( 1 ) IN this criminal petition, the petitioner M. R. Chandrasekharan has sought for quashing the investigation In Crime No. 123 of 1977 of Cubbon park Police Station, Bangalore, on the ground that the investigation directed against him as an accused on a complaint filed by him is mala fide and has resulted in gross abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice. ( 2 ) THE material facts leading to the filing of this criminal petition may be stated as follows : The petitioner was the Agent of the Bank of india, Cantonment Branch, Bangalore, ever since it was started in Novr, 1972 till 7-3-1977. While he was working as the Agent in the said Branch, he was Hying with his wife and children in premises bearing No. 43/25, promenade Road, Bangalore-5. On 7-3-77 at about 11-15 p. m. , in response to the buzzer sound at his residense, the petitioner opened the door of his house. His wife also followed him. As soon as he opened the door, one stranger entered the house with an open dagger pointing it at the petitioner and his wife threatening them not to raise shouts. In the meanwhile, two more persons stepped into the house, out of whom one had a revolver. All the three of them, having entered the house, closed the door and demanded the petitioner to give the keys of the Bank. The petitioner, with reluctance and -out of fear to himself, his wife and children, handed over the key-bunch of the Bank to the person who Was holding the dagger. Thereafter, those three persons asked the petitioner to proceed to the Bank threatening him that if he were to contact anyone or inform anybody till they came, they would murder his wife and children. The petitioner mortally afraid of what would happen to his wife and children proceeded to the branch at Museum Road, Bangalore, in his car and having parked his car outside on the road, entered the bank premises after opening the lock and raising the shutters. Within a few minutes there after, those three persons dame inside the bank and one of them opened the security safe. The petitioner told them that the security safe contained oniy documents. At this, one of them went to the cash safe and attempted to open it. Within a few minutes there after, those three persons dame inside the bank and one of them opened the security safe. The petitioner told them that the security safe contained oniy documents. At this, one of them went to the cash safe and attempted to open it. The petitioner once again protested and attempted to interfere at which he was hit and violently pushed down as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. ( 3 ) THE next thing that the petitioner remembered was, the feeling of intense heat and being suffocated by smoke. He was gasping for breath when he heard cries outside and persons entered the bank's entrance and the petitioner was dragged out. The petitioner was removed to the adjacent hotel where he was tended for the burn injuries and the shock sustained by him. In the meanwhile, the police and the fire-brigade put-out the fire. ( 4 ) AT about 12-30 p. m. the petitioner had recovered from the shock. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner phoned to the Area Manager of the bank and informed him as to what had happened and requested him to rush to the bank immediately. The petitioner also contacted one of the reputed customers of the Bank by name Raghunatha Reddy, who was the managing Director of Revack Industries Private Ltd, and requested him to come to the Bank immediately for help. He came to the Bank. As the petitioner was very anxious to know about the safety of his wife and children, he requested Shri Raghunatha Reddy and the police to go with him in his car to his residence. At the residence he learnt from his wife that the three miscreants who bad come to his house on the previous night had robbed all her jewels worth about Rs. 5,000 by tying her to a chair and gagging her mouth. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint with the Cubbon Park Police which was registered as crime No. 123/77. Instead of investigating into the complaint filed by him impartially, the Cubbon Park. Police arrested the petitioner on 12-3-77 and produced him before the Magistrate with a remand application. After he was arrested, he was kept under suspension by the Bank authorities. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint with the Cubbon Park Police which was registered as crime No. 123/77. Instead of investigating into the complaint filed by him impartially, the Cubbon Park. Police arrested the petitioner on 12-3-77 and produced him before the Magistrate with a remand application. After he was arrested, he was kept under suspension by the Bank authorities. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has averred in this petition that the entire investigation by the local police is one-sided, partial, biassed and based upon unwarranted assumptions ignoring the fundamental facts pertaining to the case about which he had lodged his complaint. The petitioner reliably learns that the investigating officers are intimidating witnesses and getting false and distorted statements from them in order to suppress the truth. He made several representations to the higher police authorities, to his own superiors, to the Union Minister for Home Affairs and the court making serious complaint against the local police who are in charge of the investigation, about their biassed investigation, and deliberate concoction of. false evidence to falsely implicate him in a serious offence of arson. All attempts on the part of the petitioners to secure a fair and impartial investigation, into his complaint at the hands of the police or in the alternative to have the investigation transferred to any other impartial and unbiassed investigating agency have been of no avail; on the contrary the petitioner's attempt in this direction has only incensed the local police and the present investigating officers who are determined to coricoct evidence and falsely implicate the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE petitioner apprehends that there is absolutely no hope whatsoever for him to establish his innocence with the present investigating officers who even though no offence has been disclosed against him, are attempting to implicate him on flimsy grounds by somehow or other concocting evidence. No offence whatsoever has been made out against the petitioner on the material that has been placed hitherto on record. The petitioner, having failed to secure redress of his grievance at all levels, has no other go except to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to prevent gross abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice by quashing the mala fide investigation that is being continued against him by the Cubbon Park Police. The petitioner, having failed to secure redress of his grievance at all levels, has no other go except to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to prevent gross abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice by quashing the mala fide investigation that is being continued against him by the Cubbon Park Police. ( 7 ) THE petitioner supplemented the grounds urged in the original petition with additional grounds by filing I. A. No. II d| 21-1-78 in which he has sought to raise some legal objections against the continuance of the investigation by the Cubbon Park Police in Cr. NO. 123/77 directed against him. He has urged that the investigation that has been commenced against him is illegal and is in clear violation of the provisions of secs. 154, 157,. 