AFR Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17812 of 2015 Petitioner :- M/S V.S. Pharma Lucknow And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu,Vivek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,N.I. Jafri Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J. This petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing FIR No. RC/DST/2013/A/0005 dated 28.05.2013 as also the chargesheet dated 17.12.2014 arising out of the NRHM Scam. The petition is on behalf of M/s V.S. Pharma, Lucknow, through Sanjay Awasthi and others as petitioner no. 1 and Dr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava as petitioner no. 2. The affidavit has been sworn by Sri Sanjay Awasthi, the petitioner no. 1 and is dated 21st July, 2015 in support of the petition. We find from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner has filed a copy of the FIR and has also filed a copy of the chargesheet dated 17.12.2014 that are Annexure - 1 to the writ petition. Not only this, the same annexure is also accompanied by the order of cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad on 5th January, 2015. The cognizance order is against both the petitioners. It does not appear to reason as to why a prayer for quashing the cognizance order has not been made, inasmuch as, what the petitioners are questioning are faulty investigation and non-compliance of the guidelines of the CBI manual but have prayed for quashing of the FIR and the chargesheet. The prayer which has been couched in a manner appears to have been done only with a view to avoid the normal remedy available to the petitioners by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the chargesheet has been filed and a cognizance order has been passed. This petition therefore clearly seeks to overcome the cognizance order dated 5.1.2015 which has conveniently and deliberately not been challenged even though the relief prayed for, if granted, would amount to quashing of the order passed by the trial court taking cognizance. Thus, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in effect is seeking to avoid the entire proceedings including the cognizance order passed by a criminal court. In our considered opinion, this issue cannot be now raised through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, once cognizance has been taken by the court and the proceedings are pending before a court of law for the reasons set out hereinafter. There is yet another peculiar feature which deserves to be noted at this stage. The narration in the writ petition nowhere indicates the filing of a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 833 of 2015 by the petitioner no. 1 before the Apex Court or the details of any order passed thereon, but in the list of dates and events at Page 1 and 2 at Item No. 4 and 5 a reference has been made to the aforesaid Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court. In view of the aforesaid indication in the list of dates and events, it is evident that the petitioners deliberately did not disclose such facts on affidavit in the memo of writ petition. The court however has got the order downloaded through internet services passed in the said Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 833 of 2015, the leading petition of the present petitioner, where orders disposing of the petitions have been passed on 14th July, 2015 by the Apex Court on the said special leave petition alongwith other connected matters:- "ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.2 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 833/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/01/2015 in AN No. 152/2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) SANJAY AWASTHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4664/2015, 4654/2015, 4839/2015, 4892-4894/2015, 4832/2015, 5107/2015, 5274/2015, 3603/2015, 5029/2015, 5031/2015, 5116/2015 and CRLMP No. 10918/2015 in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 3725/2015: These matters are de-tagged. List these matters on 21.07.2015. IN REST OF THE MATTERS: As many as 74 different cases have been registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") against a very large number of Officials working in the U.P. State Health and Family Welfare Departments and against suppliers of drugs and medicines. The cases, it appears, came to be registered pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court of Allahabad in a Public Interest Litigation ("PIL") which brought to fore what is now known as National Rural Health Mission ("NRHM"). It is common ground that NRHM was launched on 12.04.2005 throughout the country to provide accessible, affordable and quality health care to the rural population, specially the vulnerable sections of society and to reduce the infant mortality ratio. The Scheme/Mission was to be implemented by the State Governments. The prosecution case appears to be that between 2005 and 2011 a large sum of money said to be to the tune of Rs. 11,080.53 crores was allocated by the Government of India for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, out of which, a sum of Rs. 9,133.77 crores was in due course released. It is also the case of the prosecution that out of the amount so released a sum of Rs. 8,658.03 crores is said to have been spent on the Mission by the State Government. Allegations among others of large scale irregularities, misappropriation of funds, fake billing and purchases at exorbitant rates led the High Court of Allahabad to direct an inquiry into the scam by the CBI, which in turn led to the registration of 74 Regular cases and 28 Preliminary inquiries by the CBI branches at SC-II, STF, Delhi, EOU.IV, SCB, Lucknow and Dehradun.Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI submitted that investigation in as many as 56 cases, out of the above, has already been completed and charge sheets filed in as many as 46 cases. In 5 other cases, the CBI appears to have submitted closure reports, while sanction for prosecution is awaited in 5 other cases. All the preliminary inquiries are said to have been disposed of leaving just about 18 cases only in which investigation is currently in progress.