Can’t Remain Mute Spectator Of Casual Investigation: Bombay High Court Directs Expedited Investigation In Fake Court Order Case
The Bombay High Court was considering a matter where it was alleged that an advocate had submitted fabricated orders of the Court to his client.
While observing that a Court cannot remain a mute spectator of the irresponsible/casual investigation being carried out in a case where it was alleged that a lawyer had fabricated Court orders and shared the same with his client, the Bombay High Court has ordered the investigation to be completed before the next date of hearing.
The Bench expressed shock and anguish over the fact that the investigation was being carried out in a casual manner.
The High Court was considering a matter where it was alleged that an advocate (applicant) fabricated the orders of the Court as well as the orders passed by other authorities and submitted the same to his client (informant).
The Single Bench of Justice R. M. Joshi stated, “This Court is conscious of the position of law that unnecessary interference in the investigation at the hands of the High Court is not expected. However, when there is apparent fact on record that orders of this Court are fabricated, this Court cannot remain as mute spectator of the irresponsible / casual investigation being carried out in this case. This Court therefore has no hesitation to issue directions for further investigation to be carried out in this case to ascertain as to who has fabricated the said orders of this Court as well as the other orders as alleged. Such direction is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that the majesty of law is maintained and the real culprit who has fabricated documents is brought to the book.”
Factual Background
It was the case of the Informant that orders dated October 17, 2022 and December 12, 2022, were given by the applicant to the informant. As per the informant client, the said orders were fabricated documents. Similar allegations were made in respect of other orders. On the basis of said FIR, the offence came to be registered against the Applicant under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was in such circumstances that the applicant approached the High Court seeking bail.
Reasoning
The Bench found prima facie material on record to show that the orders were bogus documents. “Since it is the case of the fabrication of documents of this Court with an order, the investigation ought to have been done in an utmost serious manner and that all efforts ought to have taken in order to find out as to who has forged the said documents”, it added.
Considering that the Additional Public Prosecutor was unable to show any evidence collected during the course of the investigation, the Bench stated, “This is a shocking state of affair that the investigation in this case has been done in the most casual manner. There is reason to believe that the investigation was done not to find out the real culprit who prepared the said bogus orders, and that it was done in predetermined manner and in one direction only.”
The Bench stated that there was material on record to show that the Applicant had relied upon the fact that there were screenshots of WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the informant, which, according to him, indicated a conversation between them much after the said orders were allegedly given by the applicant to the informant. The Bench stated that there was further evidence on record to show that the investigating officer was fully aware of the fact that the said documents were being placed on record by the Applicant before the Sessions Court as well as before the High Court in an anticipatory bail application.
“Moreover, the said documents are shown as part of the charge-sheet. This clearly indicates that Informant had knowledge of the said documents much after they were found to be true indicate that there was conversation between the Applicant and the Informant with regard to the proceedings in which bogus orders were already given to him prior to 12th December, 2022”, it added.
Considering that the seized phone was returned to the applicant, the Bench stated, “This act is not of a prudence. Thus, inspite knowledge of possibility of existence of such evidence, the Investigating Officer has avoided to carry out investigation in this regard. It is not expected from investigating agency to conduct investigation in pre-meditated manner and it must make an endeavour to reach to the truth of allegation. Such attempt must also be seen from evidence collected in the investigation, which is absent herein.”
The Bench thus directed the Senior Police Inspector of Azad Maidan Police to conduct further investigation, more particularly from the point of view of documents i.e. WhatsApp record placed by the Applicant before this Court. “The investigation be concluded before next date of hearing”, it ordered. The Bench has further asked that the report of the further investigation be produced for consideration on June 15, 2026.
Cause Title: Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu v. State Of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Bail Application No. 2659 of 2025)
Appearance
Applicant: Advocates Sudeep Pasbola, Kaushalya Patil, Smita Sonavane
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor P.P. Malse, Advocates Rizwan Merchant, Ramiz Shaikh, Suraj Pareshi, Aradhya Sharma, Neelima Kulkarni