159 and 161 and other provisions of Chapter XII of the crlpc, 1973 (shortly called the 'code') and if such an investigation is allowed to continue, it would result in harassment of an innocent citizen giving rise to grave miscarriage of justice. ( 8 ) THE petition was taken up for consideration. In the middle of the arguments, the petitioner filed another application I. A. No. 111 in which he has sought for a direction to the respondent-State to transfer the investigation that is being conducted against him by the Cubbon Park Police to the Corps of Detectives, Bangalore, and in case his prayer to quash the investigation made in the original petition and his prayer now made for the transfer of the investigation to the Corps of Detectives, Bangalore, are not granted, to allow him two weeks' time to file a writ petition for necessary direction restraining the Cubbon Park Police or such other investigating officers who are in charge of the investigation from continuing the further investigation against him by keeping in force the stay order granted in this criminal petition. ( 9 ) SHRI P. S. Devadas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two contentions, in support of the petition. ( 9 ) SHRI P. S. Devadas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two contentions, in support of the petition. They are: (1) the investigation now directed against the petitioner is unauthorised and without jurisdiction for contravention of the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code; and (2) that the investigating agency now in charge of the investigation is biassed and prejudiced against the petitioner; that they are concocting evidence to put up a false case against him; that the investigation, if allowed to continue, would result in the abuse of the process of the Court and defeat the ends of justice and as such this is a fit and proper case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court to quash the investigation or at least to direct the respondent-State to transfer the investigate to the Corps of Detectives. ( 10 ) THE learned High Court Govt Pleader appearing for the State controverted both the contentions of the learned Counsel' for the petitioner. According to him, the Cubbon Park Police have investigated the case in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Code and the investigation was done impartially without any bias against the petitioner. The action taken by the investigating agency is based on the evidence collected during the investigation and as such the petitioner cannot have any valid grouse against the investigation. He finally contended that the petitioner cannot seek any of the reliefs because this Court, under its inherent powers, cannot interfere with the investigation which is the. statutory function of the police under the provisions of the Code. ( 11 ) THE first contention of Shri P. S. Devadas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is based on two grounds viz, (1) that no information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence within the meaning of S. 154 of the code was laid before the police against the petitioner; and (2) that no FIB was sent against the petitioner as required by Sec. 157 of the Code to the jurisdictional Magistrate after the investigation was directed against him treating him as the accused in the case. ( 12 ) CHAPTER XII of the Code deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. It provides for. ( 12 ) CHAPTER XII of the Code deals with information to the police and their powers to investigate. It provides for. giving information to the police in cognizable and non-cognizable offences, their power to investigate such case, procedure for investigation, how a report should be submitted when the police officer receiving information has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report, how witnesses should be examined during investigation and their statements to be recorded and such other matters connected with the investigation till the filing of the report on completion of the investigation. It is now necessary to refer to the material portion of the relevant sections :" 154 (1 ). Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Govt may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-sec (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. * * * * * 156 (1 ). Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be ailed in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Sec. 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 157 (1 ). (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be ailed in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Sec. 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 157 (1 ). If from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station; has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Sec. 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Govt may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measure for the discovery and arrest of the offender : provided that : (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; (b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-sec (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Govt, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated. 158 (1 ). Every report sent to a Magistrate under Sec. 157 shall, if the State Govt so directs, be submitted through such superior officer of police as the State Govt by general or special order appoints in that behalf. 