Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3839 OF 2024

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2024

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3033 OF 2024

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION STAMP NO.5602 OF 2024

Shekhar Kakasaheb Jagtap Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.737 OF 2024

Kishor Shamrao Bhalerao .. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.750 OF 2024

Shyamsundar R. Agarwal & Anr. .. Petitioners

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4923 OF 2024

Manohar Narsappa Patil .. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.19375 OF 2024

Sardar Namdeo Patil .. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

bgp Page | 1

BALAJI

GOVINDRAO

PANCHAL

Digitally signed by

BALAJI

GOVINDRAO

PANCHAL

Date: 2026.05.21

01:17:41 +0530

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1140 OF 2024

Sanjay Pandey .. Applicant

Vs.

State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

……

Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Senior Advocate (through VC) a/w

Mr.Karan Khetani, Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary & Mr.Aka sh

Pandey, Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/722/2024 &

WP/3839/2024.

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi (through VC) a/w Mr. Priyesh More,

Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/4923/2024.

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Pavan S. Patil, Mr.

P. S. Gole, Mr. Shubham Saraf & Mr. Tanmay A. Deshm ukh,

Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/750/2024.

Mr. S. B. Talekara/w Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan & Mr. Adit ya

Madane i/b Talekar & Associates, Advocates for the Petitioner

in WP/737/2024.

Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shailesh Chavan,

Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, Mr. Rohan Hogle, Mr.Sachin

Pawar, Mr. Hrishikesh Avhad & Mr. Pranjal Jadhav, Advocates

for the Petitioner in WPST/19375/2024.

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rahul Kamer kar&

Ms. Aparajita R. Jha, Advocates for the Applicant in

APL/1140/2024.

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate, Special Public

Prosecutor a/w Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor,

Mr. Ayush Pasbola, Mr. Chinmay Godse, Mr.Rohin Chou han &

Ms. Harshada Shirsath, Advocates for the Respondent-State in

WP Nos.3839/2024, 4923/2024, (St)19375/2024 &

APL/1140/2024.

Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor for t he

Respondent-State in WP Nos.722/2024, 737/2024 &

750/2024.

Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w Mr. Dilip H. Shukla for the

Respondent-Original Complainant in all petitions.

Mr. Salil Balkrishna Bhosale, Senior Police Inspector, Unit 5,

bgp Page | 2

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

Crime Branch, Thane.

Mr. Swapnil Wagh, IO/API – Colaba PS.

CORAM :SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

JUDGMENT

RESERVED ON :- 21

st

JANUARY 2026.

PRONOUNCED ON :- 20

th

MAY 2026

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :-

In compliance of the order dated 3

rd

November, 2025 passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to App eal

(Criminal) No.17480 of 2025, the writ petitions vide Writ Petition

Nos.3839 of 2024 and 722 of 2024 filed by Shekhar Ja gtap were

listed for hearing on 18

th

November, 2025 before a Bench

constituting the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay. On

that day, the other Writ Petitions and Criminal Application arising

out of the same First Information Reports were also listed together

along with the aforesaid Writ Petitions filed by Shekhar Jagtap.

These Writ Petitions and Criminal Application have been heard on

different dates and reserved for judgment on 21

st

January, 2026.

2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3839 of 2024 seeks qua shing of

the First Information Report bearing CR No. 742 of 2024 registered

on 26

th

August 2024 at Thane Nagar PS on the allegation of

commission of the offences 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. The complainant, name ly, Sanjay

Mishrimal Punamiya who claims to be a permanent resident of the

City of Mumbai stated that Sanjay Pandey, Shekhar Ja gtap, ACP

Sardar Patil, PI Manohar Patil, Shyamsundar Agarwal, Shubham

Agarwal and Sharad Agarwal were involved in commiss ion of the

bgp Page | 3

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

aforesaid crime in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched by

them with their unknown associates. Criminal Writ P etition No.

