M.K. Mukherjee JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukherjee, J.
1. Special leave granted. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. On September 24, 1990 the appellant lodged a first information report (FIR) with the Civil Lines Police Station, Ludhiana alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by her husband parents-in-law and four other members of her husband's family. On that information a case was registered and on completion of investigation Police submitted charge sheet against all of them on December 31, 1990. Aggrieved thereby all the accused persons, except the appellant's husband, filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 14, 1991 seeking exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. and the proceeding arising therefrom. By the time the petition came up for hearing before the High Court, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana had taken cognizance upon the charge sheet and, after hearing the parties, framed charges under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. As they had pleaded not guilty the Magistrate had also fixed a date for recording of prosecution evidence. Before, however, evidence could be gone into the High Court took up the petition for final hearing, along with another petition which the accused respondents had subsequently filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the charges, and quashed the entire proceeding including the charges framed against the accused by a common order. Hence these two appeals.
3. Having carefully gone through the impugned order we are constrained to say that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter is patently wrong and opposed to settled principles of law. As earlier noticed, the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed in the High Court at a stage when the police had already submitted charge sheet on completion of investigation and when the petition came up for hearing a competent Court had not only taken cognisance thereupon but framed charges also. Inspite thereof, the High Court, surprisingly enough, proceeded to deal with the matter as if it was called upon to decide whether the F.I.R. disclosed any offence and, for that matter, whether investigation should be permitted to continue. This will be evident from the following observations made by the High Court:
The principles relating to the quashing of the F.I.R. at its initial stage were considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors. 
MANU/SC/0120/1982 : 1982CriLJ819 . Their Lordships observed therein that once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interest of justi........