Judgment Brief
Mala fide FIRs can be quashed as abuse of process
By ICS Desk
Case: SANJAY PANDEY vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bench: JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
The Bombay High Court, speaking through Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam, quashed multiple FIRs and the criminal proceedings arising from them, holding that the registrations amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
The petitions before the Court arose from a cluster of complaints and FIRs, including CR No. 742 of 2024 registered at Thane Nagar Police Station and CR No. 46 of 2024 registered at Colaba Police Station. The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the complaints were not bona fide and were driven by mala fide intent.
The judgment records that the complainant had himself referred to several criminal cases involving the parties and to earlier proceedings in which allegations had been exchanged across multiple forums. On the facts placed before it, the Court concluded that the complaints were not genuine attempts to set the criminal law in motion for a lawful purpose.
The Court observed that even if some allegations were assumed to disclose an offence, the investigation could not be allowed to continue where the main allegations themselves were not entertainable in law. It held that the police machinery cannot be used to probe whether some minor offence may have been committed when the prosecution, in substance, is not maintainable and is being used for an oblique purpose.
Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings can be quashed when they are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, including to wreck vengeance or settle private scores. Applying that principle, the Court found that the registration of the FIRs against the petitioners was an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, Writ Petition Nos. 3839 of 2024, 722 of 2024, 737 of 2024, 750 of 2024, 4923 of 2024, Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 19375 of 2024, and Criminal Application No. 1140 of 2024 were allowed, and all criminal proceedings arising from them were quashed.
Practical takeaway: where the record shows mala fide prosecution and abuse of criminal process, Bhajanlal remains a strong basis for quashing.
Appearances
Petitioner
Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Senior Advocate (through VC), Mr.Karan Khetani, Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary & Mr.Akash Pandey, Advocates, Mr. Satyavrat Joshi (through VC), Mr. Priyesh More, Advocates, Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pavan S. Patil, Mr. P. S. Gole, Mr. Shubham Saraf & Mr. Tanmay A. Deshmukh, Advocates, Mr. S. B. Talekara/w Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan & Mr. Aditya Madane i/b Talekar & Associates, Advocates, Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate, Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, Mr. Rohan Hogle, Mr.Sachin Pawar, Mr. Hrishikesh Avhad & Mr. Pranjal Jadhav, Advocates
Applicant
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rahul Kamerkar& Ms. Aparajita R. Jha, Advocates
Respondent
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. J. P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ayush Pasbola, Mr. Chinmay Godse, Mr.Rohin Chouhan & Ms. Harshada Shirsath, Advocates, Mr. Rizwan Merchant, Mr. Dilip H. Shukla