Bombay High Court trashes conspiracy FIRs against Mumbai prosecutor, says public prosecutor is not a ‘post box’

Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam were hearing a batch of petitions seeking the quashing of FIRs registered against a special public prosecutor, police officers and private persons.

The high court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking the quashing of two FIRs registered against a special public prosecutor, police officers and private persons. 

‘Agenda of complainant’

• The high court pointed out that the complainant is pressing his agenda so “vehemently” that he filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, making a similar allegation against the accused person of forging the letter of his appointment as SPP. 
• The Bombay High Court held that the registration of FIRs against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law. 
• It added that the process of law cannot be misused for an oblique purpose and that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fides can be quashed.
• The Bombay High Court pointed out that it is duty-bound to examine matters with greater care when quashing is sought on the ground that criminal proceedings are frivolous, vexatious or malicious.
• The court further observed that judicial and official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed unless shown otherwise.
• The court referred to the well-known maxim, “omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta”, which means all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done. 
• The court pointed out that 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 court noted that the instances of misconduct projected by the complainant cannot be looked into by the police in the course of the investigation. 
• Any inquiry into the alleged misconduct of an SPP should not encroach upon the statutory powers of the bar council, the court observed.
• The investigation by the police into the alleged misconduct committed by SPP is not permissible in law, the Bombay High Court noted. 
• The high court noted that the complainant is a habitual litigant and a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was initiated against him in an appeal.  
• The court noted that there seems to be a long history of enmity between the complainant and another businessman who has filed several cases against him. 
• The high court noted that there is no material produced by the complainant to support his allegations against the accused persons or that there was a criminal conspiracy hatched to implicate him.

Impact of lodging an FIR

• The high court pointed out that the effect of the registration of an FIR can hardly be underestimated from the standpoint of the accused person. 
• It was added that the FIR is a very important and vital document in a criminal case. 
• The court mentioned that an early report regarding the commission of a crime is equally important. The delay in lodging the FIR may give the impression that the same is a creature of afterthought. 
• The court clarified that 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 court noted that the allegations in both the FIRs are focused on the special public prosecutor, who, according to the second respondent, appeared in the cases against him, opposed his pre-bail and bail applications and tried to shield the accused in his case. 
• The court pointed out that the delay in lodging criminal complaints by the second respondent puts it on guard and requires it to minutely examine the allegations against the accused persons. 

A series of FIR and litigation

The complainant, a permanent resident of Mumbai, stated 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 the accused persons, which are pending in different courts. 

It was placed on record that a case was registered concerning allegations of forged Urban Land Ceiling certificates and revenue records. Over the years, the businessman, who is the complainant in this case, got involved in multiple criminal disputes involving rival parties.

Subsequently, in 2021, several criminal cases were registered involving allegations of extortion, conspiracy and misuse of police machinery. 

One of the key cases was lodged at the Marine Drive Police Station at the instance of another businessman. The complainant alleged that these cases were part of a larger conspiracy to falsely implicate him and others, including the former Mumbai Police Commissioner.

Later, in 2023, the complainant questioned the appointment of the special public prosecutor (SPP) concerned in several cases and sought information under the Right to Information Act. He also approached the bar council alleging misconduct by the SPP. However, the council dismissed the complaint after conducting a preliminary inquiry.

Later in March 2024, the complainant lodged another FIR alleging that the SPP and others had committed offences including cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. He claimed that the SPP had appeared in various proceedings without valid authority and had acted to protect certain accused persons.

Subsequently, a second FIR was registered in August 2024, where the complainant alleged that the SPP police officers and a private person had conspired to falsely implicate him.

Aggrieved by the same, the SPP, police officers, businessmen and other accused persons approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of both FIRs. They argued that the allegations were false, motivated by personal vendetta and unsupported by evidence. 

Arguments 

Appearing for the SPP, Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher submitted that on a bare reading of the allegations made in the FIR, no offence is made out. 

He added that his client was appointed as special public prosecutor, which is a matter of record, and the allegations made by the complainant are a reflection of his grudge against SPP for opposing his pre-bail and bail applications. 

It was submitted that the registration of the FIR on the complaints made by the complainant is an abuse of the process of law. 

Appearing for the complainant, advocate Rizwan Merchant contended that SPP 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. 

Merchant further submitted that SPP had a direct interest in the matter, but he agreed to become the special public prosecutor, and the other accused helped him in manipulating the government records. 

The submission made at the bar was that there was a conspiracy between the accused persons to implicate the complainant in false criminal cases.