The main legal point established in the judgment is the balance between quashing criminal proceedings and the need for investigation, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER

Krishna S. Dixit, J. - In W.P.No.3217/2021, petitioner seeks a direction to the jurisdictional police to undertake and accomplish investigation in respect of his F.I.R. No.32/2020 dated 03.03.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that an F.I.R. of the kind cannot be kept in a limbo indefinitely, especially in the light of Apex Court decision in LALITHA KUMARI vs. STATE OF U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1.

2. Crl.P.No.3163/2021 and Crl.P.Nc.4322/2021 both filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. 1973, seek quashment of the criminal proceedings on the ground that there is no prima facie case to undertake investigation and that criminal law cannot be set in motion casually as held by the Apex Court in PEPSI FOODS LID. Vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,. 1998 SC 120. So contending learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks quashment of the said proceedings. This is opposed by the petitioner in the writ petition who has lodged the F.I.R., contending that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

3. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent police contends that the petitioners have already secured an advance bail against their apprehension and that the bail orders stipulate his co-operation in the investigation process. That being the position, petitioners have vainly knocked at the doors of this court in inherent jurisdiction vested u/s.482. In support of his contention he banks upon a decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS vs. CH. BHAJAN LAL & OTHERS, AIR 1992 SC 604.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the petition papers. I have adverted to the ruling cited at the Bar

(a) Quashment of criminal proceedings is a serious matter vide PEPSI FOODS supra. Similarly setting the criminal law in motion is also a serious matter vide CH. BHAJAN LAL supra. Court has to strike a golden balance between these two competing principles of criminal jurisprudence. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. in question brings about cognizable offences punishable under several sections of IPC. What one has to look at is the prima facie offence arising from the contents of the F.I.R., taken with face value. This court cannot weigh the evidentiary material justifying investigation, which essentially belongs to the domain of Investigating Officer vide LALITHA KUMARI supra.

(b) The learned HCGP is more than justified in contending that an F.I.R. is a skeletal instrument that sets the criminal law in motion and that this court need not bother about the bone, blood & flesh of such an instrument, the same having been left to tiie wisdom of Investigating Agency. Therefore, this Court exercising a limited jurisdiction u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. cannot undertake a roving enquiry in the matter.

(c) Learned counsel appearing for the petitionercomplainant and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-police are also justified in notifying to the court that petitioners have secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process. That being the position, petitioners cannot readily come before this Court seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings. It is for the Investigating Agency to look into the matter and take a call as to its investigation worthiness.

(d) The above having been said, this Court hastens to add that the respondent police cannut keep the F.I.R. unacted upon for an indefinite period of time. It hardly needs to be seated that a decision as to investigation worthiness has to be taken at the earliest keeping in view the observations in LALITHA KUMAR. (supra). Delay,, if any, brooked in such a decision making would facilitate vanishing away of the evidentiary material which would affect the administration of criminal justice, as rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

In the above circumstances, I make the following order:

(i) Crl.P.No. 3163/2