The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can intervene to quash criminal proceedings when necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, but such intervention is limited after framing charges without compelling reasons.

1. Heard.

2. This is an application under S.482, Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant challenging the entire proceedings with respect to the applicant / accused pending before the court of Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Lucknow bearing Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2000 (State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari) in Case Crime No. 428 of 1999, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow.

3. This case has been placed before this Division Bench in view of a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 12.12.2017 which reads as under: -
"Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
Heard counsel for the parties.
In continuation of Court's order dated 09.05.2017, it is hereby observed that applicant was required to show whether final report submitted by the police against the accused has been accepted by the Court or not. Vide Annexure SA - 2 there is prima - facie evidence that the final report submitted by the police has been accepted by the Court. Five cases shown to be registered against the present applicant. In four of them he has been acquitted and in one, final report submitted by the police, has been accepted.
Perusal of the order dated 14.06.2000 indicates that cognizance was taken in the year 2000, charge was framed on 27.08.2008 vide Annexure 5 out of 19 witnesses 18 have been cross examined. The question is whether at this stage accused / applicant is entitled to move application under S.482, Cr.P.C. During arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has referred Annexure 7 to Annexure 12 to show that similar applications under S.482, Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of co - accused have been allowed by this Court. From Annexures 7 to 10, the order have been passed on concession by learned AGA. However, orders Annexures 11 and 12 have been passed even though on behalf of the State quashing of charge sheets was vehemently opposed. In both these cases, learned Single Judge has opined that when in all the 4 cases shown in the Gang Chart, the applicant has been acquitted, prosecution of the applicant under Gangster Act should not be continued. Thereafter he has quashed proceedings of Sessions Trial No.199 of 2000, under S.2/3 UP Gangster Act going on against co - accused Ram Kumar Singh and Akhtar Husain alias Sarju.
In my opinion after framing of charge without supervening development in the form of judicial order, interference with the proceedings of the trial under S.482 Cr.P.C. may not be permissible because prayer for quashing the entire proceeding initiated on charge sheet cannot be question as the trial court has already held by a judicial order passed under S.228, Cr.P.C. that prima facie commission of offences is made out. Now without questioning the correctness of that order allowing an application for quashing of proceeding would amount to falsifying the record of that court where order directing charge to be framed stand unchallenged. In the present case, there is also legal hurdle invoking power under S.482, Cr.P.C. due to provisions contained in S.232,Cr.P.C. a remedy available to the applicant under Code of Criminal Procedure . Therefore, he cannot be prayed for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
Keeping in view the judicial discipline, I think this matter should be heard by a Larger Bench to decide as to whether after framing of charge and where substantial part of prosecution evidence has been adduced, an application under S.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing entire proceedings of that Session Trial on the behest of the accused specially in Sessions Trial