Bombay High Court case, 2019

From The Sannyas Wiki
Revision as of 11:08, 14 March 2023 by Sugit (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is the sequel, in a roundabout way, to the Bombay High Court case in 2016, in which Sw Prem Geet (Yogesh Thakkar) petitioned the Court to get Osho's alleged Last Will and Testament investigated more assiduously than was happening under the aegis of the Pune police. Ma Yoga Videh (Vaidehe Vadgama) and Sw Chidananda (Alvaro Ruffo della Scaletta) joined Prem Geet in that case as "intervenors" and went on to play more prominent roles in the cases to come. The larger story of the alleged will can be found at Osho's fake will. This page is a chapter in that larger story.

The 2016 case ran for two years and was dismissed in Oct 2018, the HC basically accepting that the Pune police had investigated adequately. Thereupon Prem Geet went to the Supreme Court of India, with Videh and Chidananda again participating independently as intervenors, having learned about Prem Geet's "Special Leave Petition" only by chance at the last minute. The SC judges disposed of the Petition quickly on Jan 18 2019, noting that the petitioners could still maintain all their legal options by starting over in Pune Magistrate Court and, should they do that, the judges directed that "the Magistrate shall consider the objections to [the police's] ‘C’ Summary Report expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today".

This six-month limit was a condition requested by Videh and Chidananda's lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani. It is said to be an unusually short time for a Magistrate's Court case to come to completion, cases often taking years. In the event, the Pune Magistrate Court heard their case and dismissed it in Jul 2019, that Magistrate again finding no problem with the Pune police's handling of the investigation, simply and blandly accepting their "C" Summary report. "C" Summary reports come in different flavours, see Glossary below; this one was that "the case of the alleged forgery of Osho’s Will is neither true or false”, ie the police could not establish whether the will was true or false, because they could not get hold of the original will. This position, depending on the lack of the original will, is debunked below, in the first "Grounds" for the current appeal case.

At this point, Prem Geet's path diverged from that of Videh and Chidananda. He appealed the Magistrate's decision in the next higher court in the Pune District system and was dismissed again, while Videh and Chidananda took their appeal back to Bombay High Court.

Their appeal began to be heard in late 2019 and is in suspended animation due to the covid pandemic as of Oct 2021. It is nominally an appeal of the Pune Magistrate's decision but the judges in the first session explicitly commented on the failures of "this Court", ie Bombay High Court in the 2016 case. A potentially interesting aspect of this comment is that one of the judges involved, Smt Sadhana S Jadhav, was also a judge in that earlier case.

the High Court's website

As in BHC 2016, the previous case, full transcripts of the proceedings are not available but some detail can be gleaned from the BHC website regarding the concerned parties, the lawyers, the judges, and their rulings or pronouncements. To view such details, one has to jump through certain hoops to access the information on this site. Start at BHC's home page and mouseover "Case Status", then click on "Party Wise". Then in the various preset choice boxes, if not already there by default, choose "Bombay", "Criminal", "Petitioner" and "2019", and type "Vaidehe" (Videh) in the text box, deal with the captcha and "Submit". There should be only one result. Click on the case link, WP/4648/2019 -- the WP stands for Writ Petition, and this one is #4648 of the year 2019 -- then at the bottom of the next page, click on "Listing Dates" to go to a page with links to reports on each session. As of this writing (Oct 2021), there is unfortunately only one session with an active link. More about that lack below.

Clicking on "Application Cases", a different box at the bottom of the WP 4648 page, goes to a page which lists two other parties in the case who have submitted writs requesting Intervenor status, perhaps what is called "Friends of the Court" in some jurisdictions. Each party is represented by lawyers. The intervenors are there apparently to observe on behalf of OIF, though the first has also become a respondent, since he is one of the six accused in Prem Geet's original FIR in 2013. The second is still pending, "pre-admission", having applied later.

