ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the complaint of respondent no. 4 and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2389/2007 pending before the trial court.

It is apparent from the documents available on record that petitioner is approaching this court being aggrieved of order dated 16/12/2015 which he has cleverly omitted to mention in the relief clause.

Firstly, after seven years how petition is maintainable is the issue. The second issue is that admittedly, petitioner had filed M.Cr.C. No. 13440/2009 as is evident from Annexure P-3 wherein vide order dated 13/08/2013, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Petitioner's counsel admits that this M.Cr.C. was filed seeking quashing of the complaint.

Petitioner had a remedy of seeking restoration of said M.Cr.C. apparently filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. but instead of seeking restoration of said M.Cr.C., petitioner has now approached this High Court saying that proceedings in the criminal case be quashed.

A perusal of the order dated 16/12/2015 reveals that the trial court has recorded a finding that accused Bhaskar Rao Rokade is absconding, therefore, on the order sheet a note be made with red ink that accused Bhaskar Rao

Rokade is absconding and, therefore, record be not destroyed.

In view of said facts, the trial is not yet commenced qua Bhaskar Rao

Rokade. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 2 SCC 427 of the said judgment, he submits that once, an F.I.R. is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the F.I.R. which is

State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others (2017)2 SCC 779 of the matter is that there is no provision to draw two proceedings one after another i.e. one under Section 482 and thereafter under Article 226 as is the case in present.

Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in st

Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others

March, 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 142/2021 wherein in para 8, it is held as under:-

We are not expressing anything on merits whether, any case is made out against the appellants for the offences alleged in 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as the same is pending before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is to take call on the same. Therefore, when the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to harass the appellants-accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of High Court of Kerala at

Mammen Mathew Vs M.N. Radhakrishnan and another learned counsel has read as under:-

It is stated that the first accused Mammen Mathew described as Editor of Malayala Manorama is responsible for selection of news under the P.R.B. Act. If his responsibility is only in the matter of selection of news item, then he cannot be said to have committed the offence of defamation under Sec. 499 I.P.C. as per which making or publication of the imputation alone will constitute the offence. Selection of the news item cannot amount to making of the news which is already made and kept available for selection. Similarly, selection of the news cannot amount to publication of the news as the daily is printed and published by one Jacob Mathew made an accused in the case.

Shri Rohit Jain, learned Government Advocate submits that petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision against the impugned order. Once, petitioner failed and his application under Section 482 was dismissed vide order Annexure P-3, then he had a remedy to seek restoration of said M.Cr.C. rather than filing this petition under