A partner of Navi Mumbai law firm KPS Legal has approached a magistrate seeking an order directing the CBD Belapur police to register an FIR over alleged diversion of professional fees, misuse of the firm’s identity and forgery of documents. The alleged loss exceeds ₹2.5 crore, according to the complaint, but the amount has not been independently established.
Advocate Sanjay Kalra filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Belapur under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He has named Mohit Prabhakar, fellow partner Ashwani Kumar Prabhakar, and two others as accused. The filing is dated June 1, 2026. It is a complaint seeking police investigation; the document does not contain a court order directing registration of an FIR or findings on the allegations.
Dispute Over Firm Funds and Professional Fees
Kalra says he began his independent practice in 2012 and established KPS Legal with Ashwani Kumar Prabhakar in 2013. According to the complaint, the two partners had equal rights in the firm’s assets, profits and management.
The complaint alleges that Mohit Prabhakar used KPS Legal’s staff, office facilities, client information and reputation to obtain work for his personal practice. It further alleges that assignments were presented to clients under the firm’s name, while invoices directed payment of professional fees to his personal bank account instead of the firm’s account.
Kalra claims that the accused withheld complete accounts, bank records and ledgers despite his requests. He estimates that more than ₹2.5 crore was diverted or misappropriated, while stating that the precise amount remains subject to reconciliation of invoices, emails and bank transactions. The complaint asks for a financial investigation to trace the funds.
Fort Office and Alleged Use of Partnership Funds
A separate allegation concerns an office at Fort, Mumbai, rented from May 2022 to April 2024. Kalra claims the premises were set up for Mohit Prabhakar’s benefit but paid for using KPS Legal’s funds without his knowledge or consent.
The complaint specifies a ₹1 lakh security deposit and rent of ₹35,000 a month for 24 months, amounting to ₹8.4 lakh in rent. It also alleges that furnishing and other operating costs were charged to the firm. These payments and the authority under which they were made are among the matters Kalra wants investigated.
Quotation, Invoices and Letterheads Questioned
Kalra has challenged a quotation dated August 1, 2023, which he says used the names of KPS Legal and KPS Tax Consultant, carried his forged signature and sought a ₹9 lakh retainership. He alleges that Mohit Prabhakar represented himself to clients as a partner or senior partner without being appointed to that position.
The filing also refers to eight invoices issued between June 2023 and July 2025, client emails and a title search report issued under the KPS Legal name. Kalra contends that the letterheads, stamps and professional documents were used without authority. The authenticity of the disputed signature and documents has not been determined in the filing.
The complaint additionally alleges that passwords to the firm’s email accounts were changed and that funds were routed through accounts controlled by the accused. It seeks investigation of the electronic records, invoices and bank trail.
Earlier Complaints to Police
Kalra states that he complained to the Navi Mumbai Police Commissioner on April 21, 2026, and made a non-cognizable report at the CBD Belapur Police Station on April 27. He says he submitted another written complaint to the police station on May 8 and approached senior police officials again on May 21.
According to the court filing, no FIR had been registered when he moved the magistrate. He has therefore asked the court to direct the senior inspector of CBD Belapur Police Station to register an FIR and investigate. The complaint invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, forgery, theft, conspiracy and intimidation.
The case is presently described in the supplied document only from the complainant’s account. The document does not include a response from the persons named, a police investigation report or a judicial determination of their liability.
