ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, a prayer is made to issue an appropriate writ / order and/or direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to conduct enquiry and investigation regarding forgery, tampering, manipulation and alteration of the Court proceedings in Criminal Case No.79327/2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.34, Ahmedabad. 2. The petitioner states that he is the proprietor of Victor Infra havings its office at Bldg. No.A/2, Flat No.2, Akal CHS Ltd., J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai and residential address at A Wing, Flat No.502, Poonam Jewel CHS Ltd., Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri, Mumbai. It is stated that the respondent No.2 had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of the cheque issued by him which was under financial assistance, received from Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. - respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner states that a complaint was filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad where the Court passed the order of issuance of process against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner alleges that on 08.07.2019, the Advocate appearing for the petitioner sought adjournment before the Court of the learned Judge however, the application was rejected by the concerned Judge. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 thereafter, filed an application for closure of cross examination. The same came to be allowed on the very day, i.e. 08.07.2019. It is stated by the petitioner that on 22.07.2019 when the matter was called out, the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and tendered an application seeking dismissal of the complaint and for providing reasonable time to appoint another Advocate. It is alleged by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate after going through the same kept back the matter as the Advocate for the respondent No.2 was not present in the Court. The petitioner then further states that he was flabbergasted to note that the Bankers/Financer’s Advocate in the matter was having control over the original complaints filed in the Magistrate Court and at the time of hearing, the petitioner alleges that the learned Magistrate allowed to take out the original complaints and the petitioner also alleges that it was shocking for him to see that the Advocates were opening the cupboards of the learned Magistrate. The petitioner alleges that he had never seen such a scenario even upto the Apex Court. The petitioner further states that at about 12.30 p.m. once again when the matter was called out, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to furnish a copy of his application to the Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2. The petitioner states that after going through the same, the Advocate for the respondent requested the learned Magistrate to keep the matter back and therefore, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to come in the Court at 4.00 pm. 5. It is stated that when the matter was called out, the learned Magistrate suddenly said that he will take the petitioner into judicial custody on account of a pendency of a non-bailable warrant. The petitioner was shocked and surprised to note the same and states that he had brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that there would be some conspiracy against him. The petitioner states that the learned Magistrate was not ready to listen to anything and insisted upon the petitioner to write an application for cancellation of warrant. The petitioner states that he was helpless and had no alternative but to make an application for cancellation of warrant which was allowed by the learned Magistrate, and on the same application dated 22.07.2020, the learned Judge granted him time for appointing another Advocate. 6. The petitioner states that he contacted Advocate Mr. Manoj Patel and requested him to hand over the certified copies for which he had applied on 08.07.2019, as on the same night of 22.07.2019, the petitioner was to fly back to Mumbai. The petitioner states that his Advocate Mr. Manoj Patel informed him that he would get the certified copies on the following day. The petitioner thereafter, approached his Advocate on 23.07.2019 and collected the copies. 7. The petitioner states that in the certified copies of Roznama obtained on 10.07.2019, there was no mention of the non-bailable warrant on 08.07.2019. Hence, on the same day i.e. on 22.07.2019, the petitioner himself started searching for a local Advocate and took the service of Advocate Mr. Ravindra V. Gupta for getting certified copies of the entire Roznama, alongwith the application filed by the respondent No.2 for issuance of non-bailable warrant and the order passed thereon. The petitioner states that on 23.07.2019, the certified copy of the Roznama was furnished to him. Ravindra V. Gupta for getting certified copies of the entire Roznama, alongwith the application filed by the respondent No.2 for issuance of non-bailable warrant and the order passed thereon. The petitioner states that on 23.07.2019, the certified copy of the Roznama was furnished to him. Going through the same, he noted that despite the learned Magistrate adjourning the matter to 26.08.2019, in the Roznama the said was recorded as 16.08.2019 and despite the noting of next date of adjournment as 16.08.2019 in the Roznama of 22.07.2019, he states that there is no Roznama noting of 16.08.2019. 8. The petitioner alleges that there is some mischief which is deliberately played in issuing the non-bailable warrant. The petitioner states that on a bare perusal of two sets of certified copies, obtained on 10.07.2019 and 23.07.2019 reveal forgery and manipulation of the record pertaining to the Roznama dated 22.07.2019 and the petitioner states that a perusal of the Roznama on 23.07.2019 indicates that the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner on 08.07.2019 do not find any reflection in the Roznama which was obtained on 10.07.2019 and does not reveal that the non-bailable warrant was issued against him. The petitioner further states that the certified copy of the application filed by the respondent No.2 for issuance of non-bailable warrant was not provided by Advocate Mr. Gupta to him but instead certified copy of the application moved by him for cancellation of warrant was given to him, so once again, he took the service of Advocate Mr. Gupta for obtaining the certified copy of the application filed by the respondent No.2 for issuance of non-bailable warrant. 