The High Court's power to interfere in an investigation and stay arrest under section 482 Cr PC is limited to cases where no offence is made out against the applicant, as held by the Full Bench.

GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA, J.

1. THIS application has been moved by Babu Ram and Rajesh Kumar for quashing the First Information Report giving rise to the Crime No. 149 of 1988 under sections 356/342/376 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur with the further request to stay the arrest of the applicants. The question whether the High Court can exercise its power in its jurisdiction u/Sec. 492 Cr PC and whether it could also direct the stay of the arrest of the applicants u/Sec. 482 Cr PC was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Prashant Gaur v. State of U. P., 1988 ACRR 410. The aforesaid Full Bench after considering various aspects of the matter has held that the power of the High Court to interfere in any investigation under section 482 Cr PC is still alive and is not lost to the High Court. Yet as per the judgment of the Full Bench this power could be exercised only if a perusal of the First Information Report may indicate that no offence absolutely of any nature was made out against the applicant. It was further observed by the Full Bench that even in such case the power should be exercised very sparingly. The Full Bench then answered the second question whether it had power to stay arrest of the petitioner under section 482 Cr PC in the matter pending investigation and the answer of the Full Bench was that only in such case where the High Court would have thought it proper to interfere in the investigation against the First Information Report, under the circumstances mentioned above, then alone the High Court could also stay arrest of the petitioner.

2. COMING to the instant case is cannot be said that on the allegations made in the First Information Report no offence was made out against the applicants. Consequently in view of the judgment of the Full Bench it is not possible to interfere in this matter under the powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr PC.

The learned counsel for the applicants then contended that he had filed the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the Magistrate on 23-2-1988 and had also filed the copy of the medical certificate of the prosecutrix which indicated that the prosecutrix was aged about 19 years. It is pointed out from her statement that the prosecutrix had admitted that she was in love with Rajesh Kumar applicant no. 2 who is son of Babu Ram and that they voluntarily got themselves married and have been living as husband and wife since then. Under the circumstances the learned counsel for the applicants says that this is a case in which it is impossible, on the basis of the evidence pointed out above, to say that any offence is made out against the applicants.

3. IT may be correct to say on these allegations that it is not possible to convict the applicants and even no offence may be said to be made out. However the question to be considered is whether the High Court should interfere with the matters of investigation or not. The view of the Full Bench is that the High Court should not interfere in such matters. The reason behind the High Court not interfering in the investigation under section 482 Cr PC even in such cases is that on the allegations made in the complaint, even if the accused is challaned, he has a right to make an application for bail whereafter on the facts so stated he is bound to be released on bail. Thereafter on such facts found to be correct the investigating agency is further bound to submit a final report against the applicant instead of filing a charge sheet. Should, however, something may come during investigation on account of which a prima facie case may be found established against the accused and a charge sheet may be filed, thereafter also it will be a matter before the court which will examine the whole thing and if the contention of the accused is found to be correct then he would be finally acquitted by the Court of law. In any case since the High Court in its Full Bench judgment has said that the interference in a petition unde