Latest news with #SunilMahendraSharma
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
HC flags cop's attempt to produce ‘imposter' as complainant
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently expressed concern over the conduct of a police officer, who attempted to deceive the court by presenting an impersonator as the original complainant in a case against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Bombay High Court (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO) The company had approached the court challenging a notice received on June 30, from the Maharashtra cyber police, 'restraining the company from making objectionable or controversial statements'. A reference was made in the notice to a complaint received on June 12, against the TV serial Tum Se Tum Tak. However, when the petitioner tried to approach the purported complainant, Sunil Mahendra Sharma, they were informed by the security guard that no such person resided at the address. Following this, the court on July 8 directed the police officer concerned to produce the complainant before the bench, along with his Aadhar card, voter identity card, and proof of his permanent address. On the same day, the police inspector conveyed to the court that Sharma had been traced to a different address, which was not mentioned in the complaint dated June 12, and produced him before the court. When the complainant's identity documents were submitted, the court found several inconsistencies and noticed that they belonged to a certain Mahendra Sanjay Sharma, and not the complainant – Sunil Mahendra Sharma. To further verify his identity, the court directed him to affix his signature to a sheet of paper, to compare it with those on the documents. To the surprise of the court, the signatures did not match. An additional public prosecutor informed the court that Mahendra had approached the police officer and claimed he was the complainant, after which, he was brought to the court. The division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, however, recorded the disturbing conduct of the police officer, observing that any attempt to hoodwink the court and produce an imposter before it, with the object to snatch an order based on misinformation or wrong information, cannot be countenanced. 'Even if the man claims to be the complainant, it clearly is a blatant lie considering the various documents on record. This case becomes more serious because this man tried to initially sign as Sunil Sharma,' the court observed. The court further highlighted that giving false evidence in any manner is to be dealt with legally, and directed the police officer to file an affidavit to provide his explanation. 'Any person who intentionally makes a false statement in a legal proceeding knowing or believes it to be false, is an offence,' the court clarified and posted the matter for further hearing to July 28.
India Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Maharashtra cop faces court ire over false evidence in complaint against TV serial
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 man signed on paper thrice, each time giving different 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 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 bench directed the police officer as well as the complainant to file affidavits and will hear the case again on July 28.- EndsMust Watch
