( 1 ) THE second respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent alleging that the petitioner abused her against her chastity in the presence of Mandal Revenue Officer and Nodal Officer and also threatened her to kill. The first respondent registered a case in fir No. 40 of 2003 under Sections 509, 506 and 189 of the India Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent in registering the crime is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contends that the offences under Sections 189, 506 and 509 IPC are non-cognizable and bailable offences and, therefore, registration of crime is illegal.

( 2 ) THE writ petition cannot be entertained for two reasons. In effect, the petitioner is seeking to quash Crime No. 40 of 2003 of p. S. , Devarapalli.

( 3 ) BY a catena of decisions of the supreme Court, it is now well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.), the Court can quash a FIR and prevent police from carrying on investigation if such investigation results in abuse of process of law and such investigation would lead to miscarriage of justice. So to say, even if the allegations made in the FIR are true and such allegations do not constitute an offence, the FIR can be quashed under section 482 Cr. P. C. It is axiomatic that the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases to quash criminal proceedings.

( 4 ) IT is the duty of the executive to investigate a crime through Police department and bring the offenders to book. The power of the State of carry on the task to prosecute offenders can neither be interdicted nor the Court can assume the role of investigator. Repeatedly, the apex court has held that at the stage of investigation, this Court cannot interfere in criminal cases. One should look to the allegations in the FIR and if prima facie an offence is made out, all matters should await the criminal trial. This Court cannot sift the material and appreciate the evidence at the stage of investigation.

( 5 ) A person has sufficient safeguards in cr. P. C. to move the High Court if there is abuse of process of law either at the stage of investigation during the trial or after the trial. A person has also an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 482 Cr. P. C. In view of this, the extraordinary remedy of judicial review under Article 226 is not proper remedy. The party must approach the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , which is an effective and efficacious statutory alternative remedy.

( 6 ) THE decisions of the Supreme Court on this are galore. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions. A brief reference to some of the decisions would be enough. In emperor v. Khwaja Nazirahmed , the Privy council observed thus: the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under section 491 Criminal P. C,, to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It has sometimes been thought that Sec. 561-A has given increased powers to the Court, which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possess shall be preserved and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the criminal Procedure Code, and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act. No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and still more if no offence