Judgment Raj Kishore Prasad, J. 1. These two cases arise out of the same matter, and in respect of orders of the same date, but passed in two different cases, although arising between the same parties and out of the same matter. 2. The reference under Sec. 438, Criminal P. G. is by the learned Sessions Judge of Saran, recommending that the order dated 25-1-54, of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chapra, passed in case No. 1007 of 1953, withdrawing the investigation, and restraining the police from taking any further action, be set aside. 3. The criminal revision is by one of the accused, A.J.U. Munro, against an order dated 4-9-1954, of the same learned Sessions Judge, rejecting his application for quashing Ms prosecution by the same Sub-divisional Magistrate by an order dated 25-1-1954, passed in case No. 703/87T of 1953, taking cognizance under Sec. 420, Penal Code against him, and two others. 4. These two cases, therefore, have been heard together, and this judgment will govern both the Reference and the Revisional application. 5. As to how more than one case was registered in respect of the same matter will appear from the facts to be stated hereafter. 6. The facts giving rise to the present cases, shortly stated, are as follows: 7. The complainant, Baijnath Sharma, on 10-6-53 filed a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chapra, against the petitioner, A. J. U. Munro, and two others. This case was registered as Case No. 456 of 1953. The complaint was that although he sent the correct solution of Square Word D. 10, he was not given the announced prize, and he was thus cheated by the Company Express Newspapers, Bombay, having its registered office at Delhi, and their servants. The petitioner, A.J.U. Munro, was the Competitions Editor of this Square Word D-10, Delhi. On receiving the complaint, the learned Sub-Divi-sional Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation then and there, and passed the following order on the same day, that is, 19-6-53: "Examined the complainant on solemn affirmation. Let S. I. institute a case and investigate. Put up on 27-7-53." This order was passed in case No. 456 of 1953. 8 Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Revilganj police station, on 27-6-53, instituted a case on the basis of the complaint, treating it as the first information report. Let S. I. institute a case and investigate. Put up on 27-7-53." This order was passed in case No. 456 of 1953. 8 Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Revilganj police station, on 27-6-53, instituted a case on the basis of the complaint, treating it as the first information report. He sent the formal first information report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who instituted another case on its basis. This case was numbered as Case No. 1007 of 1953. 9. The investigation started, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police went to supervise the case on 10-7-53, and submitted his supervision note on 15-7-53 observing that a prima facie case had been made out under Ss. 420 and 120B, Penal Code. He further directed the Sub-Inspector to contact the Delhi Police, and obtain their necessary help in the investigation of the case. 10. On 16-7-53 the Superintendent of Police submitted a report to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police that it was a case of inter-provincial nature, and, therefore, it was desirable that the control of this case should be taken up by the C. I. D. 11. Accordingly, the C. I. D. took up the matter. On 5-9-53 the Inspector of C. I. D. and the investigating officer went to Delhi and examined the papers in the office of the Newspaper Delhi Ex-press." Several new facts came to light in course of the investigation. That investigation revealed a deep-laid conspiracy to cheat the Company. The C. I. D. Inspector directed further investigation on the points indicated by him in his report. 12. While the investigation was going on, the complainant, Baijnath Sharma, on 15-9-53, filed a protest petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate making various allegations against the police. This protest petition was treated as a fresh complaint by the learned Sub-divisonal Magistrate, and, therefore, he examined the complainant on solemn affirmation. On the basis of this protest petition, a fresh case was instituted. This case was numbered as Case No. 703/87T of 1953. 13. In the circumstances mentioned above, three cases -- Cases Nos. 456 of 1953, 1007 of 1953 and 703/87T of 1953 -- came to be instituted in respect of the same matter. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate by his order dated 28-7-53 passed in Case No. 456 of 1953, however, directed that this case would be amalgamated with Case No. 1007 of 1953. 14. 456 of 1953, 1007 of 1953 and 703/87T of 1953 -- came to be instituted in respect of the same matter. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate by his order dated 28-7-53 passed in Case No. 456 of 1953, however, directed that this case would be amalgamated with Case No. 1007 of 1953. 