Kerala Justice Scandals

1Introduction

1.1. The Complainant, a former Non-Resident Indian (NRI), having lawfully conducted business in Abu Dhabi for over two decades, has returned to India with abiding faith in its judicial institutions. For the past thirty years, however, his pursuit of justice has rendered his home a perpetual courtroom and truth a casualty to procedural indifference. The Complainant has exhausted all available legal remedies, having approached the Courts of the United Arab Emirates, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, and the Courts of Kerala. Despite favourable findings by the UAE judiciary and recognition before the highest Court in India, judicial redress has been persistently denied. When the Complainant finally sought refuge in the courts of Kerala, he expected his homeland to recognize what another sovereign had already affirmed: his innocence and his right to dignity. Instead, over the next two decades, he encountered a paradox—how falsehood, once embedded in process, can wear the solemn robe of law. Thus, the very institutions that were meant to deliver justice ended up benefiting from its denial, the bureaucracy preserved its false narrative, and here the judiciary, by repetition, lent authority to deceit. This Petition is thus a final act of faith—not only to reclaim what was denied to one man, but to restore the moral authority of the institutions that once pledged him protection.

1.2. The present Writ Petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the multiple orders of this Hon’ble Court and subordinate courts that have wrongly relied upon a patently false and unverified police report in Crime No. 437/2008. The said report falsely claimed that the Complainant was a convict abroad and deliberately misrepresented ownership of overseas assets, despite overwhelming judicial and documentary evidence to the contrary.

1.3. The gravamen of this Petition is the shocking reality that justice has been projected as compromised, judicial officers having leaned on a tainted report instead of exercising independent judgment. In doing so, they enabled abuse of police authority, evaded their solemn duty of scrutiny, and deprived the Complainant of justice against Respondent No. 4, whose misuse of a Power of Attorney amounted to both breach of trust and misappropriation.

2Facts of the Case

2.1. The Complainant is a law-abiding Indian citizen, a seasoned engineer, and the rightful owner of properties and business assets situated in Abu Dhabi, UAE. The Complainant’s ownership is duly established by verified title documents, foreign registry certificates, and authenticated judicial records. The Complainant’s legal entitlement has been affirmed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 2007 (WP 4972/1997) after a binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in 1997, which unequivocally affirm the Complainant’s legal entitlement to the said assets.

2.2. In the year 2008, the Complainant lodged a criminal complaint before the Judicial First-class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, against Respondent No. 4, who, while acting under a Power of Attorney executed by the Complainant, is alleged to have fraudulently misappropriated the Complainant’s overseas assets. The complaint invoked offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, and 420 of the IPC. Pursuant to the aforementioned facts, the matter was entrusted to Respondent No. 3, Mr. M. Surendran, then Sub-Inspector of Police, Guruvayur, for investigation and registered as Crime No. 437/2008.

2.3. Upon discovering serious misconduct on the part of the Investigating Officer, the Complainant approached his immediate superior, Mr. Biju Bhaskar, then Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayur, seeking intervention to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry. To the Complainant’s shock, the said officer suggested acceptance of a “settlement package” proposed by the Investigating Officer as a means to close the matter. Worse, the Circle Inspector warned that refusal could lead to fabricated criminal charges against the Complainant as if he were the accused. This led the Complainant to believe that the officers were acting in collusion with local criminal elements having a vested interest in the matter. Subsequently, when the successor Sub-Inspector, Mr. A. Premjit, attempted another settlement, the Complainant declined to participate, deeming it a sham proceeding.

2.4. Frustrated by grave procedural irregularities, investigative bias, and wilful disregard of documentary evidence by Respondent No. 3, the Complainant, on 07.06.2009, was compelled to approach this Hon’ble Court seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or another impartial agency. This plea underscored the critical nexus between judicial oversight and executive accountability. A copy of the High Court Petition (Annexure 1) is hereby referenced.

