Order: The petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 1581 of 1975 of Dharmapuri Police Station, now pending in D C.B. Crime No. 11 of 1975 registered under sections 147, 448 and 380, Indian Penal Code. The 1st petitioner, now under suspension, was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri. The 7th petitioner, who is employed as a Radio Supervisor attached to the District Develpoment Office, Dharmapuri, is the brother of the 2nd petitioner, who is employed as a teacher in a school attached to the Morappur Panchayat Union Council. The 3rd petitioner is the uncle of the 7 th petitioner. Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 are related to the 7th petitioner and they are all agriculturists. The 7th petitioner, according to the petition, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 256 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Dharmapuri for a declaration that the alleged marriage between him and one Kanchana, daughter of Govindarajulu, recorded before the Marriage Registrar at Dharmapuri on 4th August, 1975, is null and void, and for an injunction directing the said Kanchana not to claim the status of a wife of the 7th petitioner, and for other reliefs. It is averred in the said petition that he was forcibly taken away by the members of Kanchana’s family to the Marriage Registrar’s office under threat and his signatures wers obtained. It is the further case of the 7th petitioner that the conduct of the said marriage was with an ulterior motive of snatching away the properties belonging to him by unlawful means. The 7 th petitioner was originally living in Gandhinagar, Dharmapuri; but, unable to bear the harassment of the said Kanchana and her family members, he shifted ‘tis residence to Pidamaneri area in Dharmapuri town in the beginning of September, 1975. 2. The plaint, according to him, was filed in Court on 8th September, 1975, though it was made ready on 2nd September, 1975 itself. The said Kanchana, with her parents and other forcibly entered the house occupied by the 7th petitioner on 19th September, 1975. He further states that Kanchana filed a petition for the appointment of a Commissioner in the above suit for taking an inventory of all the articles and certain physical features. The said Kanchana, with her parents and other forcibly entered the house occupied by the 7th petitioner on 19th September, 1975. He further states that Kanchana filed a petition for the appointment of a Commissioner in the above suit for taking an inventory of all the articles and certain physical features. The Commissioner appointed by the Court visited the house on 20th September, 1975 and took an inventory of all the properties at about 8 a.m. The 7th petitioner, apprehending trouble and breach of the peace at the hands of Kanchana and her men, gave the complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri (1st petitioner herein), alleging that there was likelihood of danger to his life and that he might be beaten and harassed by them if he attempted to remove his articles from his house and requesting for Police bandobust. Thereupon, the 7th petitioner came back to his house and was removing his things with the assistance of petitioners 2 to 6 in spite of the petitions and protests made by Kanchana, her parents and others. By that time, the 1st petitioner also came to the residence of the 7th petitioner and warned the parties not to create disturbance and breach of the peace. Subsequently, it was learned by the 7th petitioner that Kanchana had laid a complaint against all the petitioners including the 1st petitioner, before the Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri (1st respondent), on 20th September, 1975, and on receipt of that, passed an order on 22nd September, 1975, directing the Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri, to register a case under sections 147, 380 and 488, Indian Penal Code and transfer the case to the District Crime Branch for investigation. Thereupon, it is seen from the endorsement on the petition that a case was registered in Crime No. 1581 of 1975 under the abovesaid sections and the first information report was transferred to the D.C.B., Dharmapuri, for investigation. The 7th petitioner would submit that the averments contained in the complaint filed by Kanchana, a copy of which is enclosed with this petition, do nor prima facie contain any allegation regarding the commission of any of the offences for which the case is now registered. It is averred that the 7th petitioner was entitled to remove his articles from his house and while duing so it is far-fetched to say that he was committing an offence. It is averred that the 7th petitioner was entitled to remove his articles from his house and while duing so it is far-fetched to say that he was committing an offence. Petitioners 2 to 6 had been to his house only on his invitation and as such they cannot be said to have committed any one of the offences. 3. Coming to the case of the 1st petitioner, the 7th petitioner, would submit that even if the allegations made against the 1st petitioner art deemed to be true, he was only discharging his duty as a Police Officer on the complaint filed by him. Finally, he would say that the complaint given by Kanchana would disclose no offence, but, onl the other hand, the action taken would be nothing but an abuse of process of Court intended to subject the petitioners to unnecessary hardship and harassment. 4. So far as the petition now pending before me is concerned, I have to see whether the action taken by the 1st respondent in passing an order to register a case on the averments contained in the petition of Kanchana, is to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 5. There is no dispute that the 7th petitioner had presented a petition before the 1st petitioner on 20th September 1975, requesting him to give him Police bandobust so that his life and property might not be put to danger. Similarly it is admitted that the 1st petitioner had gone to the house of the 7th petitioner at the time when the latter was removing his articles with the help of petitioners 2 to 6 and the 1st petitioner warned the parties, probably the party of Kanchana and her men, not to commit breach of the peace. 6. In order to satisfy myself whether the 1st petitioner took action only in the normal course as an Officer in the Police station, I summoned the general diary of the station and the pocket note book of the 1st petitioner for the relevant data. 7. 6. In order to satisfy myself whether the 1st petitioner took action only in the normal course as an Officer in the Police station, I summoned the general diary of the station and the pocket note book of the 1st petitioner for the relevant data. 7. In the general diary there is an entry which I mark as Exhibit C-1, made at 10 a.m., on 20th September, 1975, to the effect that Sambasivam (accused 7) had given a petition in the station, the allegations in which disclosed a dispute of a civil nature, and that he was leaving the station in order to warn the counter-petitioners. In the pocket note book of the 1st petitioner, there are two entries made at 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for the date 20th September, 1975, which I now mark as Exhibits C-2 and C-3 on the reverse side of page 96 and on page 97. Exhibit C-2 reveals that Sambasivam (accused 7), son of Kovanna Reddy, gave a petition of a civil nature, and he was proceeding to warn the counter-petitioners. Exhibit C-3 made at 11a.m., would indicate that he went to Pidamaneri near the railway gate and met the petitioner and the counter-petitioners in person and warned the parties not to create any rioting or disturbance. Thus, these two entries found in the general diary and in the note-book would clearly reveal that what all the 1st