Bombay High Court

SHREE SADA SHANKAR KAMADIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The petition is allowed; the charge‑sheet is quashed because sanction was not obtained and the prosecution failed to demonstrate the petitioner’s complicity.

Summary

The petitioner, a Sub‑Registrar, was indicted for allegedly registering a fabricated Power of Attorney that was used to obtain a loan. He filed a writ petition challenging the charge‑sheet, arguing that prosecution of a government servant requires prior sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of the CrPC, which was denied by the competent authority. The court examined whether the prosecution had established the petitioner’s complicity or abetment in the alleged fraud and noted that the petitioner himself had lodged a complaint under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. Finding no prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s participation and confirming the lack of sanction, the court held that the charge‑sheet and related proceedings must be quashed. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the case against the petitioner was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether prosecution of a public servant without prior sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of the CrPC is valid.
Whether the sanction for prosecuting the petitioner was denied by the competent authority.
Whether the prosecution has established the petitioner’s complicity or abetment in the alleged fraudulent registration of the Power of Attorney.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 197(1)(b)
Indian Penal Code — s. 120(b), 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
Registration Act, 1908 — s. 82, 83

Subjects

public servant sanction
Section 197 CrPC
Registration Act
false Power of Attorney
abetment
quash charge sheet
writ petition

Judgment

31.WP.1450.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1450 OF 2026

Shree Sada Shankar Kamadi .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
 Mr. Pradeep Dube a/w. Mr. Mandar Joshi, Ms. Devanshi Joshi,
Advocates for Petitioner.
 Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent No.1.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Dube, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.

Phad, learned APP for Respondent.

2. On 17.09.2026, the following order came to be passed:-

“1. Heard Mr. Dube, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.
Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. Mr. Dube, learned Advocate would submit that Petitioner
is working as a Sub-Registrar and a public servant. He would submit
that in the course of his duty, Petitioner has verified a Power of
Attorney. The protagonist and the antagonist in the present case are
the husband and wife. The husband has accused the wife and her
associates of having prepared a false Power of Attorney and having
used it for seeking a loan. Since the said Power of Attorney was
registered in the presence of Petitioner before me when he was the
Sub-Registrar of Assurances, the Petitioner has also been indicted in
the supplementary charge-sheet in the present case.
3. In the first charge-sheet filed, the Sub-Registrar was cited
as a witness. There are two principal points advanced by Mr. Dube.
He would submit that before prosecuting the Petitioner, sanction as
contemplated by the provisions of Section 197(1)(b) has not been
obtained and therefore it vitiates the criminal proceedings filed
against the Petitioner.
4. Next he would submit that the sanction has been infact
denied by the Competent Authority. In that regard, he has placed

1 of 4
31.WP.1450.2026.doc

before the Court additional Affidavit on behalf of Petitioner dated
22.04.2026, in which denial of sanction has been appended at page
No.10 of the said reasoning.
5. Once the aforesaid issues are prima facie seen, Petition
deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, when the Petitioner is a
government servant, before filing any prosecution, sanction of the
Competent Authority is a mandatory requirement.
6. Mr. Karmakar is directed to take appropriate instructions
and accordingly apprise the Court so that the Petition can be disposed
of tomorrow.
7. Stand over to 18th September 2026. To be placed under
the caption ‘For Orders’.”

3. Carrying forward today, it prima facie seems that the

additional affidavit dated 22.04.2026 which is referred to in paragraph

No.4 of the aforesaid order for the reasons mentioned therein prima

facie states that the sanction should not be given for prosecuting the

Petitioner before the Court. The Petitioner is a Government servant,

public servant who in the course of his duty registered the Power of

Attorney which according to the prosecution, was a false and fake

document having been prepared by the principal accused persons for

seeking a loan from a financial institution.

4. The prosecution has not been able to prima facie show the

complicity of the Petitioner in the alleged crime. Neither the

prosecution has shown that the Petitioner is a beneficiary. In fact, the

record prima facie shows that the Petitioner himself initiated action

under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 for seeking

appropriate steps through the concerned Investigation Officer, the

moment he realized about the aforesaid incongruousness with regard

2 of 4
31.WP.1450.2026.doc

to the subject Power of Attorney. The Investigating Officer did not take

cognizance of the Petitioner’s own complaint filed. Rather, prosecution

was launched and Petitioner was therefore made a witness in

accordance with the first charge-sheet filed. The second charge-sheet

also does not mention the Petitioner but after taking cognizance, the

Petitioner has now been arraigned as an accused.

5. Ms. Phad would vehemently submit that registration of a

fabricated Power of Attorney by the Petitioner when he is supposed to

scrutinize each and every element thereof was required to be done and

that not having been done, he has been indicted. I prima facie may

agree to a certain extent with the submissions made by the learned

APP but in the present case, prosecution has not been able to show any

precise connivance or collusion of the Petitioner with the principal

accused persons qua the subject Power of Attorney which came to be

registered.

6. It is infact the Petitioner who on his own volition after

realizing that there was some mischief carried out addressed a

complaint to the Investigating Officer concerned. The provisions of

Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 qualify stringent penalties for

individuals who commit fraudulent acts, provide false information,

impersonate others, or abet offences under the Act.

7. In the present case, only to the extent of abetment the

3 of 4
31.WP.1450.2026.doc

Petitioner can be held liable but that also has not been shown by the

prosecution. It is precisely on this very material that State Authorities

have infact recommended that sanction should be denied which is

evident from the additional affidavit dated 22.04.2025.

8. In that view of the matter, I am agreeable with the submissions

made by Mr. Dube for allowing the present Petition. The Petition,

therefore, stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads

thus:-

“b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Charge Sheet
bearing C.C.No. 3409/PW/2024 pending before the Ld.
24th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Borivali registered
under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b) of
Indian Penal Code qua the Present Petitioner. ”

9. Order of cognizance dated 26.06.2025 appended at page

No.65 of the Petition is also quashed and set aside. All further

consequential actions are quashed and set aside.

10. Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of.

H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.09.28
19:28:11 +0530

4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…