722 of 2024 has been filed by Shekhar Jagtap for quashing of CR

No. 46 of 2024 registered on 3

rd

March 2024 at Colaba PS on a

written complaint given by Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiy a alleging

commission of certain offences by Shekhar Jagtap, Shyamsundar

Agarwal, Sharad Agarwal, Kishor Bhalerao and their associates. In

his complaint dated 3

rd

March 2024, Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya

alleged commission of the offences under sections 170, 420, 465,

467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of the Indian Penal Cod e by the

aforesaid accused persons. With a similar prayer seeking quashing

of the criminal proceedings against them, Kishor Sh amrao

Bhalerao, Shyamsundar R. Agarwal, Sharad M. Agarwal , Manohar

Narsappa Patil, Sardar Namdeo Patil and Sanjay Pandey have also

approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India; Criminal Application No.1140 of 2024

has been filed by Sanjay Pandey under section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

3. The complainant who is the second respondent stat es that

there were criminal cases lodged against him which are either

pending investigation or a charge-sheet has been filed against him.

He has also lodged criminal complaints against Shya msundar

Agarwal, Shekhar Jagtap, Chhota Shakeel and others, which are

pending in different Courts. He extensively refers to the

proceedings in CR No.299 of 2021 which was register ed at the

instance of Shyamsundar Agarwal at Marine Drive PS for the

commission of offence on 20

th

October 2021 under sections 387,

388, 380, 403, 420, 423, 464, 465, 497, 468, 471, etc. In CR No.

46 of 2024, he alleges that he was arrested in CR No.299 of 2021

bgp Page | 4

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

and Shekhar Jagtap appeared on behalf of Shyamsundar Agarwal

in the Court of 8

th

Metropolitan Magistrate Killa Court, Mumbai

but, at the same time, Shekhar Jagtap pressed for hi s second

remand on 29

th

July 2021 in his capacity as Special Public

Prosecutor. He further alleges that Shekhar Jagtap appeared as

Special Public Prosecutor in other cases also inclu ding the

proceedings of Criminal Writ Petition No.2646 of 2023 which was

filed by Akbar Pathan seeking quashing of CR No.299 of 2021.

Making further allegations against Shekhar Jagtap, the second

respondent states that the application filed by the Investigating

Officer for obtaining voice sample of Chhota Shakeel in CR No.35

of 2021 was dismissed on 5

th

January 2022. In that case, Shekhar

Jagtap appeared for the State of Maharashtra without any

permission and ensured that the application for voice sample of

Chhota Shakeel is rejected so as to save Shyamsundar Agarwal in

the said case. Constrained, he filed a Miscellaneous Application in

the Sessions Court for obtaining the voice sample o f Chhota

Shakeel and Shekhar Jagtap again appeared in the sai d case as

Special Public Prosecutor and opposed the said application. In CR

No.176 of 2021, which was filed on 23

rd

July, 2021 at Kopri PS by

Sharad Agarwal who is a relative of Shyamsundar Aga rwal,

Shekhar Jagtap opposed his pre-bail application and also

appeared in Bail Application No.2812 of 2021 filed by him and

made false statement that he is the Special Public Prosecutor. He

also appeared without any authority in CR No.365 of 2021 which

was registered under sections 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal

Code, section 72 of the Information Technology Act and section 21

of the Indian Telegraph Act.