1. IA/1168/2019 - Mukesh Kantilal Sarda
2. IA/618/2020 - Devendra Singh Dewal

For thoroughness' sake, we note also that clicking the "Lower Court Details" button on the 4648 main page leads us to the following info:

Court :- Taluka Court
District :- PUNE
Case No. :- CRIMINAL M.A./01540/2019
Judge Designation :- Juducial [sic] Magistrate First Class
Decision Date :- 24/07/2019
Judgement Lang. :- English

The "Taluka Court" is the Pune Magistrate Court to which Videh and Chidananda were sent by the Supreme Court. Taluka courts are the lowest level of the courts system in India, subordinate to District Courts. There are 36 districts in Maharashtra, with Pune District having nine talukas.

Judges preside in pairs in Bombay HC, ie two per session, a system called a Division Bench. There is often not a lot of continuity from one session to the next. If one is interested, CV's for most of the judges in that system are available by mouseovering "Judges" near the top of the page and selecting "CJ and Sitting Judges". Failing that, one may also try "Former Judges", but some of this case's judges may not be found there, having only been "Additional", or probationary judges for a short time, usually two years. The last two pages, 22 and 21, are likely the only ones to have any from this still-current case.

Lawyers in this case appear to be the same as for their respective parties in BHC 2016, though the session records available do not show the big names. Videh and Chidananda's counsel is Amna Usman, who appeaars to be standing in for Mahesh Jethmalani, but see discussion for a clarification of this.

Proceedings

Note that neither the Session 1 info nor the Session 2 info is given on the Bombay HC website. Dates are listed there for five sessions, but Session 3 is the only one with a link leading to a record with the usual data. Info for sessions 1 and 2 comes from other sources, details below. The BHC site indicates that Sessions 1-3 were actual sittings, with the last two only projected future sittings that never happened due to covid.

Note also the following:

1. Judges BP Dharmadhikari and Smt Sadhana Sanjay Jadhav sat for the first session. Dharmadhikari was not found in the BHC judges list, either current or former, though he was the senior judge in this pairing.
2. Judge Jadhav also sat as a junior to Ranjit More in BHC 2016 for sessions 17-19.
3. Re Session 3, Judge SS Shinde (m) is not the same person as the SS Shinde (f) , who was the lawyer (APP) for the State (respondent) in BHC 2016.

Everything the judges said that was deemed to be possibly significant is presented in this section, all their orders and opinions. An interpretation / summary of the case so far can be found below at Takeaway.

Some terminology may be very legalese-arcane or bureaucratese. Such terms will be underlined with their meaning or significance explained in the Glossary at page bottom.

Dates Judges' Statements and Directives
Session 1
Nov 22 2019
Judges: BP Dharmadhikari and Smt Sadhana Sanjay Jadhav.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2019.
Leave to place on record the order disposing Writ Petition No. 2150/2016.
2. Impleadment is sought on the ground that the applicant/intervenor is accused in C.R. No.149/2013 where "C" summary submitted has been accepted. That acceptance has been questioned in Writ Petition No. 4648/2019.
3. Petitioner in Writ Petition submits that when Protest Petition after "C" summary was being heard, the Trial Court could not have permitted accused or anybody else to intervene. We keep said contention open. Subject to it the application allowed. Applicant be added as Respondent No.3 in the petition. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week. Interim application is disposed of.
WRIT PETITION NO.4648 OF 2019
4. Heard for some time. It appears that earlier orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.2150/2016 expected a report from the Chief Examiner of documents.
5. The impugned order accepting "C" summary and rejecting protest note does not make any reference to any such report.
6. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has got some other grounds to advance, we issue notice to respondents in the matter returnable on 15/1/2020. [Source see below]
Session 2
Jan 15 2020
Judges unknown. This session was a "document request" session: the Pune Magistrate court had not transferred all the documents of the case to the HC for the appeal, so learned counsel Amna Usman requested the HC Judge to instruct the Magistrate court to transfer them to the HC. This SHOULD have been done routinely but had not been. Source see discussion.
Session 3
Mar 11 2020
Judges: Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Virendrasingh Gyansingh Bisht.
1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that, petitioner wish to filed compilation of additional documents. Without prejudice to the contentions of the Respondents leave is granted for filing the compilation of such additional documents.
2. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, stand over to 09th April, 2020.

