Para. 102: In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1)  Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2)  Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3)  Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4)  Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5)  Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6)  Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings, and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7)  Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide, and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.

Para. 103: We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Para. 7: The appellant herein, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, referred to above, challenged the same before the High Court, invoking Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court declined to interfere with the summoning order and accordingly rejected the Section 482 application filed by the appellant herein.

Para.20: The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv)Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom), especially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]

Para. 6: Learned counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that the High Court order does not call for interference, as the appellants have an efficacious remedy to challenge the order framing charge by filing a revision application. We are shocked to note the approach adopted by the State Government. What is suggested by the State Government is that once a charge-sheet is filed, the accused cannot do anything except to wait till the charge is framed and thereafter, can file a revision application to challenge the order of framing the charge.

Para. 8: It is true that the appellants can apply for discharge. However, the scope of application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings. While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document which is not part of the charge sheet. The ground of abuse of process of law will not be available while arguing the discharge application. However, in a petition for quashing either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available, including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law. In such proceedings, the accused can rely upon documents which are not part of the charge-sheet. Therefore, we reject the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the State. Though the submissions made on behalf of the State have no basis, we have dealt with the same elaborately to ensure that the same are not urged in a similar case.

The Supreme Court has laid down following points in this matter :
1. Once the police report ( charge sheet) is filed upon completion of investigation of the FIR, so long cognizance of offence is not taken by the Magistrate, writ or order to quash the FIR/ charge sheet could be issued under Art 226.
2. However, once the Magistrate takes cognizance Art 226 is not available.
3.In such cases where the Magistrate has taken cognizance power under Sec. 528 BNSS is available to quash not only FIR/ charge sheet but also order taking cognizance. In such case even Art 227 of constitution can be invoked.

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

120.7 [Ed.: This correction is based on para 120.7 as corrected vide order in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC 695.] . While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

121. With the above directions, we dispose of the reference made to us. List all the matters before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits.

C. ​Constitution of India remedy/Exhaustion of remedies - Nature of rule of - Existence of alternative Art. 226 - Maintainability - Alternative statutory remedies, held, is not a constitutional bar to High Court's jurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction - Further held, the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies:

(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;

(ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or

(iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged

Hence, where the show-cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks under S. 56(4) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was challenged by a writ petition on the grounds that the notice was wholly without jurisdiction, held, High Court h erred in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage without examining that contention - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Ss. 56(4) and 2(1)(x) - Notice under S. 56(4) Writ petition against Administrative Law - Natural justice - Notice petition against justified

-Applicability of Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India to the orders passed by courts.

- This matter was placed before a bench of 3 Judges to consider the law laid down in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others that the order of the civil court was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court of India laid down in this Judgement that petitions which challenge the orders of the Court in any State would come under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions which challenge orders of other state instrumentalities under Art.12 would come under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further, a Writ would not lie against private individuals who are not performing a public function.

The Supreme Court thus overruled Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6  SCC 675.

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was of territorial jurisdiction. The question was whether the seat of Parliament or the State legislature would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that the situs of the office of Parliament, the legislature of a State or Authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation is not relevant for this purpose. The place where the original order or appellate order, or revisional order is passed may give rise to part of the cause of action to any of the High Courts as per Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India.

In this case Bombay High Court discussed how a writ petition should not be entertained when an alternative remedy in civil courts is available. The Court held that a writ petition is not a remedy to decide the intra-party disputes and that it is the civil court which is the proper remedy. The court further observed that the tendency to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction is growing for various reasons. The court held that this aspect of not entertaining writs when an alternative remedy is available would be adequately considered by all courts having writ jurisdiction.