Prabhakar Laccha Shetty And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date:
2025.10.16 11:55:19 +0530 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2024 Prabhakar Laccha Shetty And Anr
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
...Respondents
Mr. Yogesh Gaikwad i/b M/s. Bilawala & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, Addl.P.P for the Respondent-State. API - Mr. Dnyaneshwar Patil attached to Kashimira Police Station, present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 15 th OCTOBER, 2025 P.C. :
1.
The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 2nd September, 2025.
2.
On 12th August, 2025, the following order was passed in the aforesaid petition :
1/5
"1) One of the allegations against the Petitioners in the present crime is that, the Petitioners committed forgery of a document, namely an Agreement of Conducting business, dated 12th July 2019 and the same was presented/used in Regular Civil Suit No. 356 of 2022, pending on the file of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Thane, at Thane.
2) Perusal of record of investigation indicates that, the Investigating Officer has addressed a letter-cum-requisition dated 4th October 2024, to the Civil Court at Thane, thereby requesting to give a certified copy of the said Agreement filed in Regular Civil Suit No.356 of 2022, before the Civil Court, at Thane. Necessary charges for getting the certified copy of the said Agreement are also paid on 7th October 2024. The Nazir of the concerned Court has issued a receipt in that behalf.
3) Today the Petition is taken up for hearing. During the course of hearing, upon a query by the Court, it was informed by learned APP that, till date, the Registry of the concerned Civil Court at Thane has not supplied/given certified copy of the said document to the Investigating Officer and therefore the Investigating Officer could not complete the investigation by recording his final conclusion.
4) We are unable to accept a situation where an Application made by the Investigating Officer with the Registry of the Civil Court for getting the certified copy of the document required for the purpose of investigation, is not provided to the Investigating Agency in last more than ten months.
5) We therefore direct the Registrar General of this Court to conduct an in-depth enqiry into the said aspect and submit a detailed report in that behalf on or before the 2/5
next date.
5.1) The said enquiry be conducted within a period of two weeks from today.
6) Stand over to 2nd September 2025.
7) To be listed under the caption 'For Directions'." 3.
Thereafter, vide order dated 2nd September, 2025, this Court passed the following order :
"1) In pursuance of Order dated 12th August, 2025, the Registrar (Judicial-1) has forwarded Report of the Registrar General of this Court in a sealed envelop. The sealed envelop is open in Court.
2) We have perused the Report.
2.1) We direct the Registrar General to place on record the ultimate result of the administrative action initiated against the concerned staff by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thane on or before the next date.
3) Learned A.P.P. submitted that, the Investigating Officer has now received the certified copy of the Agreement dated 12th July, 2019 on 20% August, 2025 from the Registry of the District Court, Thane and requested four weeks time to conclude the investigation of the present crime.
4) Learned Advocate for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the Petition unconditionally.
3/5
4.1) Leave granted.
5) Disposed off as withdrawn.
6) The Registrar General of this Court is directed to place on record its Report as directed above, on or before 1" October, 2025.
7) Stand over to 1a October, 2025.
7.1) To be listed under the caption 'For Directions'." 4.
With the aforesaid directions, the aforesaid petition was disposed of as withdrawn. Pursuant thereto, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thane conducted an inquiry as directed. From a perusal of the Inquiry Report, it appears that as the explanation submitted by the concerned staff was not found to be satisfactory, the concerned staff was given a warning 'not to repeat such mistake while doing office work in the future'. Moreover, a minor punishment of 'censure' was imposed on two Court officers, as there was non-compliance during their tenure in the said department. From the report, it also appears that the entries of 'censure' have been made in the service book of two officers i.e. Smt. G.D.Kadam and 4/5
Smt. S.N.Idekar.
5.
Considering the aforesaid action, no further orders. SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
5/5