2.5. In a gross miscarriage of justice, Respondent No. 3, the Sub-Inspector of Police—against whom prior allegations of misconduct exist—filed a final report in Crime No. 437/2008, falsely asserting that the Complainant was convicted in a foreign jurisdiction and summarily rejecting the Complainant’s ownership claims. No supporting documentation was annexed to this report. Shockingly, this Hon’ble Court, relying solely on the said unverified and fraudulent report, dismissed the Complainant’s plea without subjecting the report to judicial scrutiny. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who authored this lie, later claimed under the Right to Information Act that case files were “destroyed by termites and ants”—an absurdity accepted by the judicial authorities without scrutiny. Copies of the relevant Police Report (Annexure 2), the High Court Order relying on the report (Annexure 3), and the RTI Order / SIC Kerala decision (Annexure 4) are referenced herein.

2.6. In a startling distortion of fact, the impugned police report twisted the Complainant’s lawful identity—denying his proprietary status and financial standing, and falsely portraying him as a convicted criminal in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This fabrication was not a mere clerical lapse but a deliberate attempt to erase judicial truth and replace it with administrative deceit. Contrarily, the Complainant had been categorically exonerated and declared a creditor by the Apex Court of the UAE in its landmark judgment dated 1996, wherein the Court awarded him substantial compensation for wrongful persecution. This judgment—issued by the highest judicial authority of a sovereign state—stands as conclusive proof of innocence and entitlement, not guilt. The Delhi High Court Judgment dated 2007 (in W.P. No. 4972/1997), per Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat), took judicial notice of these facts, acknowledging the Complainant’s legitimate business operations and the criminal conspiracy he faced in Abu Dhabi. The Court’s record narrates how the Complainant, an Indian entrepreneur who lawfully founded Ramlah Electro-Mechanical Establishment and Premier General Contracting Establishment, became the victim of a calculated collusion between a local landlord and the Abu Dhabi Police. When he invoked judicial protection against a fraudulent property transaction, the retaliation was merciless: fabricated criminal cases, unlawful detention, brutal torture, and finally a forged deportation order issued under the authority of Sheikh Mohamed Bin Zayed, then Head of State Security.

2.7. The UAE judiciary, in a rare display of integrity, had dared to investigate the Abu Dhabi Police’s criminal collusion in the Complainant’s case. The case stemmed from a violent break-in, armed robbery and extortion at the Complainant’s office, staged just after he had won a civil judgment against powerful rivals. When he reported the crime, the police arrested not the intruders but the Complainant himself—the very victim and whistle-blower. Recognizing the exceptional gravity of the offence—where the very custodians of law had become perpetrators—and endorsing the lower court’s findings, the Abu Dhabi Supreme Judiciary classified the matter as a special case and mandated a high-level judicial probe into police complicity. The notarized confessions of officers and the admissions of prosecutorial impropriety underscored the institutional rot. However, when the investigation began to implicate Sheikh Mohamed Bin Zayed, then Head of State Security, justice was abruptly silenced. What began as a judicial reckoning for corruption transformed into an act of state retaliation, as the Head of State Security personally ordered a fraudulent deportation to suppress the findings and shield those implicated. Overnight, the Complainant—whose innocence had been judicially affirmed and compensation decreed—was expelled through falsified administrative orders, name blacklisted, and stripped of every legal remedy. His acquittal was buried, his compensation nullified, and his rights systematically erased. The suppression of truth in order to safeguard the prestige of the State constitutes a grave affront to the rule of law and the fundamental right to justice. No nation’s image can lawfully be maintained at the cost of truth. A decade later, in India, the tragedy repeated under a different flag. Acting upon the advice and influence of the Ministry of External Affairs, the Delhi High Court denied the Complainant even the right to sue the UAE administration’s fraudulent act, dismissing his plea on the hollow reasoning of “no cause of action in India.” Thus, two sovereign regimes—one autocratic, the other democratic—converged in outcome if not in method: the first falsified justice by signature; the second sanctified that forgery by silence. Together, they erected a wall of impunity between law and accountability, burying both the Complainant’s rights and India’s constitutional pledge to uphold justice under Articles 14, 21, and 51(c). The binding nature of the 1996 UAE Apex Court decree, and the subsequent fraudulent order of deportation, together with the Delhi High Court judgments dated 1997 and 2007, are placed on record as Annexure 5, Annexure 6, Annexure 7, and Annexure 8 respectively. These annexures conclusively establish that the Complainant was a judicially recognized creditor and a victim of institutional persecution — not a convict as falsely portrayed in the Kerala police report, whose fabrication stands as a stain upon the record of justice itself.

