The Bombay High Court came down heavily on a Maharashtra police officer for allegedly providing false evidence during a hearing involving a media conglomerate that had received a notice over a TV serial complaint.

Holding that “giving false evidence in any manner is to be dealt with legally,” the Bombay High Court observed that any person who intentionally makes a false statement in a legal proceeding, knowing or believing it to be false, commits an offence.

The division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad was hearing an urgent plea moved by a media conglomerate, which had received a notice from a police inspector from Nodal Cyber Police Station, Maharashtra Cyber, which asked it to ‘refrain from making objectionable or controversial statements’ over a ‘complaint received against “Tum Se Tum Tak” TV serial’.

The division bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad, said, “This deepens the controversy since, prima facie, it appears that the Police Inspector acted high-handedly while issuing the notice.” The court instructed Inspector Prafull Wagh to present the supposed complainant with identification.

The media house submitted that they checked the address of the ‘complainant’, Sunil Mahendra Sharma, but no such person resided at the address specified in the complaint.

The bench said that “this deepens the controversy since, prima facie, it appears that the inspector acted high-handedly while issuing the notice” to the media conglomerate. The bench directed the inspector, Prafull Wagh, to bring Sunil Mahendra Sharma to court along with his aadhar card, voter card, and proof of his permanent address.

Wagh brought a person who he claimed was Sunil Mahendra Sharma. However, when the court examined his identity card, the bench realised that it was of Mahendra Sanjay Sharma and not Sunil.

To get further clarity, the bench handed over paper to the man to sign on the page to compare his signature with those appearing on the complaint.

The man signed on paper thrice, each time giving different signatures.

After going through the same, the bench said, “Prima facie, we find that this man, Mahendra Sanjay Sharma, has been produced by Police Officer Wagh as a proxy in the court. He is not the complainant… His three signatures do not match the signature on the complaint.”

The addresses on two of the man’s identity cards were of different addresses, but none matched with the address on the complaint.

All this while, the man in court claimed that he had prepared the complaint and signed on it. “This is yet another lie,” said the court, adding,”This matter not only needs investigation, but also an inquiry as to the behavior and conduct of the Police Officer Wagh.”

The bench further observed, “It is very disturbing for the Court to record the conduct and behaviour of the cop. “Any attempt to hoodwink the Court and produce an impostor before the Court with the object of snatching an order, based on misinformation or wrong information, cannot be countenanced,” the bench observed.

The bench directed the police officer as well as the complainant to file affidavits and will hear the case again on July 28.

– Ends