Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance

"Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care where quashing of the criminal proceedings is demanded on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or malicious," Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) against Special Public Prosecutor Shekhar Jagtap, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Sanjay Pandey, and several other police officers.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam observed that the criminal machinery was being "misutilized for oblique purposes" by a habitual litigant to settle personal scores. The Court noted that the allegations were speculative and lacked verifiable material, amounting to a clear abuse of the process of law.

The case originated from complaints filed by Sanjay Punamiya, who alleged a massive criminal conspiracy by advocate Shekhar Jagtap, Sanjay Pandey, and various police officials to implicate him and certain political leaders in false cases. Punamiya claimed that Jagtap forged his appointment orders as a Special Public Prosecutor and that police officers kidnapped him from a hospital to extort money. These allegations led to the registration of FIRs at Thane Nagar and Colaba police stations under various sections of the IPC.

The primary question before the court was whether the registration of FIRs after an unexplained delay of three years, primarily targeting a lawyer and police officers, constituted an abuse of the process of law. The court was also called upon to determine if the police could investigate the alleged professional misconduct of an advocate regarding his appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor. Finally, the bench examined whether the allegations met the threshold for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

Presumption Of Validity Attached To Official Acts

The Court emphasized the legal maxim “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta”, which presumes that all official acts have been rightly and regularly performed. Referring to Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, the bench noted that the appointment of Shekhar Jagtap as a Special Public Prosecutor was backed by recommendations from senior police officers and the Home Department. The Court found no reason to suspect the genuineness of the official communications and notifications produced by the petitioners.

"A communication from the Desk Officer... to the effect that a copy of the appointment order is not found in any file cannot outweigh the other official communications and notifications the existence of which has been affirmed in various judicial proceedings."

Police Cannot Investigate Professional Misconduct Of Advocates

The bench made a critical distinction between criminal acts and professional misconduct, holding that the police have no jurisdiction to investigate an advocate’s conduct in the course of their professional duties. The Court noted that Punamiya had already approached the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa with similar allegations, which had been dismissed. Any inquiry into an advocate's conduct remains the exclusive domain of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act.

"The instances of misconduct projected by the second respondent cannot be looked into by the police in the course of the investigation. Any inquiry or investigation into the alleged misconduct of Shekhar Jagtap shall impinge upon the powers of the Bar Council."

Inordinate Delay Of Three Years Casts Doubt On Bona Fides

The Court highlighted the "inordinate delay" of approximately three years in lodging the FIRs as a crucial factor. It observed that many of the events narrated by the complainant occurred in his presence years prior, yet no explanation was provided for the late reporting. Citing the precedent in Hasmukhlal D. Vora, the bench stated that such delays require the Court to examine allegations with extreme caution to prevent the implication of innocent persons.

"The delay in lodging criminal complaints by the second respondent puts the Court on guard and requires it to minutely examine the allegations against the accused persons."

Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Wreck Private Vengeance

Applying the principles laid down in the landmark State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal case, the High Court held that the proceedings were manifestly attended with malafide intentions. The bench observed that the complainant appeared to be a "habitual litigant" who was nurturing a grudge because he suffered adverse orders in cases where Jagtap appeared as the prosecutor. The Court concluded that the allegations were the "outcome of a desperate and vengeful mind."

"The process of law cannot be misutilized for oblique purpose and a criminal proceeding which is manifestly attended with malafide can be quashed."

Absence Of Evidence To Substantiate Criminal Conspiracy

The Court found that the complainant failed to provide any cogent evidence to support the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. It noted that for a conspiracy to be established, there must be an agreement to commit an illegal act, which was entirely missing in this case. The bench observed that the allegations against high-ranking officers like Sanjay Pandey were "baseless and mere ipse dixit" of the complainant, lacking any verifiable basis.

"Everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done or written by each of them... there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused."

The High Court concluded that allowing the investigation to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice and a waste of public resources. It held that the petitions were fit cases for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, all criminal proceedings arising from the FIRs at Thane Nagar and Colaba police stations were quashed.

Date of Decision: 20 May 2026