Bombay High Court quashes 'vengeful' FIRs against special prosecutor Shekhar Jagtap, ex-Police Commissioner Sanjay Pandey

The Bombay High Court has quashed two first information reports (FIRs) against special public prosecutor Shekhar Jagtap and former Mumbai police commissioner Sanjay Pandey [Shekhar Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.].

A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam held that the criminal cases were an abuse of the process of law and were driven by a vengeful complainant rather than any prosecutable offence.

The Court found that the allegations levelled by complainant–builder Sanjay Punamiya were vague, speculative and unsupported by material, and had in fact proved to be false in view of a closure report filed by the police in one of the cases.

The Court quashed two FIRs, one registered at Thane Nagar police station and the other at Colaba in 2024. 

“The allegations in both the crimes are the 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 bench observed. 

It  concluded that continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of process. 

It further emphasised that the High Court is empowered to interdict investigations when it is manifest from the matters on record that the complaint was not bona fide and the complainant was acting with malafide intention.

Punamiya’s Colaba FIR accused Jagtap of appearing as Special Public Prosecutor on the basis of forged appointment orders.

Punamiya alleged that the same was done to seek his custody and oppose his bail plea while simultaneously representing another accused-builder Shyamsunder Agarwal in other proceedings.

However, a closure was filed in that case by the police, the High Court noted.

In the second FIR lodged at Thane Nagar, Punamiya claimed that Jagtap, Pandey, senior police officers and Agarwal's relatives conspired “to remove Parambir Singh from the post of Mumbai Police Commissioner. He claimed pendrives and scripted complaints were engineered to implicate Singh and other political leaders. 

He further alleged that an old 2016 case, in which he was originally a witness, was reopened to array him as an accused, and that Jagtap ensured his bail was rejected by posing as SPP without any authority.

The Court rejected this theory outright, noting that multiple official communications, notifications and appointment letters were placed on record, including recommendations from senior police officers, government resolutions and a letter from then home minister Dilip Walse-Patil stating that Jagtap was appointed on his instructions.

“A communication from the Desk Officer that a copy of the appointment order of August 6, 2021 is not found in any file cannot outweigh the other official communications, notifications etc., the existence of which has been affirmed in various judicial proceedings,” the Court held. 

It also found no reason to suspect the genuineness of the communications, orders and appointment letters. 

It also noted that a disciplinary complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa accusing Jagtap of forging his appointment letter had already been dismissed in September 2023.

As regards Pandey, the Court found no verifiable allegation against him. It also concluded that the accusation that he had transferred an MCOCA case to CID as part of a conspiracy was baseless.

Thus, it held that there is no material produced by Punamiya to support his allegations over criminal conspiracy hatched by Jagtap, Pandey and others to fabricate cases against him or former commissioner Param Bir Singh.

The Court also took note of Punamiya’s status as a habitual litigant, prior contempt proceedings against him, and his repeated attempts to pursue the same grievance by different routes.

“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the registration of FIRs against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law,” the Court said while quashing the FIRs and the criminal proceedings arising from it. 

The court also rejected the request for a two-week stay on the judgment.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher with advocates Karan Khetani, Sairuchita Chowdhary and Akash Pandey appeared for Jagtap. 

Senior Advocate Mihir Desai with advocates Pavan S Patil, PS Gole, Shubham Saraf and Tanmay A Deshmukh appeared for Shyamsunder Agarwal.

Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, additional public prosecutor JP Yagnik and advocates Ayush Pasbola, Chinmay Godse, Rohin Chouhan and Harshada Shirsath appeared for State. 

Advocates Rizwan Merchant and Dilip H Shukla appeared for complainants.

[Read Judgment]