petitioner did was in exercise of his duties as Sub-Inspector of the said station in the normal course, I see much force in the contention of Mr. Ramaswami that had the 1st petitioner neglected or omitted to take any action on the petition presented by the 7th petitioner, which every officer in charge of the Police station is expected to do, he would have been definitely held liable for dereliction of duty. 8. Now, I shall examine the allegations made in the petition given by Kanchana to the Superintendent of Police, which provoked the 1st respondent to order registration of the case. 8. Now, I shall examine the allegations made in the petition given by Kanchana to the Superintendent of Police, which provoked the 1st respondent to order registration of the case. They are as follows: A reading of these allegations would show that the 7th petitioner and his men came to the house of the former and took away the utensils, his boxes, clothes and implements for repairing the radio and his other belongings In other words, the properties that are alleged to have been taken away are admitted to be the properties of the 7th petitioner himself. Coming to the allegation of the 1st petitioner, it is alleged that he asked Kanchana not to prevent them from taking the things and he had come there only under orders of the Superintendent of Police and if she persisted to do so, she would be arrested. I am not able to understand what is the offence that is committed by these petitioners, even taking the entire averments found in the complaint to be true. Can it be said that petitioners 2 to 7 had committed a criminal trespass when the house in question was in the occupation of the petitioner 7 on whose invitation the other petitioners went there? Further, it can be safely concluded that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that petitioner 1 who is no other than the Sub Inspector of Police of the concerned Police station, has committed an offence of criminal trespass as contemplated under section 448, Indian Penal Code, when he has acted under the colour of his office. Similarly, it is very strange to note that a case of an offence under section 380, Indian Penal Code, is ordered to be registered on the averments, which clearly and unambiguously show that petitioner 7,with the assistance of the other petitioners, removed only the belongings of petitioner 7, which fact has been admitted even in the complaint made by Kanchana herself. When they have not committed any offence either under section 448 or under section 380, there is absolutely no offence committed under section 147, Indian Penal Code. Thus, in my view, even if the allegations in the complaint given by Kanchana are taken to be true at their face value, they do not disclose any offence. 9. Mr. When they have not committed any offence either under section 448 or under section 380, there is absolutely no offence committed under section 147, Indian Penal Code. Thus, in my view, even if the allegations in the complaint given by Kanchana are taken to be true at their face value, they do not disclose any offence. 9. Mr. K. Ramaswani has brought to my notice the decision of the Kerala High Court in Chemnad Essential Oils and Other Allied Manufacturing Company v. Circle Inspector of Police, Puthur and others1, where, after discussing elaborately the scope of the powers that can be exercised by the High Court under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, making reference to almost all the leading decisions the learned Judge has summarised the position by observing that under section 561-A if the allegations made in the first information statement and the case diary statement of the witnesses during the investigation under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the charge laid down by the Police under lection 173, Criminal Procedure Code, do not disclose any offence against the accused, the High Court can interfere at any stage of the proceedings and the interference to quash the proceedings, however, can be had recourse to only on two conditions, viz., if the prosecution allegations, even when accepted as true, do not establish any offence against the accused and where an offence against the accused is established if the allegations are believed but there is no evidence at all to support the allegation. It was further held that it is always open to the High Court to interfere where the facts are preposterous that the High Court feels satisfied that on the admitted facts, there is no case against the accused and when the High Court is clearly of the opinion that further prolongation of the proceeding would amount to harassment, it is in the interest of justice that the High Court should interfere. He also relied on another decision in The Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed2, wherein their Lordships have observed that if no cognizable offence is disclosed and still more if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the Police would have no authority to undertake an investigation and if they do so, the High Court may interfere under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. Then the learned Counsel cited the following observations made in Balwant Singh v. District Food and Supplies Controller.3 “The expression ‘in the interest of justice’ used in section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, would call for the interference of the High Court in the interest of justice even at the stage where only a first information report is lodged with the Police, if the first information report does not disclose any offence whatsoever. For, in a matter where the first information report does not disclose any offence cognizable or non-cognisable, then allowing the investigating agency to continue with the investigation and harass a citizen would certainly not be in the interest of justice Against this kind of harassment of a citizen, the Court must exercise its inherent power whenever its assistance is sought by a citizen.” In this regard, I may point out the observation of the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab4wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have given some categories of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised. I feel that it is enongh for me to indicate the second category mentioned therein, viz., where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. In such casts, no question of appreciating evidence arises. It is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. Finally he brought to my notice the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration5 , wherein it was held that where a first information report had been filed in respect of a cognizable offence and no charge-sheet or complaint had been laid in Court and the matter is still at the stage of investigation by the Police, a petition under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings would be premature unless the allegations in the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. As I have already stated supra elaborately, the allegations contained in the complaint given by Kanchana do not disclose or constitute the offence alleged and therefore it cannot be said that the petition under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, would be premature. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor’ appearing for the State, has also fairly conceded that this is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the interest of justice and quash the proceedings in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Privy Council and the various High Courts: see also Ram Narain v. Mool Chand1. 11. For the above discussions, I allow this petition and quash the proceedings in Crime No. 1581 of 1975 of Dharmapuri Police station, now pending in D.C.B. Crime No. 11 of 1975.