PS Jamia Nagar
Mob: 8076444401 Mr. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC for DDA
Mishra, Advocates Mob: 7317391437 Email: sahayk@gmail.com
Mr. M. Hasibuddin, and Ms. Gracey Sachdeva, Advocates for R-4
Mob: 8800516037 Email: sachdevagracey@gmail.com
Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Advocate for MCD (through VC)
Email - contactuskla@gmail.com
Mobile – 9910122225
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent no. 1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), to take steps against the ongoing illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by respondent no. 4 in the plot measuring 200 sq. yds., out of the property bearing No. 394-395 (adjoining Mumtaz Apartment 375-376), Gali No. 17, Main Road, Zakir Nagar, Jamia Nagar, Khasra No. 134/1, 167 and 169, Delhi-110025.
2. During the course of hearing, it has come to the fore that the present writ petition has been filed by using the name of the petitioner, i.e., Aditi Shivcharan Rathod, without her authorization.
3. It has been brought forth before this Court that various petitions have been filed by different names, through the same counsel and using the same set of documents, by raising similar pleas, as are raised in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has brought the attention of this Court to an order dated 20th August, 2025, passed in W.P.(C) 12607/2025, titled as “Adity Shivcharan Rathod Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.”, filed by the petitioner herein, with respect to another property, wherein again, the petitioner had submitted that the said property belonged to her.
5. Further, in the said writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 12607/2025, the petitioner had taken the same plea to show that the property belonged to her and had supported the said plea by relying upon forged and fabricated documents, i.e., a General Power of Attorney (“GPA”), Agreement to Sell, affidavit, etc., and had filed the petition on the said ground.
6. Thus, it has been brought forth that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands.
7. The details of the various writ petitions filed by the petitioner in her own name or by other names, as informed by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, are as follows:
I. W.P.(C) 12607/2025, titled as “Adity Shivcharan Rathod Versus
II. W.P.(C) 6799/2025, titled as “Jyoti Versus Municipal Corporation of
III. W.P.(C) 6524/2025, titled as “Seema Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.”.
IV. W.P.(C) 6055/2025, titled as “Pushpa Pandey Versus Municipal
8. On account of the aforesaid facts, the matter had been referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (“DCP”) (South-East), to undertake an investigation as to how different petitions are being filed before this Court by the petitioner on the ground that the respective properties therein are owned by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, a Status Report dated 10th December, 2025 has been filed by the DCP (South-East), which is reproduced as under: “ xxx xxx xxx ”
10. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report shows that the petitioner, i.e., Ms. Aditi Shivcharan Rathod, was traced and examined by the police. During her examination, Ms. Aditi Shivcharan Rathod stated that she has not filed the present writ petition before this Court. She further stated that she has neither purchased any property in her name in Delhi nor has she filed any writ petition before this Court against any unauthorized construction.
11. Ms. Aditi Shivcharan Rathod, the petitioner herein has also denied her signatures on the property documents attached with the present writ petition, i.e., the GPA, Agreement to Sell, possession letter and receipt, all dated 16th July, 2010.
12. The police has also recorded the statement of Ms. Aditi Shivcharan Rathod that some unknown persons have misused her Aadhaar Card and forged the property documents in her name to file the present writ petition with some ulterior motives.
13. Thus, the Status Report of the police makes it evident that the Aadhaar Card of Ms. Aditi Shivcharan Rathod has been misused by unknown persons to manufacture and forge certain documents in relation to the property in question in order to file the present petition.
14. Further, the police has categorically stated that the counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Ms. Awanitika was also traced at an address in Defence Colony, i.e., D-291, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Ms. Awanitika has submitted that the matters were referred to her by an advocate by the name of Mr. Suraj Singh, Mobile No. 7303353280, whom she had met at the Delhi High Court
15. However, the police has not been able to trace the said advocate, Mr. Suraj Singh.
16. Accordingly, the police is directed to continue with its investigation, and carry out further proceedings in accordance with law, including, lodging of First Information Report (“FIR”) and subsequent appropriate proceedings.
17. Considering the grave revelations brought forth before this Court on the basis of the Report of the police, it is clear that the present petition has been filed on the basis of forged documents, without any authorization from the petitioner.