Takeaway

It is mysterious that the data for Session 1 are not available on the BHC website, especially as this was the most important info in the case so far. A record of it can be found as an Exhibit in the Indian trademark case of 2018. See below for more on that case.

The Session 1 report comes in two sections. The first deals with the admission of Mukesh, not only as an Intervenor but Respondent, as he is one of the accused in Prem Geet's original FIR. BHC 2016 had put the investigation of the alleged will on ice, now it may be revived. And the second section lays out the grounds on which the appeal is being heard. Points #4 and 5 make it clear that at minimum there appears to have been a judicial error in the last session of BHC 2016 in not dealing with the reports concerning graphological assessment of the alleged will. ("Impugned order" is an official Indian precise legalese term, here referring to the order given in Session 29, the last one in BHC 2016, but it is not particularly arcane. "Impugn" simply and straightforwardly means to dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of a statement or motive, in ordinary English, though it is not a common word.) Point #6 makes it clear there are other worthy grounds for the appeal that may also be considered.

the trademark case

As BHC 2019 was getting underway, Videh and Chidananda learned that OIF (Zürich) had applied for a trademark of "OSHO" in India through the WIPO on Jan 30 2018. They filed a petition to intervene in this case on Nov 24 2020, asking for any decision in the trademark case to wait until there is a final decision in the on-going criminal case regarding Osho's alleged will in the Bombay HC (WP4648/2019). As of Oct 2021, that case is also still pending. The page for that TM case will have all the details of its proceedings, but it is not developed yet. Until it is developed, info is provided here to access the website where that case's info is stored.

All of OIF's relevant documents as well as Videh and Chidananda's "Interlocutory Petition" can be accessed at India's Trade Mark Registry.
Once there, click the "Trade Mark Indexes" button on the left.
On the next page, choose "Pending Marks" under "Index Type", type in "OSHO" in the "Search For" field, in the "Class" field, go down and click "41", enter the captcha (the funny numbers) and click on "Search".
Plain "OSHO" is in the short list of search results, click on the link 3783734.
You have arrived!
You will notice that the Status is: OBJECTED
You can click on any of the blue "View" buttons to access the documents. For Videh and Chidananda's petition, scroll down to the end, click on View. Their petition has three "Exhibits", with Exhibit B, the BHC 2019 Session 1 data, at p 19 of 84.

It appears that, at minimum, OIF's TM will not be granted until this BHC 2019 case is settled.

History

This section is an overview of significant events and dates in the story of "investigating" Osho's alleged will. It was submitted as part of Videh and Chidananda's Petition for the reference of the judges who would hear their case, comprising pages 3-9 of its 58 pages.

See the Glossary at page bottom for the meaning / significance of terms underlined in this table.

No Dates Particulars
08.12.2013 FIR is registered U/S 465,467,471,120(B) of IPC in connection of offences of forging will of Osho.
1. 02.01.2014 The Accused no. 3 challenged the genuineness of FIR no 419/2013 acting on behalf of OIF
2. 2016 Complainant preferred Cri. Writ petition 2150/2016 along with the Intervention application 403 of 2016 and Additional affidavit dated 19th January, 2017 was filed, seeking transfer of the investigation to CBI.
3. 12.08.2016 The Hon’ble High Court allowed to add Enforcement Directorate as necessary party and directed the DCP (Pune) to give appropriate instruction to I.O. and monitor the investigation until next hearing. (copy of the order is annexed and marked as Exhibit-F).
4. 19.09.2016 The order observed that police didn’t carry the investigation properly in the FIR 419/2013 and misled the Hon’ble Court.It was revealed for the first time in application of September,2016 the original of alleged will of Osho was destroyed by its caretaker in 1989 itself.
5. 7.10.2016 The High Court observed that the investigation is pending for 3 years and the senior officer was directed to attend hearing with record.
6. 25.10.2016 The Hon’ble High court observed that investigating agency should include experts and intimate the status of investigation to

Hon’ble Court.

