HC flags cop’s attempt to produce ‘imposter’ as complainant

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

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.