VINAY DEVIPRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By our Order dtd. 17/7/2023 we had directed the Petitioner to delete Respondent No.2 from the array of the Respondents so also from pleadings and prayer clauses in the Petition qua him. The Petition was thereafter adjourned for today.

(2.) The Sec. Officer, Criminal Writ Petition Branch has submitted a report dtd. 24/7/2023 to the Registrar (Judicial-I). In un- numbered paragraph No.3 of the said report, it is stated as under:- "He started to make an amendment in all the three petitions. While he was carrying out the amendment, I noticed that he put a note in red ink on original order of the Court dated 17 th July 2023. Therefore, I stopped him from carrying out amendment, but he did not listen and started arguing with me. He forcefully took the matter from me and went outside the branch with original papers. So, I also went outside, but by that time he had put whitener on the portion written by him on original order. Therefore, I approached Your Honour to inform you about the incident happened. On that whole day he was arguing with staff members. As he had written something on original order and later on applied the whitener, he was asked to keep on record that he had done the said act, as the same is original order of the Hon'ble Court. However, he had flatly refused to admit his act and behaved arrogantly. His intention appeared to implicate the staff members about tampering with original record. Thus, in this circumstances, he was not allowed to carry out amendment." (underline emphasized)

(3.) Record indicates that, the Petitioner has deleted name of the Respondent No.2 from the pages of index, synopsis and cause title however has not deleted from page No.1 of the Petition.