Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions and a criminal application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of two FIRs registered in 2024. The Court held that the FIRs were an abuse of the process of law, were driven by personal vendetta, and were based on vague, speculative and unverifiable allegations.
The Court quashed all criminal proceedings arising from the two FIRs, observing that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and is instituted for an oblique purpose, the High Court can intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. The Court held:
“The process of law cannot be misutilized for oblique purpose and a criminal proceeding which is manifestly attended with malafide can be quashed.”
Facts
The proceedings arose from two FIRs registered on the basis of complaints made by the second respondent. One FIR was registered at Thane Nagar Police Station in August 2024, alleging offences including criminal conspiracy, false evidence, forgery, extortion, impersonation and intimidation under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The second FIR was registered at Colaba Police Station in March 2024, alleging cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and conspiracy.
The complainant alleged that a Special Public Prosecutor, certain private persons, police officers and others had conspired to falsely implicate him and others in criminal cases. A central allegation was that the Special Public Prosecutor had appeared in several proceedings on the basis of a forged or non-existent appointment order and had used his position to oppose bail applications and protect certain accused persons in connected matters.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. They contended that the complaints were motivated by personal grudge, were filed belatedly, and were intended to retaliate against persons who had either appeared against the complainant or were involved in earlier proceedings adverse to him.
Issues
The key issues before the Bombay High Court were:
- Whether the FIRs disclosed the basic ingredients of the alleged offences.
- Whether allegations relating to appointment and conduct of a Special Public Prosecutor could be investigated by the police at the instance of a private complainant.
- Whether official appointment letters, government communications and notifications could be ignored merely because one communication stated that a particular document was not found in a file.
- Whether the criminal proceedings were malicious, vexatious and filed to wreak vengeance.
- Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the FIRs did not disclose any offence even if the allegations were taken at face value. It was submitted that the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor was supported by official records, government letters, notifications and communications. Therefore, the allegation that he appeared on the basis of forged or non-existent authority was baseless.
It was further argued that the complaints were nothing but a reflection of the complainant’s personal grudge because the Special Public Prosecutor had opposed his pre-arrest bail and bail applications in earlier proceedings. The petitioners also contended that the complaints were maliciously filed after a long delay and amounted to abuse of criminal process.
The petitioners representing other accused persons argued that the complainant had made broad allegations of conspiracy without producing any material to show an agreement, common intention, overt act or direct role attributable to each accused.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant opposed the quashing petitions and argued that the Special Public Prosecutor had appeared in several cases without lawful authority. It was submitted that one of the alleged appointment orders was not available in government records, creating serious suspicion that it was forged or non-existent.
The complainant further alleged that certain accused persons manipulated government records, transferred investigations without valid reason, and conspired to falsely implicate him and others in criminal cases. He argued that the investigation was still continuing and the police should be permitted to unearth the truth.
However, the State could not deny that a ‘C’ Summary Report had been filed by the police in one of the FIRs.
Analysis Of The Law
The Court began by noting that when quashing is sought on the ground that criminal proceedings are frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is not confined only to the allegations in the FIR. It can examine the surrounding circumstances, the history of litigation, the materials collected during investigation, and the overall conduct of the complainant.
The Court relied upon the principle that the High Court has a duty to “read between the lines” where criminal proceedings appear to be initiated for a vindictive purpose. It observed that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon for private vendetta.
The Court also examined the allegation regarding the alleged forged appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor. It found that official records, letters, notifications and communications existed to show that the appointment was preceded by recommendations and communications from senior officers. The Court held that one communication stating that a copy of a particular appointment order was not found in a file could not outweigh other official documents and records whose existence was affirmed in judicial proceedings.
Presumption Of Regularity Of Official Acts
A significant part of the judgment turns on Section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, under which the Court may presume that official acts have been regularly performed.
The Court referred to the maxim “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta”, meaning that all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done. It held that orders, notifications and communications which are technically correct on their face raise a presumption of validity.
