ORDER
D.P. Garg, J.
1. These are two connected applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The prayer in both these applications is that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut be directed to send the report of investigation conducted by Circle Officer, Bhawan District Muzaffarnagar and a further direction be issued to the Police of Mahila Police Station Meeerut not to proceed against the petitioners and that the FIR lodged against the applicants in case crime No. 104/1995 under Sections 147/323/307/376/504/506, I.P.C. P.S. Mahila Thana Meerut be quashed.
2. Counter-affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. Heard learned counsel for the applications, as well as, learned A.G.A. Also heard learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Sitari.
3. Smt. Sitari-opposite party No. 2 approached the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut with the prayer that since local police of Police Station Charthawal, district Muzaffarnagar has failed to register the F.I.R. lodged by her, the case be registered. It was alleged that the accused persons (Applicants) indulged in indiscriminate assault and subjected her to gang rape. On the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, a case crime No. 104/95 was registered and the responsibility to investigate the case was shouldered by Mahila Thana, Meerut.
4. Arrest of the applicants was stayed in the present two petitions, obviously till the submission of the charge-sheet.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that no charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants and that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut for the registration and investigation of the case against the applicants was clearly in ‘conflict of the reports dated 1-7-1995 and 24-7-1995 submitted by Sri Jagdish Singh, Circle Officer, Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar. It was pointed out that after due investigation, the Circle Officer had reported that no offence of rape was committed and that the report was made against the accused persons on account of deep seated enemity. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, on the basis of this report of the Circle Officer, there was no justification for getting the case registered and investigated by Mahila Thana Meerutat the instance of Dy. Inspector General of Police Meerut. Km. Jeeto Kambaoj, Investigating Officer, Mahila Thana Meerut has filed a counter-affidavit. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by Sri Jabira, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the first informant Smt. Sitari-Opposite Party No. 2. It is stated that the investigation of the case was not conducted by the Circle Officer and that he merely submitted a report of enquiry in pursuance of the orders of the higher authorities of Police Department; that after due investigation according to law, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants on 1 -3-1996. The fact that the charge-sheet had been submitted against the applicants has been challenged by the learned counsel for the applicants. He pointed out that enquiries were made from the concerned Court of the Magistrate and it was given out that no charge sheet had been submitted. A copy of the charge-sheet dated 1-3-1996 has been annexed with the counter- affidavit of Jabira, brother-in-law of the first informant. It indicates that Km. Jeato Kambooj, the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge-sheet on 1-3-1996. In view of the assertion made by the Investigating Officer that a charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and in view of the fact that a copy of the charge-sheet has been brought on record, it cannot be argued that no charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. The fact remains that after investigation of the case against the applicants, a charge-sheet has been submitted in Grime No. 104 of 1995 under Sections 147/376/307/504/506, I.P.C. against the applicants on 1 -3-1996. Now the question is whether this Court in exercise of inherent powers should stay the further proceedings in the case.
6. A complete answer to the various pleas taken by learned counsel for the applicants is to be found in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 SCC (Cri) 210 : AIR 1996 SC 977, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prithvi Chand in which scope of the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. was considered. It was held that exercise of inherent powers of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by High Court before embarking to scrutinize the F.I.R./charge-sheet/ complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare case to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. After the investigation is concluded, and the charge-sheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in support of the charge-sheet. At that state, it is not the. function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider the necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of non-compliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The Court has to, prima facie, consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statement of the witnesses on record in support thereof whether the Court could take cognizance of offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial, it was further observed that the Prime consideration should only be whether the exercise of power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. When Investigating Officer spends considerable lime to collect the evidence and place, the charge-sheet before the Court, further action should not be short-circuited by resorting to exercise of inherent power to quash the, charge-sheet. The social stability and order requires to bc regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal principle has to be kept in mind before embarking upon exercise of inherent power.
7. In the instant case, there is, inter alia, an allegation of gang rape against the applicants. The charge-sheet has been submitted after spending considerable time in investigating the case. The various pleas taken by the learned counsel for the applicants cannot be shifted at this stage in the absence of evidence. No illegality was committed by the Deputy inspector General of Police, Meerut Range in getting the case registered and investigated on the application of opposite party No. 2 as the local police had failed to register the case and there was an allegation that the local police had colluded with the accused persons. The credibility or otherwise of the defence version is left to be decided after the trial is over.
8. In the result, both the applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C. fail and are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders in both the cases staying arrest of the applicants stand vacated as charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.