2.8. In the end, the Petitioner’s faith in justice was betrayed not by law, but by those entrusted to uphold it. The Delhi High Court’s refusal transformed fraud into privilege and endurance into futility. Having been deceived by fraudsters in one jurisdiction and denied remedy in another, the Complainant, after years of struggle, stands bereft of every expectation, his savings exhausted, his hope consumed, his trust in institutions shaken to its core. Adding to the web of distortion, the police report in Crime No. 437/2008 falsely denied the Complainant’s ownership of his overseas establishments. Documentary evidence tells the opposite story. A General Power of Attorney dated 03.08.1996, duly executed before the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD), had merely delegated limited administrative powers to Respondent No. 4 concerning the management of the Complainant’s business interests—including Al Ramlah Electro-Mechanical Establishment and Premier General Contracting Establishment. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that when the ADJD notarises a Power of Attorney (PoA) relating to specific ownership, it invariably requires the principal to produce the original ownership documents and trade licences, meticulously verifying them before signing and sealing the instrument. A Special Power of Attorney issued by ADJD expressly affirmed that the Complainant retained absolute ownership and financial control over these entities. This ownership was further authenticated by a Trade License issued by the Abu Dhabi Municipal Authority and Chamber of Commerce records, all certifying the Complainant as the sole proprietor. These facts, along with full details of the Complainant’s lawful foreign investments, were clearly set out in the Private Complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. These materials, including certified English translations and Arabic originals, are annexed as Annexure 9, Annexure 10, Annexure 11, Annexure 12, and Annexure 13 respectively. Together they expose the fraudulent nature of the police report and confirm that Respondent No. 4’s subsequent misappropriation of assets was executed under colour of a forged narrative supported by complicit officials. This orchestrated denial of justice not only falsified the Complainant’s judicial standing but also corrupted the very idea of reciprocal recognition between nations. The continued reliance on a fabricated police report—despite clear foreign judicial decrees, verified Powers of Attorney, and trade documents—amounts to a constitutional betrayal. The facts herein call for nothing less than judicial rectification and acknowledgment that fraud, once established, nullifies every proceeding that relied upon it.

2.9. A documented misappropriation of funds, resources, and assets, worth AED 30 Million (₹75 Crores) was orchestrated by Respondent No. 4 under the aegis of state machinery. These assets trace their origin to a now-dismantled $100 million business group independently established and nurtured by the Complainant over a span of nearly two decades in a foreign jurisdiction. The genesis of the dispute lies in a civil decree dated 1995, passed in favour of the Complainant by the Courts of Abu Dhabi, concerning a lease-build agreement of substantial value. However, what followed was a concerted effort to nullify this decree through extra-judicial means, culminating in the Complainant’s unlawful expulsion from Abu Dhabi. This extrajudicial act was carried out by certain influential individuals who had been defeated across all three judicial tiers, including the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi. The Complainant is fortified by binding judgments rendered by the UAE judiciary and irrefutable documentary evidence, placing him in a rare and exceptional legal position as a victim of transnational institutional injustice.

2.10. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court, the Complainant exercised his statutory right and filed a Private Complaint under Section 190 r/w 200 CrPC before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, in 2012. On careful evaluation of the documents and sworn depositions of credible witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against Respondent No. 4 under Sections 403, 406, and 420 IPC, registering C.C. No. 884/2014. Notably, despite being summoned multiple times, Respondent No. 4 wilfully evaded court proceedings. Instead of submitting to trial, he approached this Hon’ble Court to obtain an order to quash the proceedings. A copy of the Private Complaint (2012) is annexed hereto as Annexure 14.

2.11. The Private Complaint (2012) at Paragraphs 35 and 36 (Pg. 25) highlights that Respondent No. 4, while acting under a PoA, gravely misused his fiduciary position. Instead of managing company affairs, he diverted business assets for personal gain and restructured a key contracting firm to avoid obligations. Later, he secured a Special Power of Attorney directly from the acting Sponsor, which, as certified by the Sharia Court on 11/05/2003, operates as a confession of wrongdoing. This document conclusively establishes the Complainant’s foundational ownership in another firm, “Premier General Contracting Establishment”, and exposed Respondent No. 4’s fraudulent conduct. The unauthorized Special Power of Attorney dated 2003, in its original Arabic form and duly certified English translation, is enclosed and designated as Annexure 15.

