Bombay High Court
Manohar Narsappa Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 May, 2026
Digitally signed by
BALAJI BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO
2026:BHC-AS:22674-DB
PANCHAL
PANCHAL
Date: 2026.05.21
01:17:41 +0530
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
::: Uploaded on - 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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.Akash
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. Deshmukh,
Advocates for the Petitioner in WP/750/2024.
Mr. S. B. Talekara/w Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan & Mr. Aditya
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 Kamerkar&
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 Chouhan &
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 the
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
::: Uploaded on - 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
Crime Branch, Thane.
Mr. Swapnil Wagh, IO/API - Colaba PS.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
JUDGMENT
RESERVED ON :- 21st JANUARY 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON :- 20th MAY 2026
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :-
In compliance of the order dated 3rd November, 2025 passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.17480 of 2025, the writ petitions vide Writ Petition
Nos.3839 of 2024 and 722 of 2024 filed by Shekhar Jagtap 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 quashing of
the First Information Report bearing CR No. 742 of 2024 registered
on 26th 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, namely, Sanjay
Mishrimal Punamiya who claims to be a permanent resident of the
City of Mumbai stated that Sanjay Pandey, Shekhar Jagtap, ACP
Sardar Patil, PI Manohar Patil, Shyamsundar Agarwal, Shubham
Agarwal and Sharad Agarwal were involved in commission of the
bgp Page | 3
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
aforesaid crime in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched by
them with their unknown associates. Criminal Writ Petition No.
722 of 2024 has been filed by Shekhar Jagtap for quashing of CR
No. 46 of 2024 registered on 3 rdMarch 2024 at Colaba PS on a
written complaint given by Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya alleging
commission of certain offences by Shekhar Jagtap, Shyamsundar
Agarwal, Sharad Agarwal, Kishor Bhalerao and their associates. In
his complaint dated 3rd 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 Code by the
aforesaid accused persons. With a similar prayer seeking quashing
of the criminal proceedings against them, Kishor Shamrao
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 states 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 Shyamsundar
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 registered at the
instance of Shyamsundar Agarwal at Marine Drive PS for the
commission of offence on 20th 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
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
and Shekhar Jagtap appeared on behalf of Shyamsundar Agarwal
in the Court of 8th Metropolitan Magistrate Killa Court, Mumbai
but, at the same time, Shekhar Jagtap pressed for his second
remand on 29th July 2021 in his capacity as Special Public
Prosecutor. He further alleges that Shekhar Jagtap appeared as
Special Public Prosecutor in other cases also including 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 5th 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 of Chhota
Shakeel and Shekhar Jagtap again appeared in the said 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 Agarwal,
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 26th August 2024
bgp Page | 5
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
against Shekhar Jagtap and six other persons, the second
respondent made an allegation that there was a criminal
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 two First
Information Reports and provided a pen drive to Suchita
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 Gopale,
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 22nd July 2021. At that time, Shekhar Jagtap
appeared in the case as a lawyer representing Shyamsundar
Agarwal. The second respondent further alleged that Sharad
Agarwal who is the nephew of Shyamsundar Agarwal provided
another pen drive to the police at Kopri PS at around 5:00 am on
23rd July 2021 and Crime No.176 of 2021 was registered against
him, Sunil Jain, Manoj Ghatekar, Parag Manere and Parambir
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 alleged that
besides the lodging of false criminal cases, the investigation in
bgp Page | 6
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
Crime No.201 of 2016 was reopened and he was made accused 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 Prosecutor
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 made by Mr.
Kakani, a Judge, on 23rd 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 the
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 appearing 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 respondent 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 appearing for
Shyamsundar R. Agarwal and Sharad Agarwal contended that the
complaints lodged by the second respondent are actuated with
malafides and intended to take revenge on the petitioners. Mr. Mihir
Desai, the learned senior counsel appearing for Sanjay Pandey
submitted that the allegation against this Applicant is baseless and
bgp Page | 7
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 filed 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 that 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 with 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
1 Sujay Ghosh v. The State of Jharkhand &Anr. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 454
bgp Page | 8
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 observed as
under:
“14. 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,
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 appointment of
Shekhar Jagtap as Special Public Prosecutor, the second
respondent refers to RTI information provided to him on 18 th
August, 2023. He was provided certified copy of the letter
appointing Shekhar Jagtap as Special Public Prosecutor 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
21st July 2021 written by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Law
bgp Page | 9
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 29th 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
6th August 2021 and 9th August 2021, Notification dated 23rd
September 2021, Government Resolution dated 5 th April 2021 and
Notification dated 21st December 2021 are on record. He has also
brought on record several other communications such as letters
dated 30th July 2021, 4th August 2021, 11th October 2021,
appointment letter dated 18th November 2021, Notification issued
by the Law and Judiciary Department dated 10th December 2021.