158 (1 ). Every report sent to a Magistrate under Sec. 157 shall, if the State Govt so directs, be submitted through such superior officer of police as the State Govt by general or special order appoints in that behalf. (2) Such superior officer may give such instructions to the officer in charge of the police station as he thinks fit and shall, after recording such instructions on such report, transmit the same without delay to the Magistrate. " ( 13 ) A plain reading of the above provisions of the Code does not lend support to either of the two points canvassed by Shri P. S. Devadas in support of his first contention that the investigation held against the petitioner was without jurisdiction for violation of the provisions of chapter XII of the Code. ( 14 ) SEC. 154 of the Code deals with giving information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence. It may be given either orally or in writing. If it is given orally, then; the officer in charge of the police station to whom the oral information is given should reduce the oral information to writing in the manner provide in the Section. further, the information whether given in writing or reduced, to writing, shall be signed by the person giving the information and the substance of such information shall be entered in a book kept in the prescribed form. A copy of the information given orally and reduced to writing shall be given forthwith free of cost to the informant. The language of Sec. 154 does not lend support to the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence should be given against a person by name. All that is required under Sec. 154 is giving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence to an officer in charge of a police station. The object of laying information to the police under Sec. 154 is to set in motion the law relating to the commission of a cognizable offence which they are empowered to investigate, without the order of a Magistrate. The information laid before the police under Sec. 154 may be 'against a person or persons by name or unknown. If the information relating to the commission! The information laid before the police under Sec. 154 may be 'against a person or persons by name or unknown. If the information relating to the commission! of cognizable offence is against a person or persons by name, then the case will be registered against them' and investigation proceeded with. On the other hand, if the information relating to the commission of cognizable offence is against person unknown, then the police will have to register a case against person unknown and proceed with the investigation to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Laying information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence against a person by name is not a condition-precedent for the police to take up investigation. As soon as the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to the police under Sec. 154, they shall have to take up investigation as they are empowered to investigate a cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate under Sec. 156 of the Code. If from the information received under Sec. 154 or otherwise, an officer in charge of the police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence of which he is empowered under Sec. 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report under Sec. 157 of the Code and proceed with the investigation to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and" if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. ( 15 ) A careful reading of Secs. 154, 156 and 157 would disclose that the information to be given to the police under Sec. 154 to set the law in motion,, would be the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. It may be against any person by name or against a person unknown. As soon as such an information is received by a Station House officer, he is empowered to investigate the offence without the order of a Magistrate. It may be against any person by name or against a person unknown. As soon as such an information is received by a Station House officer, he is empowered to investigate the offence without the order of a Magistrate. From the information received as aforesaid or otherwise, the officer in charge of the police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Sec. 156 to investigate, he shall forward a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate under section 157 and proceed with the investigation If the information given under S. 154 is not directed against any person, it is the duty of the police during investigation to find out the person who has committed the alleged offence. This is clear from the words employed in the latter part of sec, 157 viz, "to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and it necessary to take measure for discovery and arrest of the offender". The offender discovered during the investigation may be either the complainant himself or someone else; it would depend upon the facts and circumstances revealed during the invetigation. If the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given against person not known and during the investigation, the police are able to discover the offender, no further, report under Sec. 157 need be submitted to the jurisdictional magistrate because a report under that section has to be submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate before the officer in charge of the police station took up investigation of the case. The emphasis both in Sees. 154 and 157 is regarding the commission of a cognizable offence and not regarding the person by whom it was committed. The object of the investigation flowing out of the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is to find out the real offender. Thus, it is my view that the information under Sec. 154 need not be against any person by name and if the investigation is proceeded against person not-known, no further report under Sec. 157 Of the Code is contemplated if the accused discovered during the investigation is the person who lodged the information or someone else. Thus, it is my view that the information under Sec. 154 need not be against any person by name and if the investigation is proceeded against person not-known, no further report under Sec. 157 Of the Code is contemplated if the accused discovered during the investigation is the person who lodged the information or someone else. ( 16 ) IN this case, admittedly, the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence was laid before the Cubbon Park Police by the petitioner himself as per his complaint d/ 8-3-77 on the basis of which cr. No. 123/77 was registered against accused-unknown and the FIR was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Sec. 157 of the Code. Thereupon the police took up investigation of the case. It was during the course of the investigation, the Cubbon Park Police, on the basis of the evidence collected, arrested the petitioner on 12-3-77 and produced him before the Magistrate with a remand, application. In that view of the matter, I find no force in the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation directed against the petitioner is without jurisdiction for violation of the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. ( 17 ) NOW coming to the second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the learned High Court Govt Pleader, strongly contended that this Court, under its inherent powers, cannot interfere with the statutory powers of the police to investigate. It seems to me there is much force in this submission. ( 18 ) AS to the powers of the judiciary in regard to the statutory right of the police to investigate, the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khawajal Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18. at page 22 observed as follows :" The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and