The Court therefore held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the communications, orders and appointment letters concerning the Special Public Prosecutor’s appointment. It further observed that the Public Prosecutor is not a “post box” and does not act merely on the dictates of the State; the Court is always free to independently assess whether a prima facie case is made out.
Police Cannot Investigate Advocate Misconduct At Instance Of Private Person
The Court made an important distinction between alleged criminality and alleged professional misconduct. It held that if the allegation is that an advocate committed misconduct in the discharge of professional duties, the proper authority is the Bar Council, not the police.
The Court noted that the complainant had already filed a complaint before the Bar Council making similar allegations regarding the alleged forged appointment. That complaint was dismissed after preliminary inquiry. The Court held that any police investigation into alleged professional misconduct would interfere with the statutory powers of the Bar Council.
The Court held:
“The investigation by the police into the alleged misconduct committed by [the Special Public Prosecutor] is not permissible in law.”
Delay And Personal Vendetta
The Court found that many of the alleged incidents had occurred in the complainant’s presence, yet the FIRs were lodged after an unexplained delay of about three years. The Court held that such delay required close scrutiny, especially where the complainant had a long history of litigation and enmity with some of the accused persons.
The Court noted that the complainant had been involved in several criminal cases and had also initiated multiple proceedings against the accused persons. It found that the allegations were rooted in personal hostility and appeared to arise from adverse orders suffered by the complainant in matters where the Special Public Prosecutor had appeared.
The Court further held that there was no material to support the allegation that the accused persons had conspired to falsely implicate the complainant or others by lodging false criminal cases. It specifically found that the allegations against several accused persons were not verifiable and lacked supporting material.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the following judgments:
- Sujay Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand — The High Court must examine attending circumstances and may look beyond the FIR when proceedings appear frivolous, vexatious or malicious.
- Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra — Official acts and technically valid notifications carry a presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
- State v. Nalini — Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means; mere suspicion, wish, association or hostility is insufficient.
- Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu — Unexplained inordinate delay in lodging a complaint is a crucial factor while considering quashing.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy — Proceedings can be quashed where continuation amounts to abuse of process or where quashing is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
- R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab — Criminal proceedings may be quashed where allegations do not disclose an offence, where there is a legal bar, or where continuation would amount to abuse of process.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal — Criminal proceedings can be quashed where they are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance due to personal grudge.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the allegations were vague, lacked particulars and were speculative. It also noted that the filing of a ‘C’ Summary Report by the police showed that the allegations had not been substantiated.
The Court found that the complainant was seeking a “fishing inquiry” into matters that did not require any police investigation. It held that even if the allegations could be stretched to suggest “some” minor offence, the police machinery could not be permitted to continue investigation where the main allegations themselves were not legally entertainable.
The Court 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.”
It further held that the FIRs were the outcome of a “desperate and vengeful mind” and that the complainant was attempting to misuse criminal process for collateral purposes.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the FIRs and criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. It allowed all connected writ petitions and the criminal application, and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from both FIRs.
The Court concluded that criminal law cannot be used to reopen professional misconduct issues already examined by the Bar Council, nor can vague allegations of conspiracy be used to keep accused persons under criminal investigation where there is no supporting material.
The judgment is significant because it reinforces the High Court’s power to quash malicious criminal proceedings, especially where FIRs are filed after unexplained delay, are rooted in personal vendetta, and lack concrete factual foundation.
Implications
This ruling strengthens the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue merely because serious allegations are made in an FIR. Where the record shows personal animosity, delay, absence of material, prior failed proceedings, and a fishing inquiry, the High Court can step in to prevent abuse of process.
It is also important for cases involving advocates and Special Public Prosecutors because the Court clarified that alleged professional misconduct must ordinarily be examined by the Bar Council, and the police cannot assume jurisdiction over such issues at the instance of a private complainant.