4. In CR No.742 of 2024 which was lodged on 26

th

August 2024

bgp Page | 5

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

against Shekhar Jagtap and six other persons, the se cond

respondent made an allegation that there was a crim inal

conspiracy hatched by the accused persons to remove Parambir

Singh from the post of Police Commissioner, Mumbai and to

implicate Parambir Singh and other political leaders by lodging

false criminal cases. The accused persons drafted t wo First

Information Reports and provided a pen drive to Suc hita

Deshmukh who was the Thane Police Officer to register criminal

cases against him, Sunil Mangilal Jain, Parambir Singh, Akbar

Pathan, Shrikant Shinde, Asha Kokate, Nandkumar Gop ale,

Sanjay Patil and other Police Officers. However, she declined to

register a First Information Report and then Shyamsundar Agarwal

called a few IPS Officers who instructed Suchita Deshmukh to

register a crime. Thereafter, the police arrested him and Sunil Jain

from their house after registering a crime and they were produced

in the Court on 22

nd

July 2021. At that time, Shekhar Jagtap

appeared in the case as a lawyer representing Shyam sundar

Agarwal. The second respondent further alleged that Sharad

Agarwal who is the nephew of Shyamsundar Agarwal pr ovided

another pen drive to the police at Kopri PS at around 5:00 am on

23

rd

July 2021 and Crime No.176 of 2021 was registered a gainst

him, Sunil Jain, Manoj Ghatekar, Parag Manere and Pa rambir

Singh. He alleged that the accused persons lodged false cases to

pressurize him to give statement against Parambir Singh and other

political leaders. The second respondent has also referred to CR

No.201 of 2016, which was registered at Thane Nagar PS on 20

th

November 2016 for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 470,

471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He further al leged that

besides the lodging of false criminal cases, the investigation in

bgp Page | 6

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

Crime No.201 of 2016 was reopened and he was made a ccused in

the said case about five years after its registration in which he was

initially cited as a witness. The second respondent further alleged

that Shekhar Jagtap appeared as a Special Public Pro secutor

without any authority in Crime No.201 of 2016 and ensured that

his bail application is rejected. According to the second

respondent, he came to know about an observation ma de by Mr.

Kakani, a Judge, on 23

rd

June 2021 that he was being threatened

by a Police Officer. He has also made an allegation that Shekhar

Jagtap appeared on behalf of Raju Hiramal Shah in th e

anticipatory bail application filed by Dilip Gheware in the Thane

Sessions Court falsely projecting Raju Hiramal Shah as the

complainant in the case.

5. Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, the learned senior Counsel ap pearing for

Shekhar Jagtap submitted that on a bare reading of the allegations

made in the First Information Report no offence is made out. The

petitioner was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor is a matter of

record and the allegations made by the second respo ndent are a

reflection of his grudge against Shekhar Jagtap for opposing his pre-

bail and bail applications. It is submitted that the registration of the

First Information Reports on the complaints made by the second

respondent is an abuse of the process of law and this is a fit case for

exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Mr. Mihir Desai, the learned senior counsel appea ring for

Shyamsundar R. Agarwal and Sharad Agarwal contended that the

complaints lodged by the second respondent are actu ated with

malafides and intended to take revenge on the petitioners. Mr. Mihir

Desai, the learned senior counsel appearing for San jay Pandey

submitted that the allegation against this Applicant is baseless and

bgp Page | 7

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

mere ipse dixit of the second respondent. The other learned counsels

appearing for the accused-petitioners advanced similar arguments

and contended that the criminal complaints filed by the second

respondent are manifestly frivolous and malicious. Mr. Sudeep

Pasbola, the learned senior counsel and Special Public Prosecutor

opposed the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings against

the accused persons. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

could not deny that a ‘C’ Summary report has been f iled by the

police.

7.Per contra, Mr. Rizwan Merchant, the learned counsel

appearing for the second respondent contended that Shekhar Jagtap

who had previously appeared for Shyamsundar Agarwal and Raju

Shah was not acting as the Special Public Prosecutor and he was

trying to protect Shyamsundar Agarwal all the time. He appeared in

several cases by virtue of a forged appointment order which is not

found in the records and the said document is still to be recovered

from him. The learned counsel further submitted th at Shekhar

Jagtap had direct interest in the matter but he accepted to become

the Special Public Prosecutor, and Kishor Bhalerao helped him in

manipulating the Government records. Sanjay Pandey also joined

them and transferred the investigation of MCOC-CR No.35 of 2021

to the State CID Crime Branch without any reason. The submission

made at the Bar is that there was a conspiracy between the accused

persons to implicate the second respondent in false criminal cases.

8. The Court is duty bound to examine the matter wit h greater

care where quashing of the criminal proceedings is demanded on the

ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or malicious.

In “Sujay Ghosh,”

1

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High

Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances

1Sujay Ghosh v. The State of Jharkhand &Anr. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 454

bgp Page | 8

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

emerging from the record of the case and try to read in between the

lines when a ground is set up that the criminal proceedings are

frivolous or vexatious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court o bserved as

under:

“14. When an accused seeks quashing of either the FI R 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 vexat ious

proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other

attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case,

over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care

and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines. The

Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Code or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself

only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into

account the overall circumstances leading to the

initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials

collected in the course of investigation.”

