The High Court does not have jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash an FIR and investigation prior to the submission of a charge-sheet or the filing of a complaint.

Applicant Bhagwant Din has moved this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and has prayed for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest him in Case Crime No. 609/92 under Sections 420 and 406, I. P. C. P. S. Kotwali, district Kanpur Nagar and also for quashing the First Informa tion Report, dated 27-8- 1992 on the basis of which the said case was registered against him. The applicant has come to this Court with the following allegations.

2. One Mohammad was had moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. on 17-8-1992 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, against the applicant. The learned Magistrate by order, dated 18-8-1992 called for the report of the Station Officer, Kotwali, who after making investigation in the case, submitted report, dated 25-8-1992, a copy of which is Annexure No. 2 of this application. The Station Officer recommended that during the pendency of the litigations between the parties, there was no need for any further action against the applicant. Mohd. Ilyas had already filed a civil suit in respect of the property which had given rise to various litigations between the parties and the same was pending decision in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge.

Kaapur Nagar. It was for execution of a sale deed and he had instituted one more civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed by Ambika Prasad who was the brother of applicant Bhagwant Din and the same was pending decision in the Court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge. Kanpur Nagar. He, thereafter, on 27-8-1992 lodged F. I. R. , a copy of which is Annexure No. J of the application at P. S. Kotwali, Kanpur against applicant Bhagwant Din and his brother Ambika Prasad under Sections 420 and 406, I. P. C. Mohd. Ilyas, in his afore said F. I. R. disclosed that he had entered into an agreement of sale of certain property mentioned therein with Ambika Prasad and Bhagwunt Din about which registered agreement of sale was executed on 26-8-1987 by the partio and had paid Rs. 35,000 on account of the sale money to them. Applicant Bhagwant Din, with intent to defraud him, did not sign the deed of agreement which was signed by Ambika Prasad alone although the aforesaid amount was paid by him to both of them. Both the brothers misappropriated the said amount of Rs. 35,000 and transferred the property, which was the subject matter of the agreement, to one Ajuber on 25-2-1992. They, thus, cheated him of the aforesaid amount which was misappropriated by them and, there fore, were liable for punishment under Sections 420 and 406, I. P. C.

3. The applicant, in the instant application, has contended that he had not executed the alleged agreement of sale and in any case criminal proceed ings against him could not be maintained by Mohd. Ilyas, as civil litigation was going on between the parties. Mohd. Ilyas, however, had started pairvi on the basis of the aforesaid F. I. R. against him and he apprehended his arrest in connection with the same. The criminal proceedings against him, however, were total abuse of the process and hence the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

4. Learned A. G. A. raised a preliminary objection that the present application could not be moved by the applicant under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , is no charge-sheet had been submitted by the police which was seized of the investigation of the case on the basis of the aforementioned F. I. R. In support of his objection, he relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court (The Bench consisted of seven Honble Judges of this Court) in Criminal Misc. Applications NOB. 5939, 5664, 5940, 5977, 5985 and 6024 of 1988, dated February 1, 1989 reported in 1989 (26) ACC at p. 181 : 1989 JIG (All) (FB) Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U. P. and others, and argued that the appli cation of the applicant under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was not maintainable, as the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the said