The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has quashed two First Information Reports (FIRs) and all consequential criminal proceedings initiated against advocate Shekhar Jagtap, former IPS officer and police commissioner Sanjay Pandey, former police officers Sardar Patil and Manohar Patil, and developers Shyamsundar Agarwal, Sharad Agarwal, and Kishore Bhalerao.
The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam ruled that the complaints, filed by second respondent Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya, were manifestly frivolous, malicious, and the “outcome of a desperate and vengeful mind.” The court observed that the registration of these FIRs was a clear abuse of the process of law, intended to settle personal scores amid a long-standing history of enmity between the parties.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose out of multiple cross-complaints and FIRs exchanged between developer Shyamsundar Agarwal and the complainant, Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya. Specifically, the present petitions sought the quashing of two major cases:
- CR No. 742 of 2024 (Thane Nagar PS): Registered on August 26, 2024, under Sections 166A, 120B, 170, 193, 195, 199, 203, 205, 207, 352, 355, 384, 389, 465, 466, 471, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Punamiya alleged that the accused persons—Sanjay Pandey, Shekhar Jagtap, ACP Sardar Patil, PI Manohar Patil, Shyamsundar Agarwal, Shubham Agarwal, and Sharad Agarwal—hatched a criminal conspiracy to remove Parambir Singh from the post of Police Commissioner of Mumbai and to implicate Parambir Singh and other political leaders by registering false criminal cases. He also alleged that he was illegally arrested and pressurized to give false statements.
- CR No. 46 of 2024 (Colaba PS): Registered on March 3, 2024, under Sections 170, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 120B of the IPC against Shekhar Jagtap, Shyamsundar Agarwal, Sharad Agarwal, Kishor Bhalerao, and others. The gravamen of the allegation was that Shekhar Jagtap appeared as a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in multiple cases against Punamiya (including CR No. 299 of 2021) using a forged and non-existent appointment letter, and that government records were manipulated to facilitate this.
Punamiya further alleged that the investigation into a decade-old case, CR No. 201 of 2016 (initially registered at Thane Nagar PS regarding forged Urban Land Ceiling certificates), was reopened to make him an accused, and that Jagtap appeared as SPP without authority in that case to ensure his bail application was rejected.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions
- For Shekhar Jagtap: Senior Advocate Mr. Rajiv Shakdher argued that a bare reading of the FIR allegations did not disclose any offence. He submitted that Jagtap’s appointment as Special Public Prosecutor was a matter of official record and that the complaints were a mere reflection of Punamiya’s grudge against the advocate for opposing his bail applications in past proceedings.
- For Shyamsundar & Sharad Agarwal, and Sanjay Pandey: Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Desai contended that the allegations were baseless, represented the ipse dixit of the complainant, and were actuated by malice to extract revenge.
- Other counsels for the co-petitioners advanced similar arguments, asserting that the complaints were manifestly frivolous.
Respondents’ Submissions
- For the State of Maharashtra: Senior Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, along with the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the quashing of the proceedings. However, the Special Public Prosecutor did not deny that a ‘C’ Summary report (indicating the case is neither true nor false, or is of a civil nature/mistake of fact) had been filed by the police in the matter.
- For the Complainant (Sanjay Punamiya): Mr. Rizwan Merchant argued that Jagtap was not legally appointed as the SPP and had instead used forged orders to protect Shyamsundar Agarwal. He pointed out that an RTI response from the Desk Officer of the Home Department stated that the copy of the appointment order dated August 6, 2021, was not found in the official files. He asserted that the conspiracy required a thorough police investigation.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Duty of the Court in Vexatious Litigations
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sujay Ghosh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2026), the Bench emphasized that the court is duty-bound to look beyond the surface of the FIR when malicious prosecution is alleged. The court quoted:
“When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case…”
2. Genuineness of the Special Public Prosecutor’s Appointment
The High Court rejected the complainant’s contention that Jagtap’s appointment was forged. It noted that multiple official notifications, recommendations from senior police officers, and Government Resolutions (dated July 29, 2021, August 9, 2021, September 23, 2021, and December 21, 2021) were on record.
The court took judicial notice of the fact that these acts occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when departments operated with minimal staff. Additionally, a letter from the then Home Minister, Dilip Walse-Patil, confirmed that Jagtap was appointed on his instructions.
Applying Section 114, illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act and referencing Narayan Govind Gavate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1977), the court invoked the maxim “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta”—all official acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly performed.
3. Misconduct Investigation Vested with the Bar Council
The court strongly held that allegations of professional misconduct by an advocate cannot be investigated by the police. Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar observed:
“The 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 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 of Maharashtra and Goa.”
The court added that the validity of an SPP’s appointment can only be examined by a writ court, not by the police at the instance of a private individual, citing Shivaji s/o. Rajaram Tatke & Anr. and Omprakash Baheti & Ors.
4. History of Enmity and Abuse of Legal Process
The High Court described Punamiya as a “habitual litigant,” detailing his extensive history of hostile litigation with Shyamsundar Agarwal. It noted that Punamiya had previously filed a writ petition seeking an SIT inquiry into Jagtap’s appointment, which was dismissed as withdrawn in August 2023. He had also filed a similar complaint before a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Thane, which was withdrawn in September 2024.
The Bench observed:
“The allegations made by the second respondent are vague and lack particulars. The allegations are speculative and have proved to be false in view of ‘C’ Summary report filed by the police. The allegations in both the crimes registered vide CR Nos. 742 of 2024 and 46 of 2024 are 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.”
5. Inordinate and Unexplained Delay
The court highlighted that although the events complained of occurred in the presence of Punamiya around 2021, he chose to file the criminal complaints in 2024—a delay of about three years. Citing Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022), the court noted:
“…the unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration by the Court as a very crucial factor for quashing criminal complaint. 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.”
6. Principles of Criminal Conspiracy and Inherent Powers of the Court
The court examined the principles of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A of the IPC, citing the landmark ruling in State v. Nalini & Ors. (1999), and concluded that no material supported the allegation of a conspiracy.
Furthermore, relying on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004), R. P. Kapur v. The State Of Punjab (1960), and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1992), the court reaffirmed that the High Court is fully empowered to quash malicious prosecutions to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.
The Decision
Concluding that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the High Court allowed all the petitions and the criminal application. The court quashed the FIRs registered under CR No. 742 of 2024 (Thane Nagar PS) and CR No. 46 of 2024 (Colaba PS), along with all consequential criminal proceedings. All pending interim applications were also disposed of.
Case Details
- Case Title: Shekhar Kakasaheb Jagtap Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (with connected matters)
- Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3839 of 2024 with Writ Petition No. 722 of 2024 with Writ Petition No. 737 of 2024 with Writ Petition No. 750 of 2024 with Writ Petition No. 4923 of 2024 with Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 19375 of 2024 with Criminal Application No. 1140 of 2024
- Bench: Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam
- Date: 20th May 2026
