- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Request has been made to quash the FIR of Case Crime No. 181 of 2002 under Sections 147, 342, 323, 504 and 506 IPC P. S. Kotwali Mahoba and for stay of arrest of the petitioner in the said crime. A preliminary objection has been raised by the AGA that the petition in this Court is not maintainable as the FIR is under investigation and the same cannot be interfered with under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
(2.) I have heard Sri R. S. Tewari, learned Counsel for the applicant and the AGA. The learned Counsel has argued that according to the law laid down by the apex Court the FIR can be quashed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel in support of the argument has referred to that decision of the apex Court in State of Bihar v. Md. Khalique, 2002 (1) JIC 132 (SC); 2002 Cri. L. J. Page 553. In this case the High Court at Patna quashed the investigation of the case for offence under Sections 419, 467, 420 and 120-B IPC. The order was challenged before the apex Court by the State of Bihar. The apex Court reversed the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings. However, considering the circumstances the accused were granted pre arrest bail. Therefore, this decision is absolutely of no help to the petitioner. The other case referred to is also the decision of the apex Court in Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) JIC 3 (SC) ; 2002 (I) UPCrr Page 177. In this case the sanction for prosecution was not granted for more than 12 years. In the circumstances the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution. On the basis of this decision therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
(3.) A bare perusal of Section 482 of Cr. P. C. shows that inherent powers of the Court had been saved to give effect to any order under this code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the investigation cannot be interfered with under Section 482 Cr. P. C. This was held by seven Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Lal Yadav v. State, 1989 JIC 177 (All) ; 1989 ACC Page 181. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1342 of 1997, decided on 16-12-1997 has after considering subsequent decisions of the apex Court held that the law laid down in the Ram Lal's case is still hold good. All these decisions and other decisions were considered by me in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3811 of 1999, Muneer Hasan Warsi v. State, decided on 9-9-1999 and I also expressed the opinion that the investigation cannot be interfered with nor the arrest of the accused can be stayed during the investigation in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C.;