The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR is not maintainable until the charge-sheet has been filed and the court has issued process based on the charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Irshad Hussain, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned FIR dated 04.09.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0309 of 2019, under Sections 468, 471, 406, 506, 467, 420, 419 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh.

3. Learned AGA raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the prayer made in the present 482 Cr.P.C. Application by the applicant and has stated that as the applicant has prayed for quashing of the FIR in the present 482 Cr.P.C. Application, the same is not maintainable as the petitioner has a remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid prayer.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant in reply to the preliminary objection raised by the learned AGA has submitted that through out the country a petition challenging a first information report and the proceedings initiated by it is maintainable and can be entertained by this Court in 482 Cr.P.C. Application. He submitted that the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not confined to any proceedings of the Court only but it is also to secure the ends of justice and to protect the gross abuse of process of law. The power of High Court to exercise its jurisdiction is not limited to any provision of alternative forum and in this regard he has placed reliance of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299 at page 332, the Apex Court observed in paras 52 and 54 which are as under:

"52. The question as to whether the inherent power of a High Court would be available to stay a trial under the Act necessarily leads us to an inquiry as to whether such inherent power sounds in constitutional, as opposed to statutory law. First and foremost, it must be appreciated that the High Courts are established by the Constitution and are courts of record which will have all powers of such courts, including the power to punish contempt of themselves (See Article 215). The High Court, being a superior court of record, is entitled to consider questions regarding its own jurisdiction when raised before it. In an instructive passage by a Constitution Bench of this Court in re Special Reference 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413 at 499, Gajendragadkar, C.J. held:

"Besides, in the case of a superior Court of Record, it is for the court to consider whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a Court of limited jurisdiction, the superior Court is entitled to determine for itself questions about its own jurisdiction. "Prima facie", says Halsbury, "no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court" [Halsbury's Law of England, Vol. 9, p. 349].

54. It is thus clear that the inherent power of a Court set up by the Constitution is a power that inheres in such Court because it is a superior court of record, and not because it is conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is a power vested by the Constitution itself, inter alia, under Article 215 as aforestated. Also, as such High Courts have the power, nay, the duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 226 of the Constitution, the inherent power to do justice in cases involving the liberty of the citizen would also sound in Article 21 of the Constitution. This being the constitutional position, it is clear that Section 19(3)(c) cannot be read as a ban on the maintainability of a petition filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the non-obstante clause in Section 19(3) applyi