"Bombay High Court Rebukes Police Officer for Presenting Impersonator as Complainant in Case Against Zee TV"
The Bombay High Court, in the matter of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v The Inspector of Police, strongly reprimanded Inspector Prafull Wagh of the Nodal Cyber Police Station for presenting an impersonator as the complainant in proceedings against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. The Division Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad expressed serious concern over the officer’s conduct, stating that their judicial conscience was "shocked" by such an act. The Court noted that the individual, Mahendra Sanjay Sharma, falsely claimed to be the original complainant, Sunil Sharma, and even attempted to sign documents under the false identity
7/28/20251 min read
The Bombay High Court, presided by Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad, addressed the bizarre episode involving Inspector Prafull Wagh. Summoned to present the original complainant, Sunil Sharma, as per court instructions, Wagh instead produced a stranger—Mahendra Sanjay Sharma—purportedly impersonating Sunil. The matter arose during FIR-related proceedings against Zee TV.
The Bench had previously ordered Inspector Wagh to bring the actual complainant—verified via identity documents—on July 16. Contrary to this, Wagh substituted Mahendra Sanjay Sharma, claiming he was “Sunil Mahendra Sharma.”Upon scrutiny of his Aadhar and Voter ID, it was revealed his true identity did not match. The Court then asked him to provide his signature; none of the three signatures matched the one on the original FIR. The Bench condemned the act, describing it as a blatant attempt to deceive the Court and calling it “very disturbing.
The Court directed both Inspector Wagh and the impersonator, Mahendra Sanjay Sharma, to file sworn affidavits explaining the incident by July 24.
The Bench emphasized that legal action under Sections 215 and 379 of the Evidence Act/CrPC would follow based on their affidavits and further investigation.
The Bombay High Court unequivocally rejected any justification for presenting a fake complainant, labeling it a serious breach of judicial integrity. It underscored that no effort to mislead the Court would go unchallenged, and ordered formal explanations to determine whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. The ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s intolerance for manipulation of legal processes.