2.12. The Private Complaint, at Paragraph 23 (Page 10), records that the Complainant, upon discovering and acknowledging the misfeasance of the Respondent No. 4, was compelled to revoke the Power of Attorney previously granted in their favour—specifically, the General Power of Attorney dated 03.08.1996, duly executed before the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD). Consequently, on 06.05.2004, a fresh Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Shri M. Mohammed Sheriff, father-in-law of the Complainant. Shri Sheriff undertook two visits to Abu Dhabi with the objective of settling accounts and ascertaining the Complainant’s assets. Notwithstanding several meetings and discussions, the Accused persistently refused to render accounts or permit assessment of the assets. Crucially, this instrument underwent a rigorous triple-verified sovereign authentication process—progressing from the Government of Maharashtra to the UAE Consulate General in Mumbai, and finally to the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs—which is the standard legalisation requirement making an Indian instrument valid for operation inside the UAE. This sovereign chain of authentication confirms that the UAE authorities were thoroughly satisfied, thereby enabling the principal to lawfully grant authority to another person to act on his behalf regarding those properties and trade licences. It is pertinent to note that when the ADJD notarises (the PoA dated 03.08.1996 (Annexure 9) relating to specific ownership, it invariably requires the principal to produce the original ownership documents and trade licences, meticulously verifying them before signing and sealing. On this sound and verified basis, the principal was legally enabled to grant authority to another person to act on his behalf regarding that property and trade licences. The Deed of Revocation and Appointment of New Attorney, dated 06.05.2004, together with its bilingual parallel-text version, bears consecutive endorsements, seals, and signatures, collectively marked as Annexure 16.

2.13. In a further blow to due process, another Bench of this Hon’ble Court quashed the Magistrate’s proceedings in C.C. No. 884/2014, relying solely on the discredited police report while disregarding the Magistrate’s reasoned findings and the voluminous evidence produced by the Complainant. This constituted the second occasion on which this Court lent credence to a tainted report, thereby perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice by allowing Respondent No. 4 to evade trial. Such repeated reliance upon a demonstrably tainted report allows justice itself to appear compromised by undisclosed motives, transforming the judicial process into a shield for impunity.

2.14. What is most disturbing is that, after eighteen years, another Bench of this Hon’ble Court relied yet again on the same police report—already judicially impeached—to revoke the Magistrate’s order, on the untenable claim that it had been ignored. This finding is both factually and legally indefensible. As held in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) and India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1989), Magistrates are not bound by police conclusions but are duty-bound to safeguard natural justice and prevent arbitrary investigations. Repeated quashing of proceedings on a tainted report violates CrPC safeguards and the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure. The Complainant was denied notice, deprived of due process, and prejudiced by judicial orders that effectively shielded the accused. Such toxic reliance on discredited material projects judicial outcomes as swayed by undisclosed motives, eroding fairness, emboldening impunity, and rolling justice back to its pre-cognizance stage. The High Court Order (2024) is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 17.

2.15. Equally grave is the judiciary’s refusal to recognize verified judicial instruments issued by the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, including certified Powers of Attorney and licensing documents that directly substantiated the Complainant’s case. By ignoring these certified materials—legally admissible under the Government of India’s Gazette Notification dated 17 January 2020, declaring the United Arab Emirates a Reciprocating Territory under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure—the Court undermined the binding framework of reciprocal recognition between India and the UAE. Non-verification of such evidence constitutes a denial of due process under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as the Complainant’s rights were adjudicated without consideration of legally valid and internationally binding material. This omission strikes at the root of constitutional equality and fair adjudication, defeating the very object of the Indo-UAE reciprocal enforcement regime and diminishing India’s obligation under Article 51(c) to respect international law and treaty obligations. The Gazette Notification (2020) is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 18, for reference.

