Kumudini Bhaskaran vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

asked the learned Addl.PP to take instructions as regards the status of the complaint and as to why the First Information Report (FIR) has not been registered.

¶13

The learned Addl. PP, Mr. Gavand, makes a serious grievance about Law Global Advocates, who had issued a notice dated 7^th August, 2025, to the learned Public Prosecutor High Court (Appellate Side), Mumbai, which reads as under :-

¶14

1/5

Trupti

45-wp-3086-2025

“7^th August 2025

To

The Public Prosecutor High Court (AS) Mumbai – 400 032.

¶20

Sir,

¶21

Ref: In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

¶22

Criminal Writ Petition No. 3086 of 2025

¶23

Dist.: THANE

¶24

Kumudini Bhaskaran … Petitioner

¶25

-Versus-

¶26

State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents

¶27

Sir,

¶28

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above referred matter was mentioned on 5th August, 2025 before the division bench of Their Lordships (Coram: Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Mr. Justice Gautam Ankhad JJ.).

¶29

The Hon'ble High Court has specifically directed the 1.d. Public Prosecutor, Shri Gavand, to take instructions and explain why no FIR has been registered till date, despite the seriousness of the allegations involved.

¶30

The matter is now listed for hearing on 11^th August, 2025 before the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay.

¶31

You are hereby called upon to take immediate steps to comply with the said directions, and ensure your

2/5

Trupti

45-wp-3086-2025

presence and preparedness when the matter is taken up for hearing on the aforesaid date ie. 11^th August, 2025 at 11 a.m. or soon thereafter when the referred petition is taken up for hearing.

¶36

You may kindly acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

LAW GLOBAL Advocates for the Petitioner.”

¶41

The contents of the notice are distasteful and unwarranted.

¶42

When we called upon the learned Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Jha, as to what was the reason for issuing such notice to the Public Prosecutor, he started defending the notice. The contents of the notice, as reproduced above, clearly indicate unwarranted conduct on the part of the Lawyer Firm.

¶43

While dictating this order, we paused for lunchtime and were about to rise, when Mr. Jha stated that he would tender an apology after the lunch recess and that the aforesaid letter would be withdrawn.

¶44

After the lunch recess, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner

¶45

has tendered an apology dated 11^th August, 2025 to the learned Addl.PP. A copy of the same is placed on record and which is marked as ‘X-1’ for identification.

3/5

Trupti

45-wp-3086-2025

The learned Addl.PP, Mr.Gavand, graciously submits that he would give a quietus to this matter.

¶50

On the merits of the issue before us, we were inclined to direct that the senior citizen should not be summoned for investigation prior to 11:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m.; that she should be interrogated within one hour of reporting to the police station; and that she should not be summoned on public holidays.

¶51

The learned Addl.PP points out that, except some cash transaction entries, the preliminary inquiry is almost complete. He submits that it is the son and daughter-in-law of the Petitioner who have made investments in cash and are required to explain the said cash transactions. However, they have not come forward and have not given their statements to the police.

¶52