Order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Sec. 491, crlpc, to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. It has sometimes been thought that Sec. 561a has given increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that Section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possess shall be preserved and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers posessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act. "the Supreme Court in State of W. B. v. S. N. Basak, AIR. 1963 SC. 447. quoted with approval the observation of the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwja Nazir altmad's case (1) extracted above regarding the interpretation put on the statutory duties and powers of the police and the powers of the Court and observed as follows :" The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in Chapter XIV of the Crlpc. Sec. 154 which is in that Chapter deals with information in cognizable offences and Sec. 156 with investigation into such offences and under these sections the police has the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of power under Sec. 439 or under the inherent power of the Court under Sec. 561a of the Criminal Procedure' Code. "in a later decision in Jeham Sinoh v. Delhi Administration, AIR. 1974 SC, 1146. the Supreme Court, construing the inherent powers of the Court under Sec. 561 A, crlpc, 1898 vis-a-vis the statutory powers of the police to investigate, held thus :" Where at the date of filing the petition under Sec. 561 A, no charge-sheet or a complaint has been laid down in Court and the matter is only at the stage of investigation by police, the Court cannot, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 561a, interfere with the statutory powers of the police to investigate into the alleged offence, and quash the proceedings. Even assuming that the allegations in the FIR are correct and constitute an offence so as to remove the legal bar to institute proceedings in Court, the Court cannot at that stage appraise the evidence collected by the police in their investigation. Any petition under Section 561a at such a stage is, therefore, premature and incompetent. " ( (Paraphrased in brief note 'a') the Supreme Court, in a recent decision in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, AIR. 1977 SC. 2229. reiterated its earlier view on the subject that the high Court in exercise of its inherent power sunder Sec. 482 of the Code cannot interfere with the statutory power of the police to investigate. The facts of the case were that: - kurushetra University, one the appellants, filed an FIR through its Warden in regard to an incident which was alleged to have taken place on the night between 25th and 26th Sepr 1975 in one of the university Hostels. The police, acting on the report, registered a case under sections 448 and 452 IPC against respondent-2 Vinay Kumar. But before any investigation could be done by the police, respondent-2 filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying that the first information report be quashed. The High Court, without issuing notice to the university, quashed the first information report and directed-respondent-1 the State of Haryana to pay a sum of Rs. 300 by way of costs to Respt-2. The University asked for review of the said order since it had no notice of the proceedings. But that application was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants took up the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. Dealing with the question whether the High Court was right in quashing the first information report in exercise of its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code, the Supreme Court held thus :"it surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Crlpc, it could quash a first information report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any Court in pursance of the FIR. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any Court in pursance of the FIR. It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. " ( 19 ) NO more discussion would be necessary to hold that this Court cannot interfere in exercise of its inherent powers, under Sec. 482 of the code with the statutory powers of the police to investigate into the case. There is no proceeding pending before the Court below except the FIR filed by the Cubbon Park Police on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner. During the course of the investigation, on the basis of the evidence collected, the investigating agency, having reason" to suspect that the petitioner-complainant was the offender in the case arrested him on 12-3-77 and produced him before Magistrate with a remand application. The court released him on bail. The investigation is incomplete. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Approached this Court through a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code to quash the investigation directed against him and obtained stay of the further investigation. In view of the rulings of the Supreme Court referred to above, the petitioner's prayer to quash the investigation directed against him is unsustainable. ( 20 ) THE Cubbon Park Police who are in charge of the investigation of the case has been statutorily empowered to investigate the case against the petitioner as the offence in question was committed within the jurisdiction of the Cubbon Park Police Station. If this Court were to issue a direction to the respondent-State to transfer the investigation of the case to some authority other than the authority which is empowered to investigate under the statute, in exercise of its inherent powers, it would necessarily mean interference with the statutory powers of the police to investigate. That is exactly what this Court cannot do as observed by the supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the higher police authorities or the respondent state Government for the necessary reliefs in this respect. That is exactly what this Court cannot do as observed by the supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the higher police authorities or the respondent state Government for the necessary reliefs in this respect. It was stated at the Bar during the course of the argument that the petitioner has already filed an application before the Inspector General of Police for transfer of the investigation, to the Corps of Detectives which he could very well pursue. However, for the reasons aforesaid, I am of the opinion that this Court cannot direct the State Govt to transfer the investigation of the case to the Corps of Detectives. ( 21 ) THE petitioner has finally sought for two weeks time to file a writ petition by keeping in force the stay of the investigation granted in these proceedings if his other reliefs are denied to him. I do not think that this Court can grant such a relief if the petitioner is not entitled for the other reliefs sought for in this petition. ( 22 ) IN the result, for the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .