( 1 ) THIS matter has come before this Court on reference by a division Bench of this Court. The reference of the Division Bench is a result of reference by a Single Judge. The question which needs to be answered is whether the High Court is empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "cr. P. C") to quash the First Information Report (FIR ).

( 2 ) THERE are four judgments of this court. The first one and the earliest in point of time is Hasan All Khan v. State of A. P. , 1992 (1) ALT 146. The second one is s. Sarat Babu Chowdary v. Inspector of police, 1992 (3) ALT 454 (DB ). The third one is Pearl Beverages Limited v. State of a. P. , 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 32 (AP) and the last judgment is Gudavalli Murali Krishna and others v. Gudavalli Madhavi, 2001 (1) ald (Crl.) 689 (AP ). In Hasan All s case (supra) this Court held that powers under section 482 Cr. P. C can be exercised by high Court only after initiation of criminal proceedings after a charge-sheet is filed and not at the stage of investigation. In Sarat babu s case (supra) the Division Bench held that High Court does not possess any power to quash FIR under Section 482 Cr. P. C. In a way it reiterated the view taken in Hasan all s case (supra ). This judgment further held that High Court cannot do anything under Article 226 of the Constitution of india what it cannot do under Section 482 cr. P. C. Even, in Pearl Beverages case (supra) the learned Single Judge held that this Court can quash the proceedings when the case is taken cognizance by the magistrate and at no stage there before. However, in Gudavalli Murali Krishna s case (supra) the learned Single Judge held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C can be invoked to quash the proceedings even at the threshold be it an FIR or a charge-sheet. The learned single Judge took note of earlier judgments, but opined it was not necessary to refer the matter to a Larger Bench in view of later judgments of the Supreme Court. When the judgment in Gudavalli Murali Krishna s case (supra) was cited before the learned Single judge, in the present case, he thought it was proper to refer the matter to a Larger Bench and he also thought that the learned Single judge who decided Gudavalli Murali krishna s case (supra) should have not decided the matter himself, rather if he had found that the earlier judgments of this Court were contrary to the judgments of the Supreme court, he should have referred the matter to the Larger Bench. In these circumstances, a reference was made to the Division Bench and the Division Bench referred the matter to the Full Bench, because there are earlier division Bench judgments as well. V

( 3 ) THE only question, which has to be considered by this Court is whether under section 482 Cr. P. C, High Court is empowered to quash an FIR?

( 4 ) WE have already given reference to the judgments of this Court, which are available on the subject. Learned Counsel for the parties have drawn our attention to various judgments of the Supreme Court.

( 5 ) R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, is a three-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court. This may be necessary to point out that in this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with an FIR. Some relevant facts, which were material in the Criminal Appeal before the Supreme court, need to be mentioned.

( 6 ) ONE M. L. Sethi lodged a First information Report against one Mr. R. P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother- in-law Mrs. Kaushalya Devi had committed offences under Sections 420 read with 109 ipc, 114 and 120b IPC. Mr. Kapur was appellant before the Supreme Court. When the appellant, Mr. Kapur, found that for several months no further action was taken on the First Information Report lodged against him, he found himself, almost like under a hanging sword and therefore, filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Sethi under sections 204, 211 and 385 IPC. Mr. Sethi moved an application pray