Back
Raps Police Over 'Shocking' Probe into Forged Orders, Orders Deeper Dig
In a stern rebuke to investigative lapses, the has flagged a "casual and predetermined" police probe into allegations that an advocate fabricated court orders. Justice R. M. Joshi, presiding over Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Bail Application No. 2659 of 2025), directed further investigation while adjourning the bail plea to . This move underscores the court's intolerance for slipshod policing when its own orders are allegedly faked.
From Client Trust to Forgery Fallout
Vinaykumar Ashok Khatu, an advocate, faces charges under for allegedly handing his client (the informant and Respondent No. 2) fake orders dated , and , from a related SA (ST) No. 22983 of 2022 case. The informant claimed discovery of the forgery later, leading to FIR No. 308/2025 at . A charge-sheet followed on .
The timeline highlights a strained lawyer-client dynamic: post-alleged handover, WhatsApp chats purportedly show ongoing discussions about the case's pendency, raising doubts over the forgery timeline and the applicant's involvement.
Defense Fires Back with Digital Trail, Prosecution Cites Witness Accounts
Khatu's counsel, led by , argued false implication, pointing to WhatsApp screenshots exchanged long after the supposed forgery, suggesting the client knew the real status. They claimed these chats, already in the charge-sheet, were ignored.
The State, via , countered with witness statements alleging the applicant handed over the fakes. The informant's lawyer, , highlighted the applicant's " " of similar past accusations and dismissed the chats as inadmissible sans certification. He invoked to argue courts shouldn't meddle in probes.
Court Cuts Through the Probe's Flaws, Echoes Supreme Court Caution
Justice Joshi dissected the investigation's shortcomings. , the orders were bogus, demanding "utmost serious" scrutiny into the forger's identity. Yet, the Investigating Officer couldn't produce evidence on fabrication origins—a "shocking state of affairs."
The court noted the police knew of the WhatsApp material from bail hearings but failed to seize or analyze the applicant's returned mobile phone. This one-sided probe ignored leads exonerating the applicant, breaching the duty to seek truth.
Referencing paragraph 24 of
D. Venkatasubramaniam
(Supreme Court), Justice Joshi clarified that while high courts avoid routine interference, casual remarks or inaction on grave issues like court order forgery warrant action. Here, the fabrication's gravity justified intervention to
"maintain the majesty of law."
As media reports noted, the cannot remain a "mute spectator" to such probes, aligning with its call for fair, serious investigations into court order fabrications.
Punchy Quotes That Pack a Punch
-
On probe quality :
"This is a shocking state of affair that the investigation in this case has been done in the most casual manner. There is reason to believe that the investigation was done not to find out the real culprit... but in predetermined manner and in one direction only."
-
Court's stance :
"This Court cannot remain as mute spectator of the irresponsible / casual investigation being carried out in this case."
-
Duty reminder :
"It is not expected from investigating agency to conduct investigation in pre-meditated manner and it must make an endeavour to reach to the truth of allegation."
Probe Reset: Bail on Hold, Truth in Sight
The court issued targeted orders:
- Senior Police Inspector, , to probe WhatsApp records and fabrication source.
- Conclude by next hearing on , with report filed.
Bail stands adjourned, not rejected. This signals courts' readiness to mandate thorough probes in forgery cases targeting judicial orders, potentially setting a precedent for oversight in high-stakes criminal matters. Real culprits may now face the spotlight, bolstering judicial integrity.
