High Court Quashes Malicious Criminal Proceedings Initiated Against Public Officials to Wreak Private Vengeance

The petitioners, including a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), police officers, and private individuals, sought the quashing of FIRs (CR No. 742/2024 and CR No. 46/2024) lodged by Respondent No. 2, Sanjay Punamiya.

The respondent alleged a criminal conspiracy involving the fabrication of SPP appointment orders, extortion, and the filing of false criminal cases to implicate high-ranking police officials and political leaders.

The respondent further claimed the SPP, Shekhar Jagtap, appeared in various proceedings without valid authority to protect certain accused persons.

Investigation into these allegations led to a conflict between official records affirming the appointments and a Home Department desk officer's claim that specific orders were missing.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent were manifestly frivolous, malicious, or an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of powers under Article 226.

2. Whether the police have the jurisdiction to investigate an Advocate's alleged misconduct or the validity of a Special Public Prosecutor’s appointment at the behest of a private complainant.

The court primarily applied Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, which mandates a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.

It relied on the landmark principles for quashing FIRs established in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, specifically regarding proceedings instituted with ulterior motives for wrecking vengeance.

The court applied the standards from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, regarding the prevention of abuse of the process of court.

It further applied the standards for determining criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC as elucidated in State v. Nalini.

The duty of the Court to "read between the lines" in vexatious litigations as held in Sujay Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand.

The court found that the allegations against the petitioners lacked verifiable particulars and were contradicts by official records, notifications, and statements from the then Home Minister affirming Jagtap's appointment.

It reasoned that the presumption of validity under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act protected the official acts of the SPP and police officers, as the respondent failed to provide cogent evidence of forgery beyond a "grave suspicion".

Regarding the SPP's conduct, the court held that any inquiry into professional misconduct falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bar Council—which had already dismissed a prior complaint by the respondent—and cannot be the subject of a police investigation.

The court observed that the respondent was a "habitual litigant" with a long history of personal enmity with the accused, and the unexplained three-year delay in filing the complaints suggested the FIRs were a creature of afterthought designed to settle personal scores.

The Court quashed CR No. 742 of 2024 (Thane Nagar PS) and CR No. 46 of 2024 (Colaba PS), along with all consequential proceedings, granting relief to all petitioners to secure the ends of justice.