A writ petition under Article 226 for quashing an FIR becomes non-maintainable once a judicial order, such as the framing of charges, is passed by the trial court, as the aggrieved party must then challenge that specific judicial order through appropriate legal remedies.

ORDER

Heard on the question of maintainability in view of the objection taken by the State.

2 . The petitioner by filing this petition has sought quashment of First Information Report dated 27.5.2024 registered against the petitioner vide Crime No. 220 of 2024 at Police Station Tilwara, Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and its consequential proceedings.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that even if during pendency of the present petition, the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and the charges have been framed by the trial Court, still the present petition would be maintainable and in support of the aforesaid contention, the counsel has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta & another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another - (2019) 11 SCC 706.

4. It is further contended that the respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265, however, the said decision is per incuriam as in the said decision, previous decision of Anand Kumar Mohatta (supra) was not taken note of. It is further submitted that a judicial order which does not take into consideration the previous judicial order renders per incuriam. In support of the aforesaid contention, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and another - (2014) 16 SCC 623.

5. In view of the law laid down in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate - (1998) 5 SCC 749, the writ petition or even petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceedings including the FIR as well as charge-sheet is maintainable even if subsequently the order of framing of charge is passed.

6. On the other hand, the counsel for the State submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajendra Bihari Lal (supra) and Neeta Singh & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others - SLP (Crl.) No. 13578/2024 decided on 15.10.2025, the petition is not maintainable. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, after filing of the petition, the charges have been framed against the petitioner by the trial Court vide order dated 23.7.2025 and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 88 in Rajendra Bihari Lal (supra), the petition is liable to be dismissed as now the petitioner is required to assail the order of framing of charge and the First Information Report in question cannot be gone into at this stage.

7. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

8. Heard submissions and perused the record.

9 . On perusal of record, it reveals that in the case in hand, the First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 27.5.2024. This petition was filed on 21.9.2024. During pendency of the present petition, charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court on 27.9.2024 and thereafter charges were framed by the trial Court on 23.7.2025. It is, thus, apparent that in the case in hand after lodging of the First Information Report as well as filing of the charge-sheet, now there exists a judicial order by which the charges have been framed. Upon framing of charge, there is application of judicial mind in the case and therefore, vali