The letter was registered as a writ petition, and having regard to what was alleged therein the Court directed the father of the girl to produce her before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, and directed the Additional Chief.
An affidavit was filed by Nilima Tiwari that the letter was a companypletely forged and fabricated document prepared by C.K. Tripathi, a Sub Inspector of Police, and was intended to embarrass her parents and to ruin her reputation.
Judicial Magistrate to ascertain the true facts from her on the question whether she was being detained against her wishes.
The statements set forth in the letter were denied in to.
The report of the Special Police Establishment was received by this Court and it appeals that an examination of the material indicated that the letter was a forgery companymitted by C.K. Tripathi and B.K. Tripathi find it was recommended that they be prosecuted under Section 120 B, 465, 466 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
When the case came before the Court thereafter, learned companynsel for the petitioner stated that the letter which purports to have been written by the petitioner to this Court was in fact a forgery and that numbere of the statements made therein had any foundation in truth.
Accordingly, the Court made an order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to companyduct an inquiry into the origin and authorship of the letter and the circumstances in which it was written.
The Court made the order aforesaid on the assumption that the letter was authentic, but refrained from expressing any opinion on the authenticity of the letter.
The Court received a letter dated 21 November, 1986, purporting to be from Nilima Priyadarshini, companytaining certain statements, and alleging that she was being detained against her will by her parents.
S. Pathak, CJI.
