Writ jurisdiction and charge-sheet quashing denied where allegations disclosed offences requiring trial and no clear ground for interference existed.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to quash a charge-sheet at the threshold where the allegations disclose offences requiring trial and no clear ground for interference is shown. In this Bombay HC matter, the petition challenged criminal proceedings based on FIRs alleging cheating, forgery and related offences arising from alleged cornering of IPO shares meant for retail investors. On the facts placed before it, the Court found no basis to accept the claim that there was no complicity at that stage and declined to interfere with the criminal process. The writ petition was dismissed, and the prosecution was left to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge-sheet should be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petition sought quashing of the charge-sheet arising from FIRs alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations related to cornering shares meant for retail investors in an IPO. On the facts placed before it, the Court found no basis to accept the contention that there was no complicity of the petitioner at that stage, and held that it was not appropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction to interfere with the criminal process.

Conclusion: The request for quashing was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the trial to proceed on its own merits.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere at the writ stage and permitted the criminal proceedings to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold where the allegations disclose a matter requiring trial and no clear ground for interference is made out.

---