7. 16.01.2018 The Hon’ble High Court considering the nature of allegation requested APP to take instruction and transfer investigation to

EOW. (copy of the order is annexed and marked Exhibit-J).

8. 23.01.2018 Due to dissatisfaction expressed by the Complainant and the present Interveners in the investigation by the Pune Police; the Hon’ble High Court upon hearing submissions made by the Complainant and the present Interveners ordered the matter to be transferred to EOW with direction that the investigation report should be submitted to court thereon the High Court.
9. 29.06.2018 The Hon’ble High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the investigation and the same is also noted in orders dated 29 June 2018 and 12 July 2018:

“We are not satisfied with the manner in which the investigation has progressed since our last order i.e. one passed on 25th April 2018. Insofar as accused Philip Tolkies [sic, ie Sw Prem Niren] is concerned, it is stated in the report that a questionnaire has been sent to him and his reply is awaited. It is further stated that a reminder has been sent to him. Insofar as the said accused is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani states that though it is claimed that that the said accused is suffering from cancer, he seems to be very much active, as can be seen from the material which is on his website. We therefore, request the learned senior counsel to provide the said material to the investigating agency, so that, they can take appropriate steps, having regard to the said material”.

Despite the said material being provided to the Investigating agency pursuant to the said Order the Investigating Agency deliberately chose not to pursue investigation qua Accused no 3 and has failed to even consider the said material in its “C” Summary report thus violating the categorical directions of the Hon’ble High court.

Most importantly, the Hon’ble High Court further made the following comment: “the rest of the report is also bereft of the particulars as regards the dates and time and an impression is given that the report is filed merely to comply with the directions given.”

10. 12.07.2018 The Hon’ble High Court again expressed its dissatisfaction and gave directions to be followed with respect to the copy of the Will to be examined for the forgery of the signature which were not complied with. The Hon’ble High Court at this stage was aware that there was no original version of the Will but only a copy which it directed should be sent for examination and obtain opinion at the earliest.
11. 1.08.2018 The Hon’ble court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police of EOW to take up the matter with the The Chief Examiner of Documents to see report expidiously.
12. 27.09.2018 Closure report of 419/2013 which is a mere re-production of the statements of the Accused and is filed without any proper investigation or verification of the statements made by the Accused persons and without considering the material regarding the Expert Opinions as was directed be considered by this Hon’ble Court.
13. 11.10.18 Original Complainant moves SLP No. 11201 of 2018 before Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 of this Hon’ble Court.
14. 18.01.2019 The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following orders in SLP Cri no. 14/2019: “Since the C Summary Report has been submitted before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, the High Court, In our view, was justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner as well as the intervener would have liberty to approach the Magistrate and raise any objections, if they are aggrieved by the Report. .........” It was also observed that the request for transfer of investigation to the CBI issue is kept open and to be raised in the appropriate forum, in future.
15. 22.02.2019 The petitioners herein filed a Protest Petition before the Ld. J.M.F.C. against the Closure report dated 27.08.2018.
16. 27.06.2019 Order of Ld. JMFC allowing all interveners including the accused intervener.
17. 24.07.2019 The Ld. J.M.F.C. rejected the Protest Petition filed by the Petitioners herein despite the glaring deficiencies in investigation brought to its knowledge and without considering the objections raised therein contrary to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
18. Hence the present petition.

Grounds

The Grounds for the case made up most of the 58-page petition. We will not reproduce them all, but a nine-page section of them, explicitly labeled "Grounds", will more than suffice to give a picture of the breadth of the case to be made against the alleged perpetrators of the alleged crime.

1. FOR THAT a detailed and a well-documented Handwriting Report of Truth Labs Forensic Services, Hyderabad, Telangana, India, dated 11 December 2018 commissioned by the Petitioner, signed and verified by 6 highly qualified and experienced Forensic Experts and Document Examiners, (one of them who is retired CID, Pune) unanimously held that the said Report concludes that the alleged copy of Will dated 15 October 1989 is a fabricated document with a transplanted forged signature and the Investigating agency, despite several reminders refused to pay heed to these results.
Editor's note: It is worth noting here that the Truth Labs report was designed to explicitly address the principal excuse of the Pune police in their "C" Summary, that they could not come to a conclusion because they couldn't get hold of the original of the alleged will. The Truth Labs report states clearly on Page 6 that: "No original document with conventional ink signature could exist in reality at all”, never mind that it might have gotten misplaced. The "Original" document IS the alleged photocopy that Niren submitted in the EU TM case.
2. FOR THAT the only reason why the CID expert concluded that he cannot verify the signature on Will without original of Will was because none of the forensic reports were given to CID Pune despite this Honb’le Court’s orders to that effect. All the reports i.e. Technical Examination Report dated 13 October 2013 of Nicole Ciccolo, Graphological Technical Expert and Consultant of the Civil and Penal Law Court of Bologna, Italy and the Forensic Handwriting Report dated 28 October 2014 submitted by the present Petitioners and Forensic Science laboratory Govt. of NCT of New Delhi Report dated 10.07.2017, all which concluded that the signature on the Will is forged, were not even considered by the Investigating agency while formulating closure report even though no proof to the contradictory to the report results exists.
3. FOR THAT the present closure report of the investigating agency is perverse and contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgment has held that defense of accused cannot be considered at the stage of investigation rather what is required to be seen is whether complainant has made sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused or not, however in the present case while arriving at the conclusion the investigating agency instead of discussing about the prima facie material of offence, has discussed about the defense of the accused persons and very strangely arrived at the conclusion that the complaint is false
4. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. accepted the closure report despite glaring evidence contrary to the findings of the report. The report of the Investigating agency is merely an opinion and same is not binding upon the court at the Hon’ble Court has to apply its own judicial mind by looking into the allegations as enumerated in the complaint coupled with the evidence before the Honble Court. It is settled law that inspite of negative report of police, if the Ld. Magistrate arrived at a judicial conclusion that the complainant has made out sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused then nothing prevents the Ld. Magistrate from issuing process against the accused for such offences.
5. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. and the investigating agency failed to appreciate the glaring incongruencies and contradictions in the statement of accused No. 5 regarding the transfer of Intellectual Property rights and the presence of two contradictory documents that raise enough suspicion about a conspiracy to forge Will with malafide motives. The “C” Summary report states that the Accused no.5 submits that the Intellectual property rights of Osho’s works were transferred on 28/07/1978 to Rajneesh Foundation, India which subsequently on 1/4/1981 transferred all IPR rights of Osho’s works to Chidvilas Rajneesh Meditation Centre, USA and yet the Summary Report fails to address as to the existence of a Power of Attorney by Osho appointing Ma Anand Sheela as Power of Attorney holder on 19/11/1981 transferring all intellectual rights to her.
6. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate that the investigating agency did not even consider it relevant to further probe on this apparent incongruence and has in fact relied upon such incongruent and legally unsound statements given by the accused to establish that no case is made out in order to exonerate the accused. This clearly evidences the bias and questionable character of the investigating agency and the case report ought to have been rejected
7. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C grievously erred by failing to appreciate that on the bare reading of the “C” Summary report it is evident that the main issue of forgery of the Will has been conveniently sidelined and the I.O has gone on to validate the copyright claims made by the OIF. The “C” Summary report is devoid of the details of investigation carried out and the reasons and findings based upon which the conclusion of filing of the Summary “C” report is arrived at the said report is nothing more than an attempt to exonerate the accused.
8. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. grievously erred by failing to consider that from the bare reading of the “C” Summary report it is evident that the I.O has placed reliance on the documents submitted by one Mr. Mukesh Sarda (i.e Accused no. 5) and has never made any attempts to summon the Applicants / interveners to join the investigation. The said biased attitude of the I.O towards Mr. Mukesh Sarda raises questions about the credibility of the said investigation and of the said investigating officer, specifically in view of the fact that all the documents submitted to the I.O were never brought to the notice of this Hon’ble High Court during the period the High Court was supervising the investigation.
9. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C failed to consider the fact that the I.O. demonstrated a lack of bonafide intention of carrying out an unbiased investigation in the said matter. That as far as the forgery of the signature of Osho is concerned the only statement made by the I.O is that the said forgery cannot be ascertained in the absence of the original Will and that the documents cannot be re-sent twice for an opinion as per the Rule No 165(5) (m) Part III of Mumbai Police Rules. This fact was never brought before this Hon’ble High Court during the order dated 12/7/2018. The I.O was duty bound to state the said fact before the Hon’ble High Court on 12/7/2018 and in the event of her not being aware of the same, she was duty bound to state the said fact before the Hon’ble High Court at the following hearings.
10. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. greivously erred by failing to appreciate the fact that as far as the investigation of the forgery of he Will is concerned, it is evident that the approach of the I.O has been most callous and of a shocking character. A bare perusal of the contents of the said “C” Summary report makes it apparent that the investigating agency was more interested in providing justifications to nullify the possibility of forgery and/or use of the alleged Will of Osho by the accused persons. No attempts whatsoever were made by the I.O. to call upon the petitioners for any statement in order to allow them to submit their evidence. The I.O placed blind reliance on the statements of the accused and in light of this fact, the case report ought to have been rejected.
11. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate the fact that the closure report filed by the I.O. is bereft of any reasoning as to why the said copy of the Will of Osho was attempted to be relied upon 23 years after the death of Osho by the accused persons and in spite of knowledge of the fact that the original had been destroyed.
12. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. ought to have rejected the report for lacking even basic probe into the glaring evidences brought before it. The Ld. J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate that the Accused no. 3 had stated at Clause no. 24 of his Second Supplemental Witness Statement dated 4 June 2013 to the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office to which the Will of Osho was attached as Exhibit 4), had said that “Osho left a Last Will and Testament, which was created to address the possibility that any of the earlier transfers would not be effective....” and that from the above-mentioned statement it was clear enough that the said Will of Osho dated 15 October 1989 was fabricated to overcome the deficiencies in the purported Deeds of Assignments of Intellectual Property rights of Osho’s works but when the FIR NO. 149/2013 was registered and the genuineness of the said Will of Osho itself was challenged, Accused no. 3 acting on behalf of Osho International Foundation “OIF” attempted to withdraw the said Will of Osho from the EUIPO proceedings.
13. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate the C Summary report was bereft of any investigation or logical explanation whatsoever into the statement of Accused No. 1 that the Original Will was torn by Osho’s caretaker Nirvano, who is now dead. The “C” Summary report, without even verifying the statements made by the Accused concluded, solely on the basis of Accused statement that the original Will was torn by Osho’s caretaker Nirvano and that Nirvano was suffering from Bi-polar Disorder. It failed to investigate the obvious loop-hole in this story made by Accused no. 1, which is that if the Will, as claimed by Accused no. 1 was torn by Nirvano prior to the death of Osho, why it was not remade even though Osho was capacitated to do so.
14. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate that the I.O. report is merely a reproduction of the statements made by the Accused and is bereft of any verification or even an explanation vis-à-vis the incongruencies in those very statements on which the report is based.
15. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate the dissatisfaction in investigation as expressed by this Hon’ble Court on various occasions and ought to have applied a higher level of scrutiny while perusing the Report presented by the Investigation agency before it and that it ought to have rejected the report for failing to conduct even a basic level of investigation/verification into the statements made by the Accused, on which it has blindly relied upon without any explanation.
16. FOR THAT the Ld. J.M.F.C. failed to appreciate that the Accused have no locus to file objections and be heard in the Protest petition and that the said Mr. Devendra Dewal had close nexus with the accused and was acting in concert with the accused to forward the vested interests of the accused persons. That the Ld. J.M.F.C. erred by allowing the accused intervener and the said Mr. Devendra Dewal locus to be heard in the Protest Petition.
17. FOR THAT no hardship would be caused to the Respondent if this Hon’ble Court directs for effective investigation/transfer/monitoring of investigation to the CBI.

