MUMBAI: Criminal proceedings initiated against former Mumbai police commissioner Sanjay Pandey and others at the behest of businessman Sanjay Punamiya were “manifestly attended with mala fides and amounted to an abuse of the process of law,” the Bombay high court pronounced on Wednesday.
According to the order made available online on Thursday, the court quashed two first information reports (FIRs) registered at Thane Nagar and Colaba police stations in 2024 against the former Mumbai police commissioner and others, saying Punamiya’s complaints were an “outcome of a desperate and vengeful mind”, seeking “a fishing inquiry” into a matter which did not require any inquiry at all.
The division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam also quashed FIRs against retired assistant commissioner of police Sardar Patil, police inspector Manohar Patil, advocate Shekhar Jagtap, builder Shyamsundar Agrawal and two members of the builder’s family.
The court said that even if it was assumed that the allegations constituted “some” offence, the “investigation in the matter must not be permitted to continue”.
“When the main allegations, which according to the complainant constitute a series of serious offences, are not entertainable by the police to launch an investigation, the machinery of police cannot be utilised to find out whether some offence howsoever minor that may be, was committed by the accused persons”, the court remarked.
Punamiya had alleged that Pandey, along with others, was part of a larger conspiracy to falsely implicate him in criminal cases in 2021. He had claimed that Agarwal and others had threatened him in the name of gangster Chhota Shakeel into signing a settlement agreement, and fabricated urban land ceiling certificates and revenue records.
Agarwal, on the other hand, had lodged a complaint at Marine Drive police station against Punamiya, former Mumbai police commissioner Parambir Singh and other political leaders, for alleged extortion, intimidation, coercion and threat of criminal prosecution to compel him and his family to accede to their unlawful demands by using misusing police machinery.
Punamiya’s complaint also referred to Jagtap’s appointment as the special public prosecutor (SPP) in cases against him, adding that Jagtap appeared without any authority, forged his appointment order, manipulated government records, and had direct interest in the matter.
The court, however, found no material to support the claims against the accused, holding that there was “no verifiable allegation” against Pandey and others.
There was a “long history of enmity” between Punamiya and the Agarwals and the complaints seemed to “emanate from a grudge” nurtured by Punamiya, the court said. “The allegations are vague and lack particulars. They are speculative and have proved to be false in view of ‘C’ summary report filed by the police,” it noted.
The allegations against Jagtap’s appointment as the SPP “cannot outweigh the other official communications and notifications” including recommendations for his appointment dated July 30, August 4, and 6, 2021, the court observed.
Referring to the three-year delay in lodging the FIR, the court said it “may give an impression that the same is a creature of afterthought”.
“The power of the police to register a case and carry the investigation is not unbridled. The high court can legitimately quash the FIR, where it manifests from the record that the complaint was not bona fide,” the court noted.
The division bench concluded that the “process of law cannot be misutilised for oblique purposes” and a criminal proceeding, which is manifestly attended with malafide, can be quashed.
“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the registration of the FIRs against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law,” the court said, disposing of the matter.