18. Accordingly, the role of advocates involved in the present case, i.e., Ms. Awanitika and Mr. Suraj Singh, has to be investigated. In this regard, this Court takes note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2025) 6 SCC 416, wherein, it has been held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx
43. To create or to assist creating false documents and to use them as genuine knowing them to be false in the Court proceedings, to falsely implicate somebody in the false proceedings filed in the name of the person who had no knowledge whatsoever about the same are the acts attributable to the offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They are also acts of frauds committed not only on the person sought to be falsely implicated and on the person in whose name such false proceedings are filed without his knowledge and consent, but is a fraud committed on the Courts. No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud and no court can allow its eyes to be closed to the fact that it is being used as an instrument of fraud. As held by this Court in V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133: (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 587: (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 416]: (SCC p. 151, para 45) “45. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court.”
44. The matter assumes serious concern when the advocates who are the officers of the Court are involved and when they actively participate in the ill-motivated litigations of the unscrupulous litigants, and assist them in misusing and abusing the process of law to achieve their ulterior purposes.
45. People repose immense faith in the judiciary, and the Bar being an integral part of the justice delivery system, has been assigned a very crucial role for preserving the independence of justice and the very democratic set-up of the country. The legal profession is perceived to be essentially a service oriented, noble profession and the lawyers are perceived to be very responsible officers of the court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice.
46. In the process of overall depletion and erosion of ethical values and degradation of the professional ethics, the instances of professional misconduct are also on rise. There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings conducted in the court. Every advocate putting his signatures on the vakalatnamas and on the documents to be filed in the Courts, and every Advocate appearing for a party in the courts, particularly in the Supreme Court, the highest court of the country is presumed to have filed the proceedings and put his/her appearance with all sense of responsibility and seriousness. No professional much less legal professional, is immune from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds.
47. In the extraordinary facts and circumstances, and considering the gravity and seriousness of the case, when the High Court and the Supreme Court were sought to be taken for a ride and when the entire justice delivery system was sought to be put to stake, by Respondent 3 Mr Sukhpal, Respondent 4 Ms Rinki, and their associates and the advocates concerned, who helped them in forging and fabricating the documents to be filed in the High Court and Supreme Court, and to pursue the false proceedings filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh without his knowledge, consent or authority, we deem it appropriate to hand over the investigation of the case to CBI. CBI shall register the regular case, after holding preliminary inquiry if necessary to do so, against all the persons found involved and responsible, and shall investigate all the links leading to the commission of the alleged crimes and fraud on court. The Director, CBI is directed to do the needful in this regard and to submit the report to this Court within two months. The office is directed to hand over original record of the application under Section 482 No. 41533 of 2019 and Recall Applications Nos. 3 of 2020, 7 of 2020 and 8 of 2021 and the original record of the instant appeals to the Director, CBI in a sealed cover, after retaining the certified copies of all the records of the said proceedings and instant appeals. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)
19. Considering the aforesaid, the matter is referred to the Bar Council of India (“BCI”), to examine and investigate the role of the aforesaid counsels, i.e., Ms. Awanitika and Mr. Suraj Singh, and take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
20. The details of Ms. Awanitika, Advocate, as given in the Vakalatnama attached with the present petition, alongwith the correct address, as identified by the police in its Status Report, are reproduced as under:. Ms. Awanitika, Advocate D/4465/2020 D-291, Defence Colony, New Delhi Mob: 9996165661 Email: awantikaniranjan@gmail.com
21. The BCI is also directed to trace the other advocate, i.e., Mr. Suraj Singh, whose name has been mentioned in the Report of the police.
22. In case required, the BCI is also at liberty to approach the DCP South- East District, New Delhi, for the purposes of obtaining any information, as may be required for the purposes of their investigation. The police shall cooperate with the BCI and share relevant information that may be required by the BCI for inquiry at its end.
23. This Court also takes note of the submission that respondent no. 4 has already approached the Appellate Tribunal MCD (“ATMCD”) and vide an order dated 27th October, 2025, a stay has been granted in favour of respondent no. 4 by the ATMCD.
24. Accordingly, the MCD is directed to take appropriate action against the property in question, subject to any order that may be passed by the ATMCD.
25. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 11, 2025