GUDAVALLI MURALI KRISHNA Vs. GUDAVALLI MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the threshold in all these petitions the question germane for consideration, upon which the very maintainability of these petitions hinges, is as to whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction can quash a First Information Report pending investigation.

(2.) The objection at the initial stage about the maintainability of these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Cr.PC' for brevity) invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the relevant First Information Reports issued against the petitioners while registering the cases against them, has arisen in view of three judgments of this Court. The earliest on the point is in Hasan AH Khan v. State of A.P., 1992 (1) ALT 146, rendered by a learned single Judge. The second one is in S. Sarat Babu Chowdary v. Inspector of Police, 1992 (3) ALT 454, rendered by a Bench and the last one is the latest judgment of this Court in Pearl Beverages Limited, New Delhi v. State of A.P., 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 32 (A.P) rendered by a learned single Judge.

(3.) In Hasan AH Khan's case a learned single Judge of this Court held that the criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court under its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC which can be invoked only after initiation of criminal proceedings by filing a charge-sheet but not at the investigation stage and where the investigation is taken-up by the police on the basis of the FIR and other material which do not disclose any cognizable offence, or mala fide or colourable exercise of power any person aggrieved can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR and the investigation.