9. The gravamen of allegation against Shekhar Jagtap is that

he appeared in several cases against the second respondent on the

basis of a forged and non-existent letter of his appointment as

Special Public Prosecutor. To challenge the appoint ment of

Shekhar Jagtap as Special Public Prosecutor, the sec ond

respondent refers to RTI information provided to him on 18

th

August, 2023. He was provided certified copy of th e letter

appointing Shekhar Jagtap as Special Public Prosecut or in CR

No.299 of 2021 and CR No.35 of 2021 dated 29

th

July 2021 but no

information was provided to him in respect of the letter dated 6

th

August 2021 by which Shekhar Jagtap was allegedly appointed as

Special Public Prosecutor by Kishor Bhalerao. On the other hand,

Shekhar Jagtap has brought on record a copy of the letter dated

21

st

July 2021 written by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law

bgp Page | 9

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

and Order) Mumbai to the Principal Secretary, recommending his

name for appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor . The

appointment letter dated 29

th

July 2021 issued by the Deputy

Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra authorized Shekhar

Jagtap to appear as a Special Public Prosecutor in Crime No.299

of 2021 and Crime No.35 of 2021. The appointment letters dated

6

th

August 2021 and 9

th

August 2021, Notification dated 23

rd

September 2021, Government Resolution dated 5

th

April 2021 and

Notification dated 21

st

December 2021 are on record. He has also

brought on record several other communications such as letters

dated 30

th

July 2021, 4

th

August 2021, 11

th

October 2021,

appointment letter dated 18

th

November 2021, Notification issued

by the Law and Judiciary Department dated 10

th

December 2021.

10. On the other hand, Mr.Rizwan Merchant, the learned counsel

for the second respondent referred to a communicati on by the

Desk Officer and submitted that there is a grave suspicion against

Shekhar Jagtap that he forged the order of his appointment as a

Special Public Prosecutor or appeared in the Court in different

proceedings against the second respondent on the basis of a non-

existent appointment letter. The learned counsel for the second

respondent contended that the First Information Report discloses

commission of serious offences by the accused perso ns, the

investigation in the matter is still continuing and the police must

be given a free hand to unearth the true facts. He further

contended that in view of ‘C’ Summary submitted by the police in

CR No. 46 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 722 of 2024 ha s been

rendered infructuous inasmuch as CR No. 46 of 2024 has become

non-est. The learned counsel endeavored to harp upon th e

statements made in the reply affidavit filed by the Principal

bgp Page | 10

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

Secretary and the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs that no proposal

for approval or ex-post-facto approval of the appointment of

Shekhar Jagtap was received in the Law and Judiciary

Department.

11. However, in our opinion, a communication from th e Desk

Officer of the Home Department to the effect that a copy of the

appointment order dated 6

th

August 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 recommendations made for appointme nt of

Shekhar Jagtap as a Special Public Prosecutor in the

communications dated 30

th

July 2021, 4

th

August 2021 and 6

th

August 2021 make a mention of the seriousness, comp licity and

legal implication. This is also true that the proceedings in Crime

Nos.299 of 2021, 176 of 2021 and other cases were c onducted

during COVID-19 pandemic period. This was the stand taken

before the Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.475 of 2024

filed by Kishor Shamrao Bhalerao that certain oral instructions

were used to be given during that period when about 10% staff was

working in Mantralaya and ex-post-facto approvals were taken. In

the letter dated 31

st

January 2024, Dilip Walse-Patil who was the

Home Minister informed the Additional Chief Secreta ry that

Shekhar Jagtap was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor on

his instructions. Mr. Patil reiterated his statement in the later

proceedings and Kishor Bhalerao who is the petitioner in Criminal

Writ Petition No.737 of 2024 has produced a copy of the said letter

in the present proceedings. There is no reason to s uspect the

genuineness of the communications, orders and appoi ntment

letters. The appointment of Shekhar Jagtap as a Spec ial Public

bgp Page | 11

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

Prosecutor was preceded by recommendations and

communications from senior police officers.

12. It is pertinent and logical to reflect on the presumption that a

particular judicial or official act which has been performed shall be

deemed to have been performed regularly. The well-known maxim

of law on which the presumption is founded is: “o mnia

praesumuntur rite esse acta” which means all acts are presumed to

have been rightly and regularly done. Section 114 of the Evidence

Act refers to a wide range of presumptions of acts which come in

aid of the courts in administration of justice. The presumption

under illustration (e) of section 114 of the Evidence Act definitely

raises a presumption of validity of the manner of issuing the orders

of appointment of Shekhar Jagtap as Special Public P rosecutor.