2.16. Pursuant to the remand issued by this Hon’ble Court, the matter stood before the Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. What followed was not adjudication but abdication. The presiding Magistrate, in flagrant defiance of judicial duty, ignored glaring procedural violations, including the Respondent’s two-decade evasion of process, and summarily dismissed the complaint by endorsing a police report already condemned by her predecessor as false and fabricated. This was not inadvertence; it was complicity. The Magistrate, in paragraph 6 of her judgment, went so far as to proclaim that “the complainant had not revealed the truth,” as though the falsified police report were her own authorship. By consciously echoing a proven lie, she crossed the line from error to deceit. Such conduct amounts to fraud upon the court, a judicial betrayal that shakes the very foundation of public faith. This Magistrate’s actions demand not lenient correction but disciplinary prosecution and impeachment under the gravest standards of judicial accountability. A copy of the Magistrate Court Order (2025) is annexed as Annexure No. 19.

2.17. In Reddy Veerana v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally reaffirmed that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, striking at the root of justice itself and rendering such acts nullities, open to challenge at any stage and before any forum. In an extraordinary exercise of judicial conscience, the Court even recalled its own judgment to prevent injustice founded upon deceit. In sharp contrast, in the present matter this Hon’ble Court has, not once but on three successive occasions, placed reliance upon a demonstrably tainted police report, despite the Complainant having produced unimpeachable counter-evidence and despite a Magistrate’s well-reasoned order firmly anchored in law and fact. Such reliance not only disregards the binding threshold of factual and legal material but also creates the grave impression that judicial authority has lent legitimacy to fraud rather than exercised its duty to correct it. The result is not a mere error in adjudication but a miscarriage of justice of constitutional magnitude, which perpetuates precisely the kind of evil the Supreme Court has cautioned must never be allowed to stand. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling in Reddy Veerana v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 20, for reference.

2.18. The trajectory of this case leaves no room for doubt: justice has been derailed by repeated judicial reliance on a fraudulent police report, long discredited by reasoned findings and sworn evidence. Such orders have not only denied the Complainant his lawful remedy under Sections 190–204 CrPC but have also allowed the accused to escape trial for nearly two decades. When courts themselves affirm tainted material, the process ceases to inspire confidence and the perception of vested influence becomes unavoidable. In these circumstances, the Complainant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 stand violated, and the very credibility of the judicial institution is imperilled. It is therefore incumbent upon this Hon’ble Court to intervene decisively, undo the miscarriage of justice, and reassert that no judicial authority can lend its sanction to fraud.

State’s Failure of Constitutional Duty

2.19. Post-2017 Obligations — Complicity by Silence: Following the revelations established by the Right to Information (RTI) findings in 2017, the State was constitutionally and statutorily obligated to take immediate, affirmative remedial steps. Specifically, the State was duty-bound to:

• Withdraw the fabricated police report;
• Formally notify all concerned courts of the proven fabrication;
• Initiate corrective and penal proceedings against the perpetrators of the fraud; and
• Restore the Petitioner’s unblemished legal standing and fundamental rights.

The State performed none of these fundamental duties.

Instead, the State engaged in passive acquiescence while judicial forums—including the High Court of Kerala—mechanically adopted the discredited narrative originating from a corrupt police official, disregarding material evidence, binding precedents, and objective truth. In 2024 (Annex 17), the Hon’ble High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order based on the selfsame fabricated police record, issuing authoritative directions that rendered the summary dismissal of the private complaint inevitable and effectively foreclosed the Petitioner’s right to a trial. Subsequently, in 2025 (Annex 19), the learned Judicial First-Class Magistrate echoed the long-discredited police claims, erroneously attributing non-disclosure of truth to the victimised NRI Petitioner while ignoring three decades of sovereign international documentation. By failing to intervene or rectify the record, the State actively ratified the underlying fraud, rendering itself complicit in a continuing violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. Consequently, each subsequent reliance on this falsified record post-2017 constitutes a fresh, actionable tort and a continuing cause of action for which the State bears direct and absolute liability.