a set of facts

Following the "History" section and preceding the section officially entitled "Grounds" comes the largest part of the Petition. It is not titled, there is only this simple, unassuming introduction: "A set of facts leading Petitioners to file present Writ petition before this Hon’ble Court are as follows:" It is somewhat rambling and repetitious, containing any and every possible argument, contention and fine legal point that could be used to build the case.

Here we feature some of these arguments, those focusing on the statements given by the Accused in their interviews taken by the Pune police. The statements are not quoted verbatim in the Petition but paraphrased.

That it is the contention of Accused no 3 [Philip Toelkes, Sw Prem Niren] that he is suffering from Cancer and some other health issues and hence he cannot come to India. It is submitted that reliance has been placed on a medical certificate. It is submitted that from the said “C” Summary report it is evident that the investigating agency has taken no steps to confirm the genuineness and the correctness of the said medical certificate; furthermore it is submitted that the “C” Summary report reveals that no steps were taken to investigate the Accused no 3 website where it is clearly stated that he can deliver seminars and conferences in the US and abroad. It is submitted that as mentioned hereinabove despite the order dated 12" July 2018 of the Hon’ble High Court, no steps were taken by the IO to seriously pursue investigation of Accused no. 3.
That in the “C” Summary Report it is stated that the enquiry of the original Will could not be carried out as the caretaker Nirvano who tore the alleged original Will is dead. However the fact that it was Accused no 1 who claims to have seen and had access to the pieces of the torn Will and hence should be investigated to gather relevant details pertaining to the alleged Will and assuming that there was a Will of Osho that was torn before his death then why was a fresh Will of Osho not made, as the Executor of the alleged Will was aware of the destruction of the original document during Osho’s lifetime, as clearly stated in the statement of Accused No. 1 [Michael Byrne, Sw Anand Jayesh].
That it is further pertinent to note that the copy of the said Will was submitted by Accused No. 3, Mr. Philip Toelkes as an exhibit to his Witness Statement in the Administrative Court of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Alicante, Spain during a legal proceeding for the Cancellation of the Trademark ‘Osho’ in Europe. [The said case was filed by Osho Lotus Commune, Germany.], thus falsifying the contention made by the accused about having no intention of using the Will. It is submitted that the statement of the accused and the actions on the part of the accused are self-contradictory and need investigation.
That the report states that the copy of the Will of Osho was submitted online. It is pertinent to note that the said copy of the Will of Osho was attempted to be relied upon 23 years after the death of Osho and in spite of knowledge of the fact that the original had been destroyed. It is relevant to point out that the Accused no. 3 states at Clause no. 24 of his Second Supplemental Witness Statement dated 4 June 2013 to the EUIPO, (to which the Will of Osho was attached as Exhibit 4), the following: “Osho left a Last Will and Testament, which was created to address the possibility that any of the earlier transfers would not be effective....”. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT Q is a copy of the said Witness Statement dated 4 June 2013 of Accused No. 3 to the EUIPO.
That from the above-mentioned statement it is clear that the said Will of Osho dated 15 October 1989 was fabricated to overcome the deficiencies in the purported Deeds of Assignments of Intellectual Property rights of Osho’s works. However, when the FIR NO. 149/2013 was registered and the genuineness of the said Will of Osho itself was challenged, Accused no. 3 acting on behalf of Osho International Foundation “OIF” attempted to withdraw the said Will of Osho from the EUIPO proceedings. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT R is a copy of the letter dated 2 January 2014 addressed to Office of Harmonization in Internal Markets (Trade Marks and Designs), Spain by Keltie LLP (lawyers for OIF) attempting to withdraw the copy of the alleged Will from the EUIPO, Spain proceedings.