An order or notification containing recital, technically correct on

the face of it, raises a presumption of fact under section 114

illustration (e) of the Evidence Act. (vide, “Narayan Govind

Gavate”

2

). This is also not a valid reason to cause an enquiry or

investigation to find the reason why Shekhar Jagtap rendered an

opinion for closure of the case to help Shyamsundar Agarwal. The

role of the Public Prosecutor is important in crimi nal

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 is not bound by the opinion of the Public

Prosecutor and is free to assess whether a prima-facie case is made

out or not. The rhetorics against Shekhar Jagtap seem to emanate

from the fact that the second respondent suffered adverse orders

from the Court in the cases in which Shekhar Jagtap appeared as

2Narayan Govind Gavate& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: (1977) 1 SCC 133

bgp Page | 12

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

the Special Public Prosecutor. The facts narrated by the second

respondent clearly disclose that he has been embroiled in several

cases and he alleges that Shyamsundar Agarwal and o thers are

inimical to him.

13. The second respondent is pressing his agenda so vehemently

that he filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra

and Goa making a similar allegation against Shekhar Jagtap of

forging the letter of his appointment as SPP. An in quiry vide

Preliminary Inquiry No. 167 of 2023 was conducted b y the Bar

Council and the complaint filed by the second respo ndent was

dismissed by an order dated 3

rd

September 2023.

14. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is the bo dy

empowered to initiate a disciplinary proceeding aga inst the

advocates who commit misconduct and are enrolled wi th it. The

instances of misconduct projected by the second res pondent

cannot be looked into by the police in the course o f the

investigation. Any inquiry or investigation into th e alleged

misconduct of Shekhar Jagtap shall impinge upon the powers of

the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The investigation by

the police into the alleged misconduct committed by Shekhar

Jagtap is not permissible in law. Any issue pertaining to the

appointment of Shekhar Jagtap can be examined by the writ Court

as to the validity and legality of his appointment but not by the

police at the instance of a private person. “Shivaji”

3

on which the

learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance dealt

with the issue of bias on the part of the Public Prosecutor and held

that the State has power to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor. In

3Shivaji s/o. Rajaram Tatke & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.: Criminal Writ Petition

No. 379 of 2022 decided on 23

rd

January 2023

bgp Page | 13

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

“Omprakash Baheti

4

, an allegation was made against the Special

Public Prosecutor who had personally appeared for t he

complainant. However, the Court did not find any me rit in the

petition and held that the appointment was valid and legal.

15. The second respondent is a habitual litigant and a proceeding

under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was initiated against him

in Appeal (L) No. 352 of 2014 (arising out of an order passed in

Notice of Motion No. 313 of 2014 in Suit No. 175 of 2014). He

moved the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane in

Criminal Case No.1697 of 2024 seeking investigation and

registration of a First Information Report after an inquiry under

section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against Shyamsundar A garwal,

Sharad Agarwal and Shubham Agarwal and other known and

unknown persons. In this complaint case, the second respondent

made similar allegations regarding lodging of several criminal cases

and fight between Parambir Singh and Anil Deshmukh, the then

Home Minister. He stated about a criminal conspiracy hatched by

Shyamsundar Agarwal, Sharad Agarwal, Shubham Agarwa l and

other known and unknown accused persons to keep him in

prolonged judicial custody by filing several cases against him. This

complaint case was dismissed as withdrawn on 23

rd

September

2024. The registration of CR No. 742 of 2024 is also hit by the

order dated 7

th

August 2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.

5036 of 2022 by which the said petition was dismiss ed as

withdrawn. This writ petition was filed by the second respondent

seeking formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for making

an inquiry and investigation into the appointment o f Shekhar

Jagtap as a Special Public Prosecutor.

