Writ jurisdiction cannot override criminal bail procedure or justify quashing an FIR supported by cognizable allegations.

Specific allegations of misappropriation were treated as sufficient cognizable material, so the FIR and investigation were not to be quashed merely because the report was allegedly lodged at the instance of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate without prior inquiry. The commentary also notes that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel a criminal court to bypass the Code of Criminal Procedure on bail: a High Court cannot require same-day disposal of a bail application, direct release on personal bond pending consideration, or prohibit arrest before the application is decided, because such directions would cut across the statutory scheme for notice, judicial discretion, and bail procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the First Information Report and investigation could be quashed on the ground that the report was allegedly lodged at the instance of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without inquiry. (ii) Whether the High Court could direct the trial court to decide a bail application on the same day, release the accused on personal bond pending consideration, or direct that he not be arrested before the bail application was decided.

Issue (i): Whether the First Information Report and investigation could be quashed on the ground that the report was allegedly lodged at the instance of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without inquiry.

Analysis: The petition disclosed specific allegations of misappropriation which, if proved, would constitute an offence. The existence or absence of a prior inquiry did not by itself establish falsity of the allegations. Where the complaint discloses cognizable material, the Court does not interdict investigation merely on a challenge to the source of the complaint.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the First Information Report and stop the investigation was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could direct the trial court to decide a bail application on the same day, release the accused on personal bond pending consideration, or direct that he not be arrested before the bail application was decided.

Analysis: The power under Article 226 cannot be used to compel a subordinate court to act contrary to statutory procedure. Bail is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which in relevant cases requires notice to the prosecution and a judicial determination based on established considerations. A blanket direction for same-day disposal would negate the statutory discretion regarding notice and would prejudice the prosecution's opportunity to place material before the court. Likewise, directing no arrest or release on personal bond would create a procedure not provided by law and would amount to rewriting the statutory scheme governing bail.

Conclusion: The requested directions relating to same-day disposal, non-arrest, and release on personal bond were refused.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in substance because neither quashing of the criminal process nor the extraordinary bail-related directions sought could be granted consistently with the statutory scheme and constitutional limits on writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, compel a subordinate criminal court to bypass or alter the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure for arrest, notice, remand, or bail, nor can it quash an FIR where specific cognizable allegations disclose an offence.

---