9. The petitioner states that on 26.08.2019, Advocate Mr. Ashish Shukla appeared before the learned Magistrate and by filing an application, brought to the knowledge of the learned Magistrate that the records on 08.07.2019 were forged, tampered, altered and manipulated and therefore, before the learned Magistrate prayer was made to approach this Court and also prayer was made for direction to the concerned staff to keep the said case and CCTV Footage on 22.08.2019 of learned Magistrate in safe custody. It is stated that the respondent No.2. sought time to file a reply and the matter was adjourned to 18.11.2019. The petitioner states that on 26.08.2019, the learned Magistrate adjourned the matter. It is stated that the respondent No.2. sought time to file a reply and the matter was adjourned to 18.11.2019. The petitioner states that on 26.08.2019, the learned Magistrate adjourned the matter. On the same day, the respondent No.2 filed a reply and while allowing the adjournment and exemption application filed by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate apprised the Advocate for the petitioner that the matter of respondent No.2 is transferred to Court Room No.34. 10. Learned Advocate Ms. Niyati Chauhan for the petitioner submits that the Roznama of the learned Magistrate clearly shows that it was forged, tampered, altered and manipulated and therefore, there is a need to pass direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for conducting an impartial enquiry and investigation with regard to the illegal act committed in the Court referred to. She further states that judicial probe under the supervision and management of this Court is necessary to scrutinize and unearth the reason behind the forging, tampering, altering and manipulating of court records and to ascertain as how the Roznama of the learned Magistrate’s Court was allowed to be tampered with. It is further submitted that it is expected from the Court to have correct and fair reflection of the Court proceedings, which is the Roznama and therefore, any illegality and irregularity in the Roznama results in serious complications as intentional alteration is a serious crime against the administration of justice. 11. Criminal Case No.79327/2018 was filed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.32 took cognizance of the matter on 27.08.2019 and summons was issued making it returnable on 26.11.2019. The copy of the Court proceedings received on 10.07.2019 shows that the Report for Roznama was moved on 08.07.2019 and it was prepared to be given on 10.07.2019. The proceedings show that on 08.07.2019 the complainant and his Advocate were present before the Court, the accused i.e. the present petitioner was not present while his Advocate was present in the Court. Exhibit 118 is an application from the side of the accused, i.e. the present petitioner which was an application for adjournment stating that the petitioner was suffering from Spine and Hyper-pressure ailment and on that count, adjournment was prayed for a longer period. Exhibit 118 is an application from the side of the accused, i.e. the present petitioner which was an application for adjournment stating that the petitioner was suffering from Spine and Hyper-pressure ailment and on that count, adjournment was prayed for a longer period. The same was rejected with observations and further, it was observed by the learned Judge that the Advocate from the side of the accused was not ready to conduct the cross examination. The proceedings show that Exhibit 19 was moved on the same day by the complainant in the matter stating that the matter was for cross examination for a long time and the accused was conducting the cross examination and then it was prayed that the stage of cross examination be closed. The learned Judge allowed the said application and the stage for cross examination came to be closed. 12. The petitioner agitates that the certified copy of the Roznama which he had received on 10.07.2019 and 23.07.2019 shows that there is forgery, tampering, alteration and manipulation of the record dated 08.07.2019. Perusal of the record shows that the proceedings which was recorded on 08.07.2019 the certified copy which was ready to be received on 10.07.2019, the application for it was given on the very same day, i.e. 08.07.2019. The proceedings appears to have been signed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32 and it was adjourned to 22.07.2019. At what point of time during the whole day, the Roznama was procured by staff for the copy does not get reflected in the endorsement made by the Assistant Superintendent of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32. On the very same day, it appears that Exhibit 20 was moved by the Advocate of the complainant. At what time of the day, this application was moved does not get reflected on the face of the document. It is contention of the petitioner that reflection of Exhibit 20 in the proceedings of 08.07.2019 was later on inserted and hence, it is stated that there was manipulation and tampering in the records. However it is to be noted that the petitioner does not deny that the said application was moved on 08.07.2019. The proceedings through out the day are reflected in the Roznama. However it is to be noted that the petitioner does not deny that the said application was moved on 08.07.2019. The proceedings through out the day are reflected in the Roznama. Since the petitioner himself through his Advocate had prayed for a copy of the Roznama on the very same day and the copy came to be ready on 10.07.2019, it can be considered that the proceedings which were ready and signed was handed over to the petitioner and since the application for issuance of warrant was also moved by the Advocate of the petitioner on the very same day, certainly all such applications are to be reflected in the proceedings in the Roznama. It may so happen that such endorsements are made by the Court staff under the instructions of the Judge. The application for issuance of warrant on the same day was taken on record as Exhibit 20. The petitioner is not at all prejudiced by the endorsement in the Roznama, rather on the adjournment dated 22.07.2019, the petitioner was informed by the learned Magistrate about the non-bailable warrant operating against him and learned Magistrate asked him to move an application for cancellation of warrant which came be granted. 13. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the Roznama, rather the learned Judge was conscious enough to put it on record, the proceedings of the application moved by the petitioner for issuance of warrant. It cannot be said that there is any such manipulation in the record, rather the Roznama shows that it is a reflection of the documents on record and the Court was fair enough to put the said proceedings of the Court record in the Roznama. Roznama is the Register of the daily proceedings of a Court case. It contains the activity in a case. 14. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Court does not find any reason to entertain the application and therefore, the same is rejected.