Judgment : This is a petition for quashing the enquiry that is being actually conducted by a Police Officer with respect to the private complaint that has been given to the Sub-Inspector of Police Peralam Police Station, East Thanjavur District. 2. When the matter came up for enquiry before this Court, the learned Government Advocate No. 3 submitted that the very concept of filing an application for quashing the enquiry that is actually being conducted by a police officer, especially when the same is actually under progress, is something which is alien to the procedural law of the land because the enquiry that is conducted by the police officer with respect to the contents of the complaint that has been entrusted to him for enquiry should not be interfered with by an authority on grounds which are not at all conducive to the upkeep of the law and order of a place from where such a complaint has emanated. In this regard, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-1st accused submits that the following events have taken place. The details have been verified by the learned Government Advocate No. 3 and he submits that the events enumerated are correct. They are as follows: 23-9-981 A.S. No. 8 of 1981 dismissed. E.P. No. 385 of 1981 filed by Vasantha Bai. 15-10-1981 Amin’s report of delivery. Not recorded. 16-10-1981 E.A.No. 1145 of 1981 not to record the delivery of possession. Adjourned to 30th October, 1981. 19-10-1981 E.A.No.1168 of 1981: Stay of attempted harvest of paddy by Vasantha Bai and to see age of crops. Till 20-10-81 Interim stay of harvest by both parties ordered. Appointed Commissioner. 20-10-1981 Commissioner’s report. Memo. given to the present respondent Panneerselvam, Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam. 21-10-1981 S.A. filed. Interim stay ordered by Mohan, J. 22-10-1981 Petitioner-accused harvested the crops. Police came and took custody of the paddy. District Munsif, stayed all further proceedings in E.P. 23-10-1981 Complaint to S.P. about the respondent. 29-10-1981 Ratnam, J., vacated the order of stay granted earlier, 30-10-1981 Section 47 application by petitioner to reject the Amin’s report and to dismiss the E.P. 7-11-1981 Section 47 petition admitted by the District Munsif, numbered as E.A. No. 1291 of 1981. 19-11-1981 Counter filed by Vasantha Bai. 18-3-1982 R.E.A. No. 385 of 1982 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct harvest of standing crops in the suit lands. 20-3-1982 Counter of Vasantha Bai filed. 19-11-1981 Counter filed by Vasantha Bai. 18-3-1982 R.E.A. No. 385 of 1982 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct harvest of standing crops in the suit lands. 20-3-1982 Counter of Vasantha Bai filed. Enquiry 24-3-1982. 24-3-1982 Pending enquiry, Vasantha Bai filed F.I.R. with respondent. 25-3-1982 E.A. No. 434 of 1982 Commissioner appointed on the representation Vasantha Bai filed Police complaint against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that at this stage of enquiry by the Police, the materials so far collected may not exhibit any offence having been committed under sections 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of which are now sought to be attracted for the offence said to have been committed. 4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. T. Sivanathan, refers to Civil Appeal Nos. 129 of 1981 and 1130 of 1981, disposed of by the Supreme Court of India, on 2nd February, 1982. He refers to the following passage which occurs at page 51: "Shri Som Nath Chatterjee has placed great reliance on the decision of this Court in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak1, in which it was held that the statutory powers given to the police under sections 124 and 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to investigate into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of powers under section 439 of under the inherent powers conferred by section 561-A of the Code. It must be remembered that no question arose in that case as to whether allegations contained in the First Information Report disclosed any offence at all. The contention of the accused in that case was that the statutory power of investigation given to the police under Chapter XIV of the Code is not available in respect of an offence triable under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and that being so, the investigation undertaken by the police was without jurisdiction. The contention of the accused in that case was that the statutory power of investigation given to the police under Chapter XIV of the Code is not available in respect of an offence triable under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and that being so, the investigation undertaken by the police was without jurisdiction. That contention was negatived and therefore, the application filed by the accused under sections 439, 561-A of the Code was dismissed." He also refers to the following passages which occur at page 53 and 54: "The position which emerges from these decisions and the other decisions which are discussed by brother A.N. Sen, is that the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under section 157 of the Code is that the First Information Report must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under section 157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the First Information Report prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on and the rule in Kawja Nazir Ahmed’s case1, will apply. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of police to investigate into cognizable offences. On the hand, if the First Information Report does not disclose a commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid to or received. There is no such thing like unfettered discretion in the realm of powers defined by statutes and indeed, unlimited discretion in that sphere can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom. The power to investigate into cognizable offences must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code. I may, in this behalf, usefully draw attention to the warring uttered by Mathew,J., in his majority judgment in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup2, to the following effect. The power to investigate into cognizable offences must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code. I may, in this behalf, usefully draw attention to the warring uttered by Mathew,J., in his majority judgment in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup2, to the following effect. ‘We say, and we think it is necessary to repeat that the gravity of the evil to the community resulting from antisocial activities can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of a citizen, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws. The history