A writ petition under Article 226 for quashing criminal proceedings is not maintainable once a charge sheet is filed and the trial court takes cognizance; the appropriate remedy is to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…To issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd in registering the Cr.No. 148/2015, dated 19.06.2015 as against the Petitioners herein as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same in respect of the Petitioners……

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, upon completion of due investigation in Crime No. 148 of 2015, a charge sheet has been filed, and the case has been taken on file as C.C. No. 414 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak. It is further submitted that the matter is presently pending for trial. In view of the fact that the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the offences, it is contended that the present writ petition, seeking quashment of the crime proceedings, is not maintainable in light of the settled legal position governing such matters. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is sought.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 has arbitrarily registered FIR No. 148 of 2015 without any legal basis, and on that premise seeks quashment of the proceedings. However, the developments during the pendency of this petition reveal that, upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and has proceeded to trial.

7. The filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, followed by the taking of cognizance by the competent Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C., prima facie indicates that the investigating agency has found sufficient material to proceed against the accused. At this stage, the veracity, sufficiency, or reliability of such material cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the trial Court, which is empowered to assess evidence during the course of trial.

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that, although the High Court possesses wide and plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional circumstances where a clear case of abuse of process of law or manifest injustice is made out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra , (SLP (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025), has reiterated that while quashment of criminal proceedings under Article 226 is maintainable, once a charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken by the trial Court, the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party is to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the corresponding provision under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

9. In the present case, since cognizance has already been taken by the trial Court and the matter is pending for trial, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, seeking quashment of the proceedings, is not maintainable in its present form.

10. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available under law, including invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Section 528 BNSS