BHAGVAT DIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge as he doubted the correctness of a decision rendered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J. in Rama Shankar Pandey v. U.P. Police Station Officer, Kotwali, Ghazipur, 1994 ACC 346.

(2.) The present application has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the F.I.R. lodged on 27-8-1992 under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C. at P. S. Kotwali District Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of which Case Crime No. 609 of 1992 has been registered. A further prayer has been made that the police authorities be restrained from arresting the applicant.

(3.) The petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed soon after the F.I.R. was lodged and during the pendency of the investigation of the case. A Full Bench of seven Judges in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U. P., 1989 Cri LJ 1013 has held that the High Court has no inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to interfere with the investigation done by the police. It was further held that the High Court has no inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to say the arrest of an accused during the investigation of the case. However, a learned Single Judge in Rama Shankar Pandey v. U. P. Police Station Officer, Kotwali, Ghazipur, 1994 ACC 346, placing reliance upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. V. Pavithran, AIR 1990 SC 1266 : (1990 Cri LJ 1306) held that the Full Bench decision in Ram Lal Yadav is no longer good law. He further held that the High Court, in exceptional circumstances, has power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the F.I.R. and the investigation commenced thereto and also to stay the arrest of the accused. The learned Single Judge who heard the present petition was of the opinion that the view taken in Rama Shankar Pandey (supra) was not correct and accordingly made the following reference to a larger bench: