Article 226 protects against abusive criminal process where FIRs and police action show a prima facie misuse of power.

Article 226 jurisdiction was held available despite remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the allegations concerned abusive criminal process, malicious prosecution, and threatened deprivation of liberty. The Court treated the writ petition as maintainable and found that alternative remedies did not bar constitutional intervention on these facts. On a prima facie review of multiple FIRs, their timing, surrounding political context, delay in some complaints, and absence of preliminary enquiry in at least one matter, the Court found possible misuse of police machinery. Protective relief was granted, with proceedings in some cases stayed and coercive action restrained in the remaining matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite the availability of remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the registration and continuance of the FIRs disclosed a prima facie case of abuse of State and police machinery warranting protective relief, stay of investigation, or restraint on coercive action.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite the availability of remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The availability of a remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not oust the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court treated the writ petition as maintainable where allegations of abusive criminal process, malicious prosecution, and threatened deprivation of liberty were raised, and held that the existence of alternative remedies did not bar invocation of writ jurisdiction in the facts presented.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the registration and continuance of the FIRs disclosed a prima facie case of abuse of State and police machinery warranting protective relief, stay of investigation, or restraint on coercive action.

Analysis: On a prima facie assessment of the multiple FIRs, their timing, the surrounding political context, the delay in some complaints, the absence of preliminary enquiry in at least one matter, and the manner of police action, the Court found material indicating possible overzealous, malicious, and collateral use of criminal process. The Court also emphasised the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the need for immediate intervention where liberty appeared threatened by misuse of police power.

Conclusion: Protective relief was granted: proceedings in some cases were stayed and in the remaining matters coercive action against the petitioner was restrained.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted partial relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, intervening to protect the petitioner against prima facie abusive criminal process while leaving some investigations to continue without coercive steps.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 jurisdiction remains available to prevent abuse of criminal process and protect personal liberty, and where prima facie mala fides or malicious prosecution is disclosed, the Court may grant protective relief including stay of proceedings or restraint on coercive action notwithstanding alternative remedies under criminal procedure.

---