Case Note & Summary
The criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court arose from a challenge by a television broadcaster against a preventive notice issued under Section 168 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the underlying complaint that triggered it. The petitioner, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., sought quashing of the notice dated 30 June 2025 and the complaint dated 12 June 2025, contending that the complaint was lodged by a fictitious person and that the police had acted negligently. The respondents included the Inspector of Police, Nodal Cyber Police Station, Mumbai, the Additional Director General of Police, Maharashtra State Cyber Department, the State of Maharashtra, and the complainant named as Sunil Mahendra Sharma, later admitted to be Mahendra Sanjay Sharma. The court made Rule returnable forthwith and heard the matter finally with consent. On 12 June 2025, a complaint was lodged with the Additional Director General of Police alleging that the television serial Tum Se Tum Tak, scheduled for release on ZEE5 on 16 June 2025, contained inappropriate content and could hurt public sentiments. Based on this complaint, the police issued a notice under Section 168 BNSS on 30 June 2025 directing the broadcaster to refrain from telecasting the show until completion of the inquiry. The petitioner immediately approached the High Court. During earlier hearings on 4 July and 16 July 2025, it was discovered that the complainant did not exist at the given address and that the person who had filed the complaint was actually Mahendra Sanjay Sharma, who had impersonated Sunil Mahendra Sharma. The complainant had made false statements about his identity and signatures on voter ID and Aadhaar card. The investigating officer, Prafull Wagh, was found to have acted with gross negligence in not verifying the complainant's identity. Both the IO and the complainant were directed to file affidavits. The Advocate General, appearing for the State, conceded that there was no justification for the IO's failure to verify the complainant, but urged the court to accept the IO's unconditional apology, citing his otherwise unblemished record. The State also informed the court that administrative action had been taken against the IO, including proposed major penalty, departmental enquiry, and internal transfer, and that a Standard Operating Procedure for cybercrime complaints had been issued effective 24 July 2025. It was further stated that an FIR was being contemplated against the complainant for impersonation and identity theft. The complainant's counsel sought a lenient view based on unconditional apology, while the petitioner's counsel argued that the complainant was put up by a competitor to harass the broadcaster and that two sets of complaints with different mobile numbers demonstrated mala fides. The court, after perusing the affidavits, found that the complainant had impersonated himself as Sunil Mahendra Sharma and filed a complaint under a false name, admitted to the impersonation, and that the complaint was based merely on news items and social media opinions. The court was not satisfied with the explanation and noted that the act appeared to have been done with mala fide intent, possibly at the behest of a competitor, which was left to the police to investigate. It also recorded that the IO had admitted negligence and expressed regret, and that until the discrepancy in mobile numbers was discovered during the court hearing on 4 July 2025, he had no reason to doubt the complainant because the latter was accessible on a given mobile number. The available judgment text does not include the final operative order, but the court's findings establish the fraudulent nature of the complaint and the police negligence, supporting the petitioner's challenge to the notice.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Powers and Duties - Verification of Complainant Identity - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 168 - The investigating officer failed to verify the complainant's identity and existence, issuing a preventive notice under Section 168 BNSS on the basis of a fictitious complaint; the officer admitted negligence and administrative action including proposed major penalty and transfer was initiated - Held that basic verification of complainant identity is a prerequisite before such notice, and the IO's apology and departmental action were accepted (Paras 3-8, 10). B) Criminal Law - Offences Against Public Justice - Impersonation and Identity Theft - Not mentioned - Complainant filed complaint under false name Sunil Mahendra Sharma, misrepresented identity on statutory documents, and admitted impersonation; court found complaint was frivolous and mala fide, possibly at behest of competitor, and left the matter for police investigation with FIR contemplated - Held that impersonation and false complaint amount to abuse of process and warrant criminal action (Paras 4, 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a notice under Section 168 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 issued on the basis of a complaint by a fictitious person should be quashed; whether the Investigating Officer failed in verifying the complainant's identity and whether disciplinary/administrative action is warranted; whether the complainant's impersonation and filing of a false complaint amounts to abuse of process and requires criminal action.
Law Points
- Preventive notice under Section 168 BNSS must follow basic verification of complainant identity
- Police officer has duty to verify complainant before issuing directions
- Impersonation and filing false complaint amounts to abuse of process
- Negligence by investigating officer warrants departmental action
- Administrative action may be taken against erring police officer
- Standard Operating Procedure issued for cybercrime complaints
- FIR contemplated for impersonation and identity theft
