A writ petition under Article 226 to quash an FIR becomes infructuous once a charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken, as the remedy then lies under statutory provisions such as Section 528 of the BNSS.

O R D E R

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the registration of the FIR and that, subsequently, the Police have filed the charge sheet; therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Hence, while praying to close this Writ Petition, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and another ¹Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13424/2025 wherein it was held at Paragraph No.8 that:

“8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, it is evident that the same sought to invoke the twin jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS for having the FIR quashed. It is true that the police report (charge-sheet) had been filed on 14th May, 2025 upon completion of investigation of the FIR, but whether or not cognizance had been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate is not too clear from the impugned order extracted above. So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognizance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528 , BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up. Significantly, it was reasoned by us in Neeta Singh (supra) that a judicial order not being amenable to challenge before a high court under Article 226 of the Constitution and there being no prayer either under Article 227 thereof or Section 482 , Cr. PC , the Allahabad High Court was right in holding the writ petition under Article 226 to have been rendered infructuous.”

02. In response to the submissions advanced by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, Sri D. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw the present Criminal Petition, with liberty to file an appropriate petition challenging the charge sheet.

03. Recording the aforesaid submission, permission is accorded.

04. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate petition challenging the charge sheet, if advised so. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.