In a landmark judgment safeguarding the institutional independence of public prosecutors, the Bombay High Court has quashed two First Information Reports (FIRs) alleging a criminal conspiracy involving a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), police officers, and private individuals.
Delivering a sharp rebuke to the misuse of criminal machinery, a bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam ruled in a May 20 order that a public prosecutor is not a “post box” and does not act on the “dictates of the state government.”
The high court declared the registration of the FIRs against the petitioners to be a manifest “abuse of the process of law,” initiated to serve the personal agenda of a habitual litigant.
The Core Ruling: Prosecutors and State Dictates
The case reached the High Court after a batch of petitions sought the quashing of two FIRs filed in March and August 2024. The complainant, a Mumbai-based businessman, had alleged that the SPP, police officers, and private individuals had conspired to falsely implicate him in various criminal cases.
Rejecting these allegations, the bench emphasized the vital role public prosecutors play in the administration of justice.
“The role of the public prosecutor is important in criminal administration of justice. He is the representative of the state, and he is appointed by the state. But the public prosecutor is not like a post box, and he does not act on the dictates of the state government,” the court observed.
The judges added that courts are not bound by a prosecutor’s opinion and remain entirely free to independently assess whether a prima facie case exists. Furthermore, the bench warned that the police’s power to register and investigate cases is not “unbridled,” affirming that courts are duty-bound to intervene when a complaint is driven by mala fide (bad faith) intentions.
The Jurisdictional Boundary: Bar Council vs. Police
A key aspect of the ruling centered on who holds the authority to investigate the conduct of legal professionals. The complainant had accused the SPP of misconduct, including appearing in court without valid authority.
The High Court clarified that the police have no legal authority to investigate the professional conduct of an enrolled advocate.
“The investigation by the police into the alleged misconduct committed by SPP is not permissible in law,” the court ruled, noting that such inquiries directly encroach upon the statutory powers of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa—the designated body empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
The court pointed out that the complainant had already approached the Bar Council with similar allegations, which were dismissed following a preliminary inquiry. By attempting to use the police to bypass this dismissal, the complainant was found to be aggressively pushing a personal agenda.
A History of Bitter Rivalry and “Habitual Litigation”
The High Court’s decision to minutely examine the complaints revealed a deep-seated history of personal enmity between the complainant and another businessman.
The court characterized the complainant as a “habitual litigant” who is already facing proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A review of the disputes showed a complex web of litigation dating back years:
- The Origin: Multiple disputes arose involving rival parties over allegations of forged Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) certificates and revenue records.
- 2021 Escalation: Several criminal cases were registered against the complainant involving allegations of extortion, conspiracy, and the misuse of police machinery, including a key case registered at the Marine Drive Police Station.
- 2023 RTI and Bar Complaints: The complainant challenged the SPP’s appointment through Right to Information (RTI) requests and filed a misconduct complaint with the Bar Council, which was subsequently dismissed.
- 2024 FIRs: Frustrated by earlier setbacks, the complainant lodged an FIR in March 2024 alleging cheating and forgery against the SPP, followed by a second FIR in August 2024 alleging a wider conspiracy to falsely implicate him.
The court noted that the complainant had failed to produce any material evidence to support his claims of a criminal conspiracy against him.
The Legal Arguments
During the hearings, the legal counsel presented contrasting arguments on the validity of the complaints:
- For the SPP: Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher argued that even a plain reading of the FIRs failed to disclose any actual offence. He submitted that the SPP’s appointment was a matter of official record and that the criminal complaints were simply a “reflection of his grudge” against the SPP, who had routinely opposed the complainant’s bail and pre-bail applications in court.
- For the Complainant: Advocate Rizwan Merchant countered that the SPP had appeared in multiple proceedings using a forged appointment order that was missing from official records. Merchant argued that a conspiracy existed between the accused parties to manipulate government records and falsely implicate his client due to the SPP’s alleged direct interest in the matter.
The Warning Against Malicious Litigation
In its final analysis, the High Court invoked the legal maxim “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta”, which establishes that judicial and official acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly performed unless proven otherwise.
The bench also issued a broader warning regarding the severe impact of registering an FIR on an accused individual, noting that the document holds massive weight in criminal proceedings.
In this case, the significant delays in lodging the complaints cast heavy suspicion on the allegations, suggesting they were an “afterthought” born of malice. The court concluded that allowing such frivolous and vexatious proceedings to continue would represent a grave misuse of the legal system, thereby justifying the immediate quashing of both FIRs.
