Disposed¶42

Prabhakar Laccha Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2025WP/2084/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certified copy delay by Civil Court Registry Thane; Registrar General enquiry; forgery of Agreement of Conducting business dated 12 July 2019; Regular Civil Suit No. 356 of 2022; Kashimira Police Station investigation stalled; censure entries in service books of Smt. G.D. Kadam and Smt. S.N. Idekar; warning to court staff; writ petition withdrawn unconditionally; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; bench of Sandesh D. Patil and Revati Mohite Dere; no further orders.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally was granted; the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. ¶42

Prabhakar Laccha Shetty and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally was granted; the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

¶42

Issue for consideration

What remedial and disciplinary action should follow the Civil Court Registry at Thane's failure, for more than ten months, to provide the Investigating Officer the certified copy of the document required for the purpose of investigation? +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The Court found it unacceptable that an application by the Investigating Officer to the Civil Court Registry for a certified copy needed for investigation remained unfulfilled for more than ten months, and directed the Registrar General of the High Court to conduct an in-depth enquiry into the aspect and submit a detailed report, the enquiry to be completed within two weeks.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed 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.

¶31

Key takeaways

In view of the disciplinary action taken pursuant to the inquiry — a warning to the concerned staff and imposition of censure on two Court officers, with censure entries made in their service books (Smt. G.D. Kadam and Smt. S.N. Idekar) — the Court considered further orders unnecessary.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2084 of 2024 — Prabhakar Laccha Shetty v. State of Maharashtra. The Petitioners faced a criminal allegation of forging an Agreement of Conducting business dated 12th July 2019, used in Regular Civil Suit No. 356 of 2022 before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Thane. Despite the Investigating Officer's letter-cum-requisition dated 4th October 2024 (charges paid 7th October 2024), the Civil Court Registry at Thane did not supply the certified copy for over ten months, preventing completion of investigation. The Court directed the Registrar General to hold an in-depth enquiry; the resulting inquiry by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thane produced a warning to the concerned staff and censure entered in the service books of two officers (Smt. G.D. Kadam and Smt. S.N. Idekar). The certified copy was received on 20th August 2025. The Petitioners were permitted to withdraw unconditionally; the petition was disposed of as withdrawn and no further orders were made.

¶1

6-WP-2084-2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by RUPALI RUPALI RAJESH RAJESH WAKODIKAR WAKODIKAR Date: 2025.10.16 11:55:19 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2024

¶5

Prabhakar Laccha Shetty And Anr ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Yogesh Gaikwad i/b M/s. Bilawala & Co. for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, Addl.P.P for the Respondent-State.

¶8

API – Mr. Dnyaneshwar Patil attached to Kashimira Police Station, present.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 2^nd September, 2025.

¶11

On 12^th August, 2025, the following order was passed in

¶12

the aforesaid petition :

1/5

Wakodikar

6-WP-2084-2024.doc

“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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

Wakodikar

6-WP-2084-2024.doc

next date.

5.1) The said enquiry be conducted within a period of two weeks from today.

¶26

1. Stand over to 2nd September 2025.

¶27

To be listed under the caption 'For Directions'.”

¶28

Thereafter, vide order dated 2^nd September, 2025, this Court passed the following order :

¶29

“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.

¶30

We have perused the Report.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Learned Advocate for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the Petition unconditionally.

3/5

Wakodikar

6-WP-2084-2024.doc

4.1) Leave granted.

¶38

1. Disposed off as withdrawn.

¶39

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to place on record its Report as directed above, on or before 1" October, 2025.

¶40

1. Stand over to 1ª October, 2025.

¶41

7.1) To be listed under the caption 'For Directions'.”

¶42

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.

¶43

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

Wakodikar

6-WP-2084-2024.doc

Smt. S.N.Idekar.

Considering the aforesaid action, no further orders.

¶49

SANDESH D. PATIL, J.

¶50

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶51

5/5

¶52

Wakodikar

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Allegation in the crime: the Petitioners committed forgery of an Agreement of Conducting business dated 12th July 2019, which was presented/used in Regular Civil Suit No. 356 of 2022 pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Thane.¶16
Prior proceeding
The Investigating Officer addressed a letter-cum-requisition dated 4th October 2024 to the Civil Court at Thane seeking a certified copy of the Agreement filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 356 of 2022; charges were paid on 7th October 2024 and the Nazir issued a receipt.¶17
Prior proceeding
As informed at the hearing, the Registry of the Civil Court at Thane had not supplied the certified copy, so the Investigating Officer could not complete the investigation by recording his final conclusion.¶18
Prior proceeding
By order dated 12th August 2025 the Court found the failure to provide the certified copy for more than ten months unacceptable and directed the Registrar General to conduct an in-depth enquiry and submit a detailed report within two weeks; the matter stood over to 2nd September 2025 under the caption 'For Directions'.¶20
Prior proceeding
By order dated 2nd September 2025: the Registrar General's report was received in a sealed envelope and opened in Court; the Court directed that the ultimate result of the administrative action initiated against the concerned staff by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thane be placed on record by the next date.¶31
Prior proceeding
Learned APP informed the Court that the Investigating Officer received the certified copy of the Agreement dated 12th July 2019 on 20th August 2025 (printed as "20% August, 2025") from the Registry of the District Court, Thane, and sought four weeks to conclude the investigation.¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioners sought leave to withdraw the petition unconditionally; leave was granted and the petition was disposed of as withdrawn.¶38
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the Court's directions, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thane conducted the inquiry.¶42
Prior proceeding
Inquiry Report findings: the explanation of the concerned staff was unsatisfactory and a warning was given 'not to repeat such mistake'; a minor punishment of censure was imposed on two Court officers for non-compliance during their tenure; censure entries were made in the service books of Smt. G.D. Kadam and Smt. S.N. Idekar.¶43

Prabhakar Laccha Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Laccha Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalpesh Ishwarlal Patel vs Ila Pravin Solani and Anr.

Ramesh B. Pokhriyal and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Faizan Ahsan vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Ali Noormohammad Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devi Prasad Biswal vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan Gajendra Pawar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.