The Five-Fold Impossibility

2.20. The Statistical and Legal Absurdity of the State’s Case: For Crime No. 437/2008 and its ensuing fabricated narrative to hold even an iota of truth, five separate, highly authoritative and independent bodies across two sovereign nations and three decades would all have to be simultaneously, inexplicably wrong. The foundational impossibility of this premise is laid bare below:

1. I
   UAE Supreme Court, Abu Dhabi (1996) — Annex 5: This apex judicial body would have had to wrongly exonerate the Petitioner, wrongly brand him a Whistleblower Hero, wrongly document his custodial torture, and wrongly award him sovereign compensation.
2. II
   Supreme Court of India (1997) — Annex 7: The highest court of this nation would have had to wrongly recognize his legal standing arising directly from the UAE judicial proceedings and the legal validity of his exoneration decree.
3. III
   Delhi High Court (1997 & 2007) — Annexes 7–8: A superior court of record in India would have had to twice wrongly affirm his full ownership of the UAE business entities and legally authenticate the Powers of Attorney in question.
4. IV
   Foreign Ministries of India & UAE (2004) — Annex 16: The sovereign governments of both nations would have had to jointly attest and legalize a Power of Attorney confirming ownership—a rigorous executive process constitutionally requiring prior verification of title—for business assets that the police report absurdly claims did not exist.
5. V
   Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce & Industry (1995) — Annex 13: A premier international trade institution would have had to issue a formal Chamber certificate confirming registered ownership of a commercial establishment to an individual who the Kerala Police now alleges owned nothing in the UAE.

Strategic Questions: The State Must Answer

2.21. The Substantive Framework of Inquiry: The following questions arise directly from the undisputed facts on record. They are posed not rhetorically, but as substantive constitutional grounds which the State is legally obliged to address before this Hon'ble Court. The State’s inability to answer any one of them is, by itself, sufficient to sustain the present petition.

3Grounds for Relief

A. Violation of Fundamental Rights

3.1. The reliance on a fraudulent police report and the repeated dismissal of valid criminal proceedings based solely on such report constitute a grave infringement of the Complainant’s rights under:

• Article 14: Denial of equality before law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 21: Denial of the right to life, liberty, and fair trial.

B. Fraud on Court Vitiates Proceedings

3.2. The impugned police report falsely stated that the Complainant was convicted in a foreign court and denied his ownership of the Al Ramlah Electro-Mechanical Establishment, despite a 1996 judgment of the UAE Supreme Court affirming him as a creditor, not a convict. This amounts to fraud on the court, vitiating the proceedings that followed.

C. Suppression and Destruction of Evidence

3.3. Respondent No. 3, the Investigating Officer, claimed under RTI that records were destroyed by “termites and ants,” an absurd and implausible justification. No departmental inquiry or judicial reprimand followed, and the courts proceeded without calling for corroboration or fresh investigation.

D. Judicial Impropriety and Per Incuriam Orders

3.4. Multiple Benches of this Hon’ble Court quashed proceedings in C.C. No. 884/2014 without examining the Magistrate’s well-reasoned order based on evidence. The impugned orders failed to apply mind and perpetuated the injustice caused by a tainted report.

E. Judicial Oversight Resulting in Miscarriage of Justice

3.5. The High Court Judge, in passing the impugned order, disregarded a Private Complaint that stood as a formal rebuttal to a flawed police report. This act not only violates the Complainant’s right to a fair process but frustrates the purpose of Sections 200–204 of the CrPC, rendering the judicial process arbitrary and unsustainable.

F. Subversion of the Justice Delivery Mechanism

3.6. Respondent No. 4, despite being summoned multiple times, evaded appearance before the Magistrate and later secured relief by misleading the Hon’ble Court through misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. This has undermined the criminal justice system.

G. Malicious Prosecution and Injury to Reputation

3.7. The false imputation of criminal conviction in a foreign country has exposed the Complainant to stigma, humiliation, and reputational damage. The Complainant has been maliciously and wrongfully branded as a convict, despite a foreign court judgment affirming his entitlement as a creditor. The abuse of the criminal process for such false and malicious purposes entitles the Complainant to exemplary damages.

H. A judiciary clouded by hidden motives.

3.8. The continued reliance on a tainted report has not only allowed the accused to evade trial but has also created the unavoidable perception that judicial outcomes have been shaped by vested interests. This undermines both the Complainant’s right to equality and the credibility of the judicial process itself.