The last three contentions taken together show a clear pattern of story-changing on the part of the various accused, a self-serving shell game according to the perceived needs of the moment. And the last, about the attempt to withdraw the alleged Will from the EU TM proceedings, has given us new information that had not previously emerged.

Prayer

This quaint title adorns the last page of the petition. Those unfamiliar with legal systems may find the language startlingly obsequious. Prayer is a plaintiff's or petitioner's specific, sometimes very detailed request for judgment, relief and/or damages at the conclusion of a complaint or petition.

PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
1. Quash and set aside order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune in criminal miscellaneous appeal no. 1540/2019
2. Transfer investigation into the allegations made in FIR no.149/2013 dated 8.12.2013 to CBI to investigate the allegations made in fir no 149/2013 dated 8/12/2013 u/s 465, 467, 471 and 120 (b) of IPC
3. To direct the Investigation Agency to consider all the Technical Reports placed before it in order to investigate the offense of forgery
4. To pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Glossary

terms meaning, significance, explanation, etc
impleadment Inclusion in a legal action, can happen in either of two ways. First, the plaintiff/petitioner in an action can name parties against whom s/he has a related grievance and implead (compel) them to be defendants in their action. In the second type, applicable here, any third party who may suffer from the outcome of a legal action may ask to get impleaded (included) in that action. Whether someone may be an appropriate or necessary party of either type in a case is decided by the judges; there are no hard and fast rules.
respondents those "responding" to the petition, here the gov't entities required to "show up", abide by the judges' rulings and carry out their instructions. It is not clear why Mukesh has been added as a respondent
"C" Summary Report One of three types of report, A, B and C, that can be issued by police after an investigation. Each type can mean a variety of things, and as such, the meaning may be opaque to the hoi polloi. "C" Summary is variously said to be offered by police in cases where:
a) the FIR is found to be based on a mistake of fact -- as opposed to a "B" Summary, where the original complaint has been malicious, knowingly false
b) there are grounds for believing an offence has been committed but insufficient evidence to justify sending anyone for trial
c) the offender is not known
d) the offence is of a civil nature, not criminal
e) the case is neither true nor false
learned abbr Ld, used more or less solely as an adjective, pronounced with two syllables, not the one-syllable verb. It is apparently an obligatory honorific used in addressing or referring to all and any lawyers as well as lower court judges, meaning knowledgeable, well-educated.
FIR (First Information Report), a kind of citizen's complaint requiring the police or other authorities to do something, in this situation Prem Geet's original action which required the Pune police to investigate Osho's alleged will
IPC Indian Penal Code, the official, comprehensive criminal code of India, intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law in the country
preferred root = prefer, here a legalese-only usage of the word, meaning to bring forward for determination; usually, some kind of charges are "preferred"
CBI The Central Bureau of Investigation, the "premier investigating agency of India"
Hon’ble Honorable, like "learned" above, an honorific to address or refer to higher courts and their judges
Directorate of Enforcement (also DoE, Enforcement Directorate and ED) -- an arm of the Indian central gov't in Delhi, a "specialized financial investigation agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which enforces the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)"
DCP Deputy Commissioner of Police, the second-highest ranking police official in a jurisdiction
EOW Economic Offences Wing, the branch of the Pune police dealing with, well, economic offences
SLP Special Leave Petition, in which the petitioner seeks "special leave" to appeal against some judgment or order. It is not obvious why such appeal petitions are called "special", and why "leave" (permission) should be required. Perhaps this is an oddity of the Indian High Courts system, like "Prayer" above.
J.M.F.C. Judicial Magistrate First Class, a Magistrate-Court-level judge
CID Criminal Investigation Department, a branch of the State Police Services
catena of judgment legalese, meaning a whole collection of judgments, a whole body of relevant legal opinions, to be used as precedents with which there can be no argument
I.O. Investigating Officer in a police agency, the officer on the case