V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE second respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent alleging that the petitioner abused her against her chastity in the presence of Mandal Revenue Officer and Nodal Officer and also threatened her to kill. The first respondent registered a case in fir No. 40 of 2003 under Sections 509, 506 and 189 of the India Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent in registering the crime is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contends that the offences under Sections 189, 506 and 509 IPC are non-cognizable and bailable offences and, therefore, registration of crime is illegal. ( 2 ) THE writ petition cannot be entertained for two reasons. In effect, the petitioner is seeking to quash Crime No. 40 of 2003 of p. S. , Devarapalli. ( 3 ) BY a catena of decisions of the supreme Court, it is now well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.), the Court can quash a FIR and prevent police from carrying on investigation if such investigation results in abuse of process of law and such investigation would lead to miscarriage of justice. So to say, even if the allegations made in the FIR are true and such allegations do not constitute an offence, the FIR can be quashed under section 482 Cr. P. C. It is axiomatic that the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare cases to quash criminal proceedings. ( 4 ) IT is the duty of the executive to investigate a crime through Police department and bring the offenders to book. The power of the State of carry on the task to prosecute offenders can neither be interdicted nor the Court can assume the role of investigator. Repeatedly, the apex court has held that at the stage of investigation, this Court cannot interfere in criminal cases. One should look to the allegations in the FIR and if prima facie an offence is made out, all matters should await the criminal trial. This Court cannot sift the material and appreciate the evidence at the stage of investigation. ( 5 ) A person has sufficient safeguards in cr. One should look to the allegations in the FIR and if prima facie an offence is made out, all matters should await the criminal trial. This Court cannot sift the material and appreciate the evidence at the stage of investigation. ( 5 ) A person has sufficient safeguards in cr. P. C. to move the High Court if there is abuse of process of law either at the stage of investigation during the trial or after the trial. A person has also an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 482 Cr. P. C. In view of this, the extraordinary remedy of judicial review under Article 226 is not proper remedy. The party must approach the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , which is an effective and efficacious statutory alternative remedy. ( 6 ) THE decisions of the Supreme Court on this are galore. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions. A brief reference to some of the decisions would be enough. In emperor v. Khwaja Nazirahmed , the Privy council observed thus: the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under section 491 Criminal P. C,, to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It has sometimes been thought that Sec. 561-A has given increased powers to the Court, which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possess shall be preserved and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the criminal Procedure Code, and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act. No doubt, if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation and for this reason Newsam, J. may well have decided rightly in AIR 1938 mad. 129. ( 7 ) IN P. P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, the supreme Court laid down as under. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. In such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In this case it would be legitimate to the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused person. ( 8 ) IN State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the apex Court referred to the entire case law and laid down the principles to be followed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the constitution or Section 482 Cr. P. C. for interfering with investigation of offence. It was also reiterated that, judiciary should not interfere with police matters which are within their province; but if no cognizable offcene is disclosed or no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would not have any authority for undertaking investigation. Referring to State of West Bengal v, Swapan kumar Guha the Supreme Court held that, " if the FIR does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. " ( 9 ) IN State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural perumal, the Supreme Court held that though the High Court has extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice, the power of quashing a FIR and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the Court. It is apt to quote the following. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The power of quashing an fir and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts. It is apt to quote the following. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The power of quashing an fir and criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly by the courts. Indeed, the High Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to reach out injustice and quash the first information report and criminal proceedings, keeping in view the guidelines laid down by this court in various judgments (reference in this connection may be made with advantage to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lai (3 supra) but the same has to be done with circumspection. The normal process of the criminal trial cannot be cut short in a rather casual manner. The court, is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with a petition under Sec. 482 criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings. The learned Single Judge apparently fell into an error in evaluating the genuineness and reliability of the allegations made in the fir on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation. The order of the learned Single Judge cannot, therefore, be sustained. This appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the High court is hereby set aside. ( 10 ) IN State of H. P. v. Pirihi Chand, the supreme Court considered the extent and scope of power of High Court under article 226 of the Constitution as well as section 492 Cr. P. C. quash the FIR/charge sheet/complaint. While holding that at the stage of investigation it is not the function of the Court to weigh the merits of the prosecution case and that if the record prima facie supports the commission of an offence, the power to quash FIR cannot be exercised. It was observed: it is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/ charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case in rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, if first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations, constitute the offence. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/ charge-sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case in rarest of rare cases to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, if first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations, constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation move to the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted and the charge-sheet is laid the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non- compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The Court has to prima facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether Court could take cognizance of the offence, on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out on further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases, i. e. , in rarest of rare cases of mala fide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance process of criminal is availed of in laying a complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence- the Court may embark upon the consideration there of and exercise the power. (emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) YET again, in paragraph 13, it was laid down as under: when the remedy under Section 482 is available, the High Court would be loath and circumspect to exercise its extraordinary power under article 226 since efficacious remedy under Section 482 of the Code is available. When the Court exercise its inherent power under Section 482, the prima facie, consideration should only be whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. When Investigation Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the charge-sheet before the court, further action should not be short-circuited by resorting to exercise inherent power to quash the charge sheet. When Investigation Officer spends considerable time to collect the evidence and places the charge-sheet before the court, further action should not be short-circuited by resorting to exercise inherent power to quash the charge sheet. The social stability and order requires to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal principle should always be kept in mind before embarking upon exercising inherent power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (emphasis supplied) ( 12 ) IN State of U. P. v O. P. Sharma, rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada", rajesh Bajaj v. State (NOT of Delhi) and satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of delhi), while reiterating that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 cr. P. C. to quash a FIR or a complaint, the high Court has to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint, that the Court has no jurisdiction nor justification to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations and that the power to quash either under Section 482 cr. P. C. or under Article 226 of the constitution must be used very sparingly and ordinarily the police investigation cannot be thwarted at the threshold. The contravention of criminal law is an offence against the whole society and the Court should be cautious not to interfere at the stage of investigation of crime. ( 13 ) IN Mahavir Prashad Gupta v. State of national Capital Territory of Delhi the supreme Court held that when there are sufficient provisions in the Cr. P. C. , there is no necessity to invoke jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant observations are as under. To be remembered that in the criminal Procedure Code there are sufficient provisions which enable a party to move the High Court if there is abuse of the process of law. The petitioners could have utilised those provisions. Also anticipatory bail had been refused to the Petitioners. The Order refusing grant of anticipatory bail was accepted by the Petitioners as they filed no Appeal or Revision. There was thus no justification for invoking Article 26 of the constitution of India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The law on the subject is very clear. The Order refusing grant of anticipatory bail was accepted by the Petitioners as they filed no Appeal or Revision. There was thus no justification for invoking Article 26 of the constitution of India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The law on the subject is very clear. In the case of State of Bihar v. Murad AH khan { (1988) 4 SCC 655: 1989 SCC (Crl) 27} it has been held that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at an initial stage a court should not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. Again in the case of State of haryana v. Bhajan Lal { (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335 : 1992 (Crl) 426} this court has held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has been held that the court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. It has been held that the extraordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. (emphasis supplied) ( 14 ) THIS Court, in various decisions also held that jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Constitution for quashing FIR or investigation is not available as there is effective and efficacious alternative remedy. A reference may be made to the decision of my learned brother Hon ble Sri Justice t. Ch. Surya Rao in G. Murali Krishna v. Smt. G. Madhavi and a Division Bench of this Court in S. Sarat Babu Chowdary v. Inspector of Police. ( 15 ) IN view of the settled law. a writ petition for quashing FIR cannot bo entertained as the petitioner has an effective remedy of approaching this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. Secondly a perusal of the I Schedule to Cr. P. C. would show that though the offences under Section 189 and 506 IPC are non-congnizable and bailable offences, an offence under Section 509 is a cognizable offence. P. C. Secondly a perusal of the I Schedule to Cr. P. C. would show that though the offences under Section 189 and 506 IPC are non-congnizable and bailable offences, an offence under Section 509 is a cognizable offence. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the action taken by the first respondent. If the petitioner is so aggrieved, he may avail the remedy under Section 482 cr. P. C. ( 16 ) THE writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.