I. Denial of Access to Justice

3.9. The blind reliance on the impugned police report by judicial authorities without proper scrutiny has effectively denied the Complainant a fair hearing. This constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of natural justice and amounts to judicial impropriety. The Complainant is entitled to have the proceedings reopened and adjudicated in accordance with law.

J. Fraud Nullifies All: The Reddy Veerana Mandate

3.10. When fraud enters the record, justice collapses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reddy Veerana (2025) recalled its own judgment to protect fairness. Yet here, three successive endorsements of a tainted report have turned constitutional guarantees into illusions, violating Articles 14 and 21. The Complainant has the right to demand that this Court undo the injustice done, as the Supreme Court did in Reddy Veerana. There is no legal or moral justification to allow these fraudulent outcomes to stand.

3.12. By virtue of the Government of India’s Gazette Notification dated 17 January 2020, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been formally declared a “Reciprocating Territory” under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This confers a binding bilateral mechanism for recognition and execution of civil decrees and judicial instruments of UAE courts in India. Under the said provision, a decree of any superior court in a reciprocating territory “may be executed in India as if it had been passed by such court.”

3.13. Accordingly, the Powers of Attorney, judicial certifications, and related documents issued by the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, each duly translated and authenticated, are judicially cognizable evidence within Indian jurisdiction. Any refusal by Indian courts to verify or recognize these documents violates not only Section 44A CPC but also the principle of reciprocal justice underpinning India’s international obligations. Such refusal renders the Gazette Notification meaningless and undermines the sovereign reciprocity that Parliament sought to institutionalize.

3.14. When both this Hon’ble Court and subordinate courts ignore verified UAE judicial records, they commit a constitutional dereliction that strikes at the rule of law and India’s comity of nations. Their omission defeats the very objective of the Indo-UAE reciprocal enforcement regime, erodes public faith in cross-border judicial cooperation, and denies the Complainant the protection guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21. Recognition of reciprocal decrees is not a matter of discretion but of statutory command; failure to give effect to it is a breach of duty equivalent to non-execution of a valid decree.

K. Entitlement to Compensation

3.11. In view of the above, the Complainant is entitled to compensation from the State authority for the violation of his constitutional rights, malicious prosecution, defamation, reputational damage, and prolonged denial of justice. The compensation should be adequate to serve both restorative and deterrent purposes, in light of the egregious conduct of Respondent No. 3 and the failure of institutional checks and balances.

4Prayer

In view of the foregoing, the Complainant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. 4.1. Issue a writ or direction to quash the final report filed by Respondent No. 3 in Crime No. 437/2008 on the ground of fraud.
2. 4.2. Quash the order dated 28/05/2025 passed by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad, and the order dated 22/08/2024 passed by this Hon’ble High Court, both arising from Crime No. 437/2008, as having been passed without due process and solely relying on a fraudulent police report.
3. 4.3. Consequently, direct the restoration of proceedings arising from the Private Complaint and revival of the Magistrate’s original findings under Sections 403, 406, and 420 IPC. In view of the flawed reasoning and miscarriage of justice in the presiding Magistrate’s disposal, be pleased to order that the said proceedings be conducted either: (a) by this Hon’ble Court; or (b) by a competent subordinate court, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.
4. 4.4. Direct a disciplinary inquiry against Respondent No.3 for misconduct, destruction of public records, and filing a fraudulent police report.
5. 4.5. Direct initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the erring police officials and invoke judicial accountability mechanisms against judicial officers who failed to exercise due judicial scrutiny and endorsed falsehoods.
6. 4.6. Declare that the Abu Dhabi Court Judgments, including the Apex Court Judgment, are entitled to verification and recognition under Section 44A CPC pursuant to the Government of India Gazette Notification dated 17 January 2020, and direct the judiciary to give effect to the reciprocal enforcement obligations therein.
7. 4.7. Direct the Respondents to pay ₹25 Crores as compensation for constitutional violations, malicious prosecution, and State-ratified defamation.
8. 4.8. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

Solemnly affirmed,

This writ (draft) is prepared by Jabir. P.K., the complainant herein, and is dated this 5th day of November 2025.