MALAVIYA, J. - (1.) I had the advantage of going through the elaborate and detailed judgment prepared by my learned brother Hon. B. K. Sharma, J. on the preliminary objection. While I am in total agreement with him on the points covered by his judgment and endorse his conclusion I would like to briefly add a few lines of my own, which are only to summarise the conclusions of Hon. brother B. K. Sharma, J.
(2.) The judgment of seven Judges' Full Bench in the case of Ram Pal Yadav v. State of U.P. (1989 Cri LJ 1013) is clear and cateogorical that unless there is a matter pending before the subordinate Court no application under S. 482, Cr.P.C. can be entertained by the High Court. In other words it means that till the stage of investigation of a Criminal case, and thereafter till the filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance of the offence by the Court, no application can be made in the High Court for quashing the First Information Report or investigation under Section 482, Cr.P.C. However in very exceptional cases the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked either for quashing the First Information Report or for staying the investigation.
(3.) In the cases of the Supreme Court which have been delivered after the judgment of the Full Bench in Ram Lal's case (1989 Cri LJ 1013) (supra), none of the Supreme Court cases considered the question whether jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked under S. 482, Cr.P.C. while a criminal case was still being investigated. The Supreme Court was, therefore, not deciding this point in any of the subsequent judgments and any casual observation that either in its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or under S. 482, Cr.P.C. in a suitable case the High Court could grant relief was just an observation of the Supreme Court to indicate that the High Court could exercise its inherent power under S. 482, Cr.P.C. or extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to interfere in a suitable matter pending investigation. This observation only meant that power under S. 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised in some proceedings arising out of a complaint etc. when the matter was pending in some Court; and the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution could be exercised when the matter had till then not reached the Court but was still under investigation by a police officer. The judgment and observations of the Supreme Court are not at all contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Lal and it cannot be said that the said observation of the Supreme Court permit any High Court to exercise its powers under S. 482, Cr.P.C. when the matter is still under investigation. The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, has quoted Ram Lal's judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Janta Dal v. H. S. Chauhan, AIR 1993 SC 892 (paragraph 155 page 926). This paragraph in the aforesaid case has been quoted only to indicate that the similar view which the Supreme Court was taking had already been taken by the High Court in the said Full Bench. As such case of Ram Lal has been given a seal of approval by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.;