Once cognizance is taken, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Article 226; the remedy lies in inherent jurisdiction.

The petitioners, who claimed to be eligible candidates for teaching posts, challenged a police case arising from a demonstration against alleged irregularities in School Service Commission recruitment.

A charge-sheet was filed against them, and the parties stated that the Magistrate had taken cognizance.

The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 to quash the proceedings, alleging mala fides and constitutional violations.

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

Whether an Article 226 petition may be treated as one under Article 227 or the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction after cognizance has been taken.

Article 226 does not provide a route to challenge a judicial order of a subordinate criminal court; such orders are ordinarily challenged through the appropriate appellate or revisional process or under Article 227.

Relying on Neeta Singh v. State of U.P., the Court stated that where cognizance is taken while an Article 226 petition challenging an FIR is pending, the intervening judicial order disables the High Court from proceeding with that petition; a petition cannot be converted into one under Article 227 unless the Judge has the relevant assignment.

Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. were relied on for the distinction between Article 226 and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction: after cognizance, the appropriate remedy is an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to the applicable requirements.

The judgment also preserved the possibility of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Section 528 BNSS, as applicable, and an application for discharge.

The Court found that the Magistrate had taken cognizance before disposal of the writ petition.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that the petition, which invoked Article 226, could not be entertained after that judicial order intervened. Nor could the Court simply recast it as a petition under Article 227 or the inherent jurisdiction.

The petitioners’ arguments concerning the peaceful nature of the protest, the sufficiency of the allegations and alleged mala fides went to the merits, which the Court expressly left open.

The dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from challenging the charge-sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS, as applicable, or from seeking discharge at the appropriate stage.

The Court made no determination on the merits and ordered no costs.