4Omprakash Baheti & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra: 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 82

bgp Page | 14

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

16. There seems to be a long history of enmity betwe en second

respondent and Shyamsundar Agarwal who has filed se veral cases

against the second respondent. In CR No. 299 of 2021 registered at

the instance of Shyamsundar Agarwal at Marine Drive PS, it is

alleged that the second respondent entered into a c riminal

conspiracy with Parambir Singh and other accused pe rsons to

unlawfully extort money from Shyamsundar Agarwal an d his family

members. They subjected the complainant and his fam ily members

to intimidation, coercion and threat of criminal prosecution to

compel them to accede to their unlawful demands. They orchestrated

the false implication of Shyamsundar Agarwal in CR No.I-35 of 2021

by misusing police machinery with an intention to exert pressure on

him. Sharad Agarwal who is the complainant in CR No. 176 of 2021

registered at Kopri PS alleged that Sanjay Punamiya , Parambir

Singh, Sunil Jain, Manoj Ghatekar and Parag Manere c onspired

together and intimidated him with threats of false criminal cases and

forced him to part with about Rs. 9 crores. Ketan Tanna is another

person who claims that he is aggrieved by the unlawful activities of

the second respondent, his brother and Parambir Singh. He lodged

CR No. 151 of 2021 at Thane Nagar PS alleging criminal activities by

the accused persons under sections 109, 156 and 120 B of Indian

Penal Code and section 3(25) of the Arms Act. This has also been

brought on record that Milan Gandhi lodged CR No. 201 of 2016 at

Thane Nagar PS alleging that Shyamsundar Agarwal in connivance

with certain government officials of the Thane Collectorate and Mira

Bhayandar Municipal Corporation forged and fabricated Urban Land

Ceiling certificates and the Revenue records. Furthermore, Mujawar

has lodged CR No. 365 of 2021 at Marine Drive PS ag ainst the

second respondent and his brother for dishonestly a nd

bgp Page | 15

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

unauthorizedly obtaining and stealing confidential and sensitive

documents pertaining to Preliminary Inquiry. They u nlawfully

procured and retained the copy of the call detail records pertaining

to certain mobile numbers. On the other hand, the s econd

respondent lodged CR No. 35 of 2021 alleging criminal conspiracy by

Shyamsundar Agarwal to issue threats to him in the name of

gangster Chhota Shakeel. He alleged that the accuse d persons

compelled him to execute and sign a deed of settlem ent which

contained different terms and conditions in comparison to what was

initially agreed upon between the parties.

17. The allegation against Kishore S. Bhalerao does not sustain

in the face of the official records and the statement given by Anil

Deshmukh on whose oral instructions the appointment letter in

favour of Shekhar Jagtap was issued. The second resp ondent

alleged that Sardar Patil and Manohar Patil came to the Jupiter

Hospital at Thane where he was undergoing treatment and took

him away from the hospital in an ambulance and they started

questioning him. But after some discussion between Sardar Patil

and Ravi Patil and others he was admitted to Saifee Hospital where

he was guarded all the times by eight policemen though he was

already on pre-arrest bail in Crime No.201 of 2016. The second

respondent further alleged that Sardar Patil and other two police

officers came to Saifee Hospital to record his statement and

informed him that Sanjay Pandey asked him to implicate Parambir

Singh and two prominent leaders in the ULC scam but he refused

to give any such statement. He further stated that Sardar Patil

exploited financial resources of Shekhar Limaye, Sat yavan

Dhangawe, Bharat Kamble and Anil Moti Ramani. Acco rding to

him, Sardar Patil has extorted crores of rupees from about 100

bgp Page | 16

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

builders by summoning them and threatened to implicate them in

crime.

18. There is no material produced by the second resp ondent to

support his allegations against the accused persons or that there

was criminal conspiracy hatched between Shyamsundar Agarwal,

Sharad Agarwal, Sardar Patil, Manohar Patil and Shekhar Jagtap to

implicate him or Parambir Singh and others by lodging false criminal

cases. There is no verifiable allegation against Sanjay Pandey, Sardar

Patil, Manohar Patil and other accused persons. The allegation

against Shyamsundar Agarwal emanates also from a gr udge

nurtured by the second respondent against him. In “Nalini & Ors

5

.”,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"583. Some of the broad principles governing the law of

conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name

implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the

principles.

