Police Cannot Investigate Advocate’s Professional Misconduct, Bar Council Is Sole Empowered Body: Bombay High Court Quashes 'Malicious' FIRs Against Former SPP, Ex-CP

"Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is the body empowered to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the advocates who commit misconduct and are enrolled with it. The investigation by the police into the alleged misconduct committed by Shekhar Jagtap is not permissible in law," Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against advocate and former Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Shekhar Jagtap, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Sanjay Pandey, and several others.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam observed that the criminal proceedings were "manifestly attended with malafide" and constituted an abuse of the process of law. The court held that allegations of professional misconduct against a lawyer fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bar Council and cannot be the subject of a police investigation at the instance of a private party.

The case arose from two FIRs (CR No. 742/2024 at Thane Nagar PS and CR No. 46/2024 at Colaba PS) lodged by Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya, who alleged a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in false cases. Punamiya claimed that Shekhar Jagtap had appeared as an SPP using forged appointment letters to shield certain individuals and harass him. The petitioners, including Jagtap, Sanjay Pandey, and various police officers, approached the High Court seeking quashing of these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 of the CrPC).

The primary question before the court was whether the police could legitimately register an FIR and investigate an advocate for alleged professional misconduct and the use of "forged" appointment letters when official records suggested otherwise. The court was also called upon to determine if the inordinate delay of three years in filing the complaints, coupled with the history of enmity between the parties, rendered the prosecution malicious.

Presumption Of Regularity In Official Acts Under Evidence Act

The court heavily relied on the legal maxim "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta", which implies that all official acts are presumed to have been performed regularly. Referencing Section 114, illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, the bench noted that the orders appointing Shekhar Jagtap as a Special Public Prosecutor carried a presumption of validity. The court found that various official communications, notifications, and letters from the Home Department and the Law and Judiciary Department affirmed Jagtap's appointment.

The bench observed that a communication from a Desk Officer stating that a copy of an appointment order was missing from a file could not outweigh multiple official notifications and judicial recognitions of the advocate's status. The court noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, oral instructions were frequently given, and ex-post-facto approvals were obtained, as confirmed by a letter from the then Home Minister Dilip Walse-Patil.

"The court is not bound by the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and is free to assess whether a prima-facie case is made out or not."

Police Investigation Into Lawyer’s Conduct Impinges On Bar Council Powers

A pivotal finding of the judgment was the demarcation of jurisdiction regarding advocate misconduct. The court clarified that the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is the statutory body empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates for professional misconduct. The bench held that any inquiry by the police into such allegations would directly impinge upon the powers of the Bar Council.

The court further emphasized that an issue pertaining to the validity of a lawyer's appointment could be examined by a Writ Court but not by the police at the instance of a private individual. It noted that a previous complaint filed by the respondent against Jagtap before the Bar Council had already been dismissed in September 2023, yet the respondent persisted with the same allegations through the police machinery.

"Any inquiry or investigation into the alleged misconduct of Shekhar Jagtap shall impinge upon the powers of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa."

FIR Is A Creature Of Afterthought Due To Inordinate Unexplained Delay

The High Court expressed deep concern over the three-year delay in lodging the FIRs, describing it as a "crucial factor" for quashing the complaints. The bench noted that the respondent provided no explanation as to why the criminal proceedings were instituted after such a long gap, especially when the events allegedly occurred in his presence. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hasmukhlal D. Vora, the bench held that such delays require the court to be "on guard" and minutely examine the bona fides of the complainant.

The court characterized the respondent as a "habitual litigant" with a history of enmity against the petitioners. It observed that the allegations appeared to be a reflection of a grudge nurtured by the respondent, who had suffered adverse judicial orders in cases where Jagtap appeared as the prosecutor. The bench remarked that the criminal law machinery cannot be used as a tool for "wrecking vengeance" or "fishing inquiries."

"The delay in lodging the First Information Report may give an impression that the same is a creature of afterthought."

Strict Requirements For Proving Criminal Conspiracy

Addressing the allegations of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC, the court reiterated the principles laid down in State v. Nalini. It held that a mere wish or a passive attitude does not constitute conspiracy; there must be an agreement to commit an illegal act. The bench found no verifiable material to support the claim that the petitioners had conspired to remove a former Police Commissioner or implicate the respondent falsely.

The court concluded that even if the allegations were accepted in toto, they did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence that warranted a police investigation. The bench held that the registration of the FIRs was a manifest abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the court allowed all the writ petitions and the criminal application, quashing the FIRs and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

"A criminal proceeding which is manifestly attended with malafide can be quashed... to prevent the abuse of the process of any court."

The judgment serves as a stern reminder that the police machinery cannot be utilized to settle personal scores or to bypass the disciplinary jurisdiction of professional bodies like the Bar Council. The bench underscored that the High Court is duty-bound to intervene under its inherent powers to prevent the victimization of individuals through frivolous and malicious prosecutions.

Date of Decision: 20 May 2026