Once cognizance is taken, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Article 226.

The petitioners, candidates for teaching posts, challenged Bidhannagar East P.S. Case No. 90 of 2021, arising from a protest at the School Service Commission’s premises.

The FIR alleged, among other things, forcible entry, obstruction of service roads, and conduct contrary to COVID-19 requirements; it named the petitioners among the persons involved

A charge-sheet was filed against eleven accused, including petitioners 1–10; petitioner 11 was not charge-sheeted.

The Magistrate took cognizance, and the petitioners sought relief under Article 226 to have their names removed from the case records.

The Court considered whether it could entertain that Article 226 petition after cognizance had intervened

1. Whether a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash a criminal proceeding remains maintainable after a charge-sheet has been filed and the Magistrate has taken cognizance

Article 226 does not provide a route to challenge a judicial order of a subordinate criminal court; such orders are subject to the appropriate appellate, revisional, or supervisory jurisdiction, including Article 227, rather than a writ of certiorari under Article 226

Relying on Neeta Singh v. State of U.P., (2026) 6 SCC 817, the Court stated that once a competent criminal court takes cognizance during the pendency of an Article 226 petition, the High Court cannot proceed with that writ petition because a judicial order has intervened; the petition cannot simply be treated as one under Article 227 or Section 482 CrPC without the necessary assignment and jurisdiction

The Court also relied on Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 813, and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1249, for the distinction that, after cognizance, a challenge may be pursued under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction—Section 528 BNSS, or Section 482 CrPC as applicable—not under Article 226

Because the Magistrate had taken cognizance before the writ petition was disposed of, the Court held that the intervening judicial order barred it from entertaining the challenge under Article 226

The petitioners’ arguments that the protest was peaceful, the allegations disclosed no offence, and the prosecution was mala fide concerned the merits and were left open for consideration in an appropriate proceeding; the Court expressed no opinion on them

It clarified that the petitioners could challenge the charge-sheet and cognizance order through an appropriate application under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS, as applicable, or seek discharge before the trial court at the appropriate stage

No order as to costs was made, and the Court stated that it had expressed no view on the merits