1. Under Section 120-A IPC offence of criminal

conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree

to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by

illegal means. When it is a legal act by illegal means overt

act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an

exception to the general law where intent alone does not

constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining

hands with persons having the same intention. Not only

the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out

the object of the intention, which is an offence. The

question for consideration in a case is did all the accused

have the intention and did they agree that the crime be

committed. It would not be enough for the offence of

conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained

a wish, howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be

committed.

2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of

conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused

was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of

conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act,

5State v. Nalini & Ors.: (1999) 5 SCC 583

bgp Page | 17

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

which may be unlawful, would not make the accused a

part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.

3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It

is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct

evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy

and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances

and the conduct of the accused.

4. Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a

chain – A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all

will be members of a single conspiracy if they so intend

and agree, even though each member knows only the

person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrols.

There may be a kind of umbrella-spoke enrolment, where

a single person at the centre does the enrolling and all the

other members are unknown to each other, though they

know that there are to be other members. These are

theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell which

conspiracy in a particular case falls into which category.

It may however, even overlap. But then there has to be

present mutual interest. Persons may be members of

single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the

identity of many others who may have diverse roles to

play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the

conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active

role.

5. When two or more persons agree to commit a

crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or

considering any plans for its commission, and despite the

fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out

their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and

every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to

be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To

prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that

intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may

further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy.

6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should

agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may

join with other conspirators at any time before the

consummation of the intended objective, and all are

equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play

may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a

conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.

7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the

accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the

bgp Page | 18

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

court may consider the entire mass of evidence against

every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not

only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of

the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the

charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against

the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of

evidence against some may result in the conviction of all,

which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in

conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of

any other substantive offence prosecution tries to

implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but

also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators.

There is always difficulty in tracing the precise

contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then

there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against

each one of the accused charged with the offence of

conspiracy. As observed by Judge Learned Hand “this

distinction is important today when many prosecutors

seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those

who have been associated in any degree whatever with

the main offenders”.

8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and

not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the

crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is

complete even though there is no agreement as to the

means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is

the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the

crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which

amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express,

but may be inherent in and inferred from the

circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct

of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered

into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be

reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of

the conspiracy.

9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a

partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy

a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common

plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a

conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the

agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of

them and they are jointly responsible therefor. This

means that everything said, written or done by any of the

conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common

purpose is deemed to have been said, done or written by

bgp Page | 19

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

each of them. And this joint responsibility extends not

only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant

to the original agreement but also to collateral acts

incidental to and growing out of the original purpose. A

conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by

a co-conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The

joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not create

a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the

other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators

individually or in groups perform different tasks to a

common end does not split up a conspiracy into several

different conspiracies.

10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by

deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy

requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an

existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with

knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who

tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes

along with other conspirators, actually standing by while

the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though

he intends to take no active part in the crime."

19. The effect of the registration of a First Information Report can

hardly be underestimated from the standpoint of the accused

person. The First Information Report is a very important and vital

document in a criminal case. An early reporting reg arding the

commission of a crime is equally important. The delay in lodging

the First Information Report may give an impression that the same

is a creature of afterthought. Whether the delay is so long as to

cast suspicion on the complaint made to the police would depend

upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. The

allegations in both the First Information Reports are focused on

Shekhar Jagtap, who according to the second responde nt,

appeared in the cases against him, opposed his pre-bail and bail

applications and tried to shield Shyamsundar Agarwal who is an

accused in CR No.35 of 2021. However, many instances which are

narrated in the complaints made by the second respo ndent

bgp Page | 20

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

occurred in his presence but there is no explanation by him why

he instituted the present criminal proceedings after an inordinate

delay of about three years. For ensuring itself as to whether any

innocent person has been implicated in the crime, the unexplained

inordinate delay must be taken into consideration by the Court as

a very crucial factor for quashing criminal complai nt (vide,

“Hasmukhlal D. Vora”

6

). 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.

20. In “Golconda Linga Swamy

7

”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that the exercise of powers by the High Court would be

justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or

continuation of such a proceeding amounts to abuse of the process

of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of

this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not

confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent

power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It

envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction

may be exercised, namely : (i) to give effect to an order under the

Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise

secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay

down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent

jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can

provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have

inherent powers apart from express provisions of law wh ich are

necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon

them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section

which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High

Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of

any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such

powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course

of administration of justice on the principle quando lex

aliquidaliqueconcedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non

potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that

without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the

section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.