10. On the other hand, Mr.Rizwan Merchant, the learned counsel
for the second respondent referred to a communication 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 persons, 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 has been
rendered infructuous inasmuch as CR No. 46 of 2024 has become
non-est. The learned counsel endeavored to harp upon the
statements made in the reply affidavit filed by the Principal
bgp Page | 10
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 the Desk
Officer of the Home Department to the effect that a copy of the
appointment order dated 6th 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 appointment of
Shekhar Jagtap as a Special Public Prosecutor in the
communications dated 30th July 2021, 4th August 2021 and 6th
August 2021 make a mention of the seriousness, complicity and
legal implication. This is also true that the proceedings in Crime
Nos.299 of 2021, 176 of 2021 and other cases were conducted
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 31st January 2024, Dilip Walse-Patil who was the
Home Minister informed the Additional Chief Secretary 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 suspect the
genuineness of the communications, orders and appointment
letters. The appointment of Shekhar Jagtap as a Special Public
bgp Page | 11
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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: “omnia
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 Prosecutor.
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 criminal
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
2 Narayan Govind Gavate& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: (1977) 1 SCC 133
bgp Page | 12
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 others 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 inquiry vide
Preliminary Inquiry No. 167 of 2023 was conducted by the Bar
Council and the complaint filed by the second respondent was
dismissed by an order dated 3rd September 2023.
14. 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 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
3 Shivaji s/o. Rajaram Tatke & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.: Criminal Writ Petition
No. 379 of 2022 decided on 23rd January 2023
bgp Page | 13
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
“Omprakash Baheti4, an allegation was made against the Special
Public Prosecutor who had personally appeared for the
complainant. However, the Court did not find any merit 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 Agarwal,
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 Agarwal 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 7th August 2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.
5036 of 2022 by which the said petition was dismissed 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 of Shekhar
Jagtap as a Special Public Prosecutor.
4 Omprakash Baheti & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra: 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 82
bgp Page | 14
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
16. There seems to be a long history of enmity between second
respondent and Shyamsundar Agarwal who has filed several 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 criminal
conspiracy with Parambir Singh and other accused persons to
unlawfully extort money from Shyamsundar Agarwal and his family
members. They subjected the complainant and his family 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 conspired
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 120B 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 against the
second respondent and his brother for dishonestly and
bgp Page | 15
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
unauthorizedly obtaining and stealing confidential and sensitive
documents pertaining to Preliminary Inquiry. They unlawfully
procured and retained the copy of the call detail records pertaining
to certain mobile numbers. On the other hand, the second
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 accused persons
compelled him to execute and sign a deed of settlement 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 respondent
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, Satyavan
Dhangawe, Bharat Kamble and Anil Moti Ramani. According to
him, Sardar Patil has extorted crores of rupees from about 100
bgp Page | 16
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
Shekhar Jagtap 20 (1)
builders by summoning them and threatened to implicate them in
crime.
18. There is no material produced by the second respondent 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 grudge
nurtured by the second respondent against him. In “Nalini & Ors5.”,
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,5 State v. Nalini & Ors.: (1999) 5 SCC 583
bgp Page | 17
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 thebgp Page | 18
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 regarding 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 respondent,
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 respondent
bgp Page | 20
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 complaint (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 Swamy7”, 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 which 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.
6 Hasmukhlal D. Vora &Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu: (2022) 15 SCC 164
7 State of Andra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy &Anr.: 2004(6) SCC 522bgp Page | 21
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 saves 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 of8 R. P. Kapur v. The State Of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866
bgp Page | 22
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 manifestly
appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would 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 alleged 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 adduced
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 against 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 Mozumdar 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 2021 and
bgp Page | 23
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 carry 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 Court 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
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
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 proceeding 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 Writ 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)
9 State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal: (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
bgp Page | 25
::: Uploaded on – 21/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 21/05/2026 20:37:57 :::
