Bombay High Court Quashes 'Vengeful' FIRs Against Special Public Prosecutor and Police Officers

The Bombay High Court has quashed multiple criminal proceedings against a Special Public Prosecutor and several police officers, characterizing the complaints as an abuse of the judicial process driven by a 'desperate and vengeful mind'.

Determining the validity of criminal proceedings initiated by a habitual litigant, a Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam held that the investigation into the alleged misconduct of an advocate falls within the exclusive domain of the Bar Council and cannot be usurped by the police. The Court found that the allegations of forging appointment letters and criminal conspiracy were speculative and lacked verifiable material.

Judicial Rationale on Abuse of Process

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The registration of First Information Reports against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law... The allegations in both the crimes registered vide CR Nos. 742 of 2024 and 46 of 2024 are outcome of a desperate and vengeful mind and the second respondent seeks a fishing inquiry into a matter which does not require any inquiry at all."

The Court further emphasized that the delay of three years in filing the complaints, without adequate explanation, cast serious suspicion on the bona fides of the allegations. It relied on the principle of omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta, as embodied in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, to presume that the official acts regarding the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor were performed regularly.

Limits of Police Investigation into Legal Misconduct

Addressing the allegations against the Special Public Prosecutor, the Court clarified: "Any inquiry or investigation into the alleged misconduct of Shekhar Jagtap shall impinge upon the powers of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The investigation by the police into the alleged misconduct committed by Shekhar Jagtap is not permissible in law."

Background:

The dispute originated from a series of FIRs lodged by Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya against advocate Shekhar Jagtap, former police commissioner Sanjay Pandey, and other officials. Punamiya alleged that Jagtap had appeared as a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in several cases against him without valid authority or by using forged appointment letters. He further claimed a criminal conspiracy existed to falsely implicate him and other high-ranking officials to settle political scores.

The petitioners argued that the complaints were malicious and intended to take revenge for successful prosecutions and bail oppositions. The State's Special Public Prosecutor also informed the court that a 'C' Summary report (indicating the case is neither true nor false) had already been filed in one of the matters. The Court analyzed several precedents including Sujay Ghosh v. The State of Jharkhand &Anr. and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal to conclude that the High Court must intervene when proceedings are manifestly frivolous. It noted that the Bar Council had already dismissed a similar misconduct complaint against Jagtap. Consequently, the Court invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash all related proceedings.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.3839 OF 2024
Case Title: Shekhar Kakasaheb Jagtap Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Senior Advocate; Mr. Karan Khetani, Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary, Mr. Akash Pandey, Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, Mr. Priyesh More, Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate; Mr. Pavan S. Patil, Mr. P. S. Gole, Mr. Shubham Saraf, Mr. Tanmay A. Deshmukh, Mr. S. B. Talekar, Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan, Mr. Aditya Madane, Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate; Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, Mr. Rohan Hogle, Mr. Sachin Pawar, Mr. Hrishikesh Avhad, Mr. Pranjal Jadhav, Mr. Rahul Kamerkar, Ms. Aparajita R. Jha.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor; Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. Ayush Pasbola, Mr. Chinmay Godse, Mr. Rohin Chouhan, Ms. Harshada Shirsath, Mr. Rizwan Merchant, Mr. Dilip H. Shukla.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 222