14. On 3-11-53, the complainant filed another petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate in Case No. 1007 of 1953 praying that the investigation be withdrawn from the police. The Sub-divisional Magistrate called for an explanation from the investigating officer, and directed him to submit his report by 11-11-53. The report not having been received by 11-11-53, the cases were adjourned to 25-11-53. 15. On 25-11-53 the investigating officer informed the Magistrate that the control of the case had been taken over by the C. I. D. The learned Magistrate passed no order thereon, but simply recorded this fact in the order-sheet of Case No. 703 of 1953. All the cases were then adjourned to 8-12-53, and thereafter to 22-12-53. 16. On 22-12-53 the complainant filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate complaining that the investigating officer had not examined any witness. The learned Magistrate thereupon called for the Case diary, and adjourned the case to 25-1-54, as will appear from the order-sheet of Case No. 1007 of 1953. 17. On 22-1-54 the Superintendent of Police sent a letter tp the Sub-divisional Magistrate to the effect that the case was under the investigation of the C. I. D. and that the investigating officer had been directed to contact the C. I. D. officers at Patna and to proceed to Delhi to finish the investigation at once. This letter will be found in the record of Case No. 1007 of 1953. 18. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, however, on 25-1-54 passed the following order in Case No. 703 of 1953: "Seen the case diary, supervision report of the S. P. and D. S. P. A prima facie case is made out against the accused persons under Sec. 420, I. P. C. Cognizance taken under Sec. 420, I. P. C. against the accused persons. Case transferred to the Court of Mr. M. Hussain for disposal." 19. On the same day, in Case No. 1007 of 1953, he recorded the following order: "F, F, still not received. Seen case diary. Case transferred to the Court of Mr. M. Hussain for disposal." 19. On the same day, in Case No. 1007 of 1953, he recorded the following order: "F, F, still not received. Seen case diary. Perused also the supervision note of S.P. and D. S.P. Cognizance has already been taken in this case (vide Case No. 703 of 1953). So the police need not take further action. Withdraw the investigation from the police." 20. On 9-3-54 an application on behalf of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to the Magisterial Court, was made before the Sub-divisional Magistrate praying for recalling the order dated 25-1-54 passed in Case No. 1007 of 1953, by which he stopped the police from making further investigation in the case. The learned Magistrate, however, passed no order on this petition, and simply recorded the fact on the petition itself that the case had already been transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate. 21. The State thereafter moved the learned Sessions Judge for setting aside the order dated 25-1-54 so far as it concerned the withdrawal of the investigation from the police. The learned Sessions Judge, on this application, has made this reference -- Criminal Ref. 96 of 1954 -- recommending that the above underlined (here into ) order of the learned Magistrate withdrawing the investigation and restraining the police from taking any action be set aside. 22. After the order of 25-1-54, passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate in Case No. 703/ 87T of 1953, the case was transferred to the Court of another Magistrate for disposal, who on 27-1-54 summoned the accused persons. 23. In response to the summons the petitioner Munro alone appeared in Court on 14-5-54, and, thereafter the hearing of the case commenced on 25-6-54, before Mr. S. Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, as the previous Magistrate was transferred, when certain witnesses were examined. On the next day also, that is, on 2-7-54, the remaining witnesses of the prosecution were examined, and the prosecution closed its evidence, and the case was adjourned to another date for cross-examination of the witnesses. 24. S. Dubey, Judicial Magistrate, as the previous Magistrate was transferred, when certain witnesses were examined. On the next day also, that is, on 2-7-54, the remaining witnesses of the prosecution were examined, and the prosecution closed its evidence, and the case was adjourned to another date for cross-examination of the witnesses. 24. The accused, A. J. U. Munro, then on 5-8-54 moved the learned Sessions Judge for quashing the order dated 25-1-54, of the learned Sub-divsional Magistrate passed in Case No. 703 of 1953, summoning him to take his trial, and, also, for setting aside his order of the same date passed in Case No. 1007 of 1953, withdrawing the investigation from the Police. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application of the petitioner, against which order, Criminal Revision No. 1199 of 1954, has been filed by the accused Munro. 25. Mr. Shayamnandan Pd. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, has contended that the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed on 19-6-54 was an order under Sec.156(3), Criminal P. C., and not under Sec.202 of the Code, and as such the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to withdraw the police investigation, which the police were entitled to carry on with by virtue of their statutory powers conferred upon them by Sections 154 and 156, Criminal P. C. 26. Mr. Murtaza Fazl All, appearing for the complainant, however, has contended that the order mentioned above was not under Sec.156 (3) of the Code, but under Sec.202 of the Code, and as such the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to withdraw the investigation from the police, And summon the accused persons on the materials before him under sec. 204, Criminal Procedure Code. 27. There is no doubt, as observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of -- -- Emperor V/s. Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18: 71 Ind App 203 (A) that there is a statutory right on the part of the police under Ss. 154 and 156, Criminal P. C. to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime, without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would be an un fortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with these statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 561A of the Code. 154 and 156, Criminal P. C. to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime, without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would be an un fortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with these statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 561A of the Code. Their Lordships further observed that as the police have under Sections 154 and 156, a statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence, without requiring the sanction of the Court, to quash the police investigation on the ground that it would be an abuse of the powers of the Court would be to act on treacherous grounds. 28. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to decide in the present case whether the order dated 19-6-53 (sic) fell under Sec.156(3), Criminal P. C., or under Sec.202 of the Code, in view of the order, which I propose to pass in these cases, as indicated hereafter, in the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances of the present case. 29. It appears from the police investigation, so far carried on, which has not yet been completed, that the existence of an inter-provincial conspiracy is suspected. It is very difficult to predicate at this stage what the report of the police, as a result of its investigation, would be, because the investigation is riot yet complete, although it is on its way to completion. The police may find that the complainants allegations are true. It may also happen that the police may find that the allegations of the complainant are untrue, In such circumstances, if the prosecution of the petitioner A. J. U. Munro is allowed to continue it may result in an anomalous position. The police has not yet collected all materials bearing upon the case. If they come to the conclusion on completion of their investigation that the complaint is false and submit a report for prosecution of the complainant, and if, in the meantime, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is allowed to stand, two contradictory cases will be pending trial at one and the same time. It will not be a case of two counter-cases, but a case where in one case the complainant will be called upon to prove his case and in another the prosecution will be called upon to prove that the complainants case is false. It will not be a case of two counter-cases, but a case where in one case the complainant will be called upon to prove his case and in another the prosecution will be called upon to prove that the complainants case is false. If the police investigation is stopped at this stage, evidence having material bearing on the case may remain suppressed. 30. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, therefore, I consider that the ends of justice require that the police investigation should be allowed to continue, and, the order summoning the petitioner Munro and two others be quashed. After the completion of the police investigation, when the police will submit a report to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, it will be open to him, after consideration of the police report, and, after consideration of the documents, which have been filed by the complainant, and such other materials as may be "brought to his notice, to reconsider the whole matter, and, then to decide what should be done in the circumstances of the case. If he finds on a consideration of these materials that the accused should be summoned, it will be open to him to summon all the accused, or some of them who is found liable to be summoned, to take his trial for the offence which would prima facie be made out against him. If, however, he finds that no case has been made out, and, that the complaint is false, then it will be open to the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint, and, to take such other steps as he may consider expedient to meet the ends of justice. It will be open to the police also to take such steps as they think proper as a result of their investigation independently. 31. In the result, the reference is accepted, and, the Criminal Revision is allowed, and the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dated 25-1-54 summoning the petitioner and two others, and withdrawing the investigation from the police, is set aside. The rule is, therefore, made absolute. Sahai, J. 32 I agree.