6Hasmukhlal D. Vora &Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu: (2022) 15 SCC 164

7State of Andra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy &Anr.: 2004(6) SCC 522

bgp Page | 21

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised

sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is

justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to

be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for

the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court

exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse

that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to

prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to

allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion

of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash

any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to

abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would

otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by

the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a

complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the

materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether

any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”

21. In “R. P. Kapur”,

8

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to

quash the criminal proceedings in a proper case either to prevent

the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“6. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal it is necessary to

consider the nature and scope of the inherent power of the High

Court under S. 561-A of the Code. The said section s aves the

inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be

necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent

abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice. There is no doubt that this inherent power cannot be

exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other

provisions of the Code. In the present case the magistrate before

whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has

yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may

be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the

quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by

any specific provision of the Code. It is well established that the

inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash

proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused

person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High

Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at

an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to

lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this

inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of

8R. P. Kapur v. The State Of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866

bgp Page | 22

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised

for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be

possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or

continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may

amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing

of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the

criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to

have been committed by an accused person and it manife stly

appears that there is a legal bar against the institut ion or

continuance of the said proceeding the High Court wo uld be

justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the

requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this

category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their

face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the

offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence

arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First

Information Report to decide whether the offence alle ged is

disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High

Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process

of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A

third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High

Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling

under this category the allegations made against the accused

person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal

evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence a dduced

clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this

class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between

a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence

which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation

made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its

appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In

exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A the High Court would not

embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is

reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and

ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High

Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable

appreciation of the evidence the accusation made agai nst the

accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature

and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S.

561-A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is

the effect of the judicial decisions on the point (Vide : In Re : Shripad

G. Chandavarkar, AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat Chandra Mozu mdar v.

Queen Empress, ILR 26 Cal. 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. State of

Punjab, 56 Pun LR 54 : (AIR 1954 Punj 193), Nripendra Bhusan Roy

v. Gobinda Bandhu Majumdar, AIR 1924 Cal 1018 and

Ramanathan Chettiyar v. SivaramaSubramania, ILR 47 Mad 722 :

(AIR 1925 Mad 39))”

22. The accusation against the petitioners is that they falsely

implicated the second respondent in CR No. 201 of 2 021 and

bgp Page | 23

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

created false documents such as the appointment letter of Shekhar

Jagtap and threatened and pressurized him to give a false

statement before the police. 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.

23. The power of the police to register a case and c arry the

investigation is not unbridled and the High Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under

section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may

interdict the investigation and quash the First Information Report.

The High Court can legitimately quash the First Information Report

where it is manifest from the matters on record that the complaint

was not bona fide and the complainant was acting with malafide

intention.

24. Even if it is assumed that the allegations made by the second

respondent constitute “some” offence, the investigation in the

matter must not be permitted to continue. When the main

allegations made by the second respondent which according to him

constitute a series of serious offences are not entertainable by the

police to launch an investigation, the machinery of police cannot be

utilized to find out whether some offence howsoever minor that may

be was committed by the accused persons. The High C ourt may

take into consideration the special facts of a case and quash the

criminal prosecution. The process of law cannot be misutilized

bgp Page | 24

Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)

for oblique purpose and a criminal proceeding which is manifestly

attended with malafide can be quashed. In “Bhajanlal”

9

, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a criminal proceedi ng can be

quashed if it is found that the same is maliciously instituted with

ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a

view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

25. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the registration of

First Information Reports against the petitioners is an abuse of the

process of law. Therefore, Writ Petition Nos.3839 of 2024, 722 of

2024, 737 of 2024, 750 of 2024, 4923 of 2024 and Wr it Petition

(Stamp) No.19375 of 2024 and Criminal Application No.1140 of

2024 are allowed and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom

are quashed.

26. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(SUMAN SHYAM, J.) ( CHIEF JUSTICE)

9State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal: (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335

bgp Page | 25