Bombay High Court Quashes "Vengeful" Criminal Cases Against Special Prosecutor And Ex-Police Chief

Forum: Division Bench, Bombay High Court
Bench: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar & Justice Suman Shyam
Case Profile: Shekhar Jagtap v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Key Statutes: Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / BNSS Inherent Powers
MUMBAI — The Bombay High Court has quashed two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Shekhar Jagtap and former Mumbai Court Police Commissioner Sanjay Pandey. Delivering a decisive ruling on the limits of private statutory recourse, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam held that the criminal cases constituted an absolute abuse of judicial and investigative processes. The Court found the actions to be fueled entirely by a vengeful private complainant rather than any verifiable, prosecutable offense.

The operational matters emerged from two FIRs registered in 2024 at the Colaba and Thane Nagar police stations by real estate builder Sanjay Punamiya. In the Colaba FIR, the complainant alleged that Jagtap forged public appointment orders to act as an SPP, purposefully engineering the denial of bail to Punamiya while simultaneously representing a commercial rival. However, the High Court observed that investigative agencies had already submitted a statutory closure report in the matter, completely undermining the basis of the accusations.

In the second FIR registered at Thane Nagar, the complainant alleged a broader criminal conspiracy. He asserted that Jagtap, Pandey, and senior police officers conspired to remove Param Bir Singh from his administrative post as Mumbai Police Commissioner by utilizing fabricated complaints and pen drives. The High Court rejected this narrative comprehensively. The Bench pointed to extensive official records, state notifications, and Government Resolutions (GRs) affirming Jagtap’s lawful administrative appointment, which was initiated upon the express directives of the state’s Home Ministry.

Exposing the jurisdictional principles under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Division Bench observed that minor administrative omissions—such as a missing physical copy of an appointment order within a specific secretarial file—cannot invalidate a verified, operational trail of state notifications. The Court highlighted that the High Court is constitutionally empowered to interdict criminal investigations when the records conclusively establish that a complaint lacks bona fide intent and is driven purely by a mala fide agenda.

Furthermore, the Bench took judicial notice of the complainant's background, identifying him as a habitual litigant with an established history of initiating vexatious litigation and facing prior contempt proceedings. The Court observed that the multiple complaints represented an improper attempt to relitigate settled grievances through alternative procedural mechanisms. Finding no prima facie material to support the claims of criminal conspiracy or forgery, the Bench quashed both FIRs and all consequential proceedings, rejecting a plea for a temporary stay on the operation of the judgment.
Media and Editorial Notice: This article is designated as 100% copyright-free and public domain content. It may be freely reproduced, redistributed, summarized, or integrated into legal news feeds, journals, broadcast scripts, or online blogs without any attribution or licensing constraints.

Discription:  MUMBAI — The Bombay High Court has quashed two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against Special Public Prosecutor Shekhar Jagtap and former Mumbai Police Commissioner Sanjay Pandey. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam ruled the criminal proceedings to be an absolute abuse of the judicial process, initiated out of malice by a habitual litigant. 

The complaints, filed by a real estate builder, falsely alleged a broad criminal conspiracy and the forgery of official public appointment orders. However, the Bench found the claims entirely groundless, noting that Jagtap's official tenure was fully backed by verified state notifications and government resolutions. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court dismissed the cases to prevent malicious exploitation of the law.