Point of Law: It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the First Information Report dated 31.8.2020 registered as Case Crime No.502 of 2020 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1986’) and to stay arrest of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that liberty of individual is of paramount importance. The petitioners have applied for bail and their bail application is pending in respect of the aforesaid first information report. But since the first information report under the Act, 1986 has been registered on false and concocted allegations, therefore, the first information report deserves to be quashed.

4. Sri Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. submits that from bare reading of the first information report, offence is made out. Therefore, in view of the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, no interference can be made with the impugned first information report. He further submits that the second relief sought by the petitioners has become infructuous inasmuch as the petitioners themselves have applied for bail as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

6. The principle for quashing first information report has been well enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. In the case of State Of Telangana vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, 2017 (2) SCC 779 (para 11, 12, 13, 14, 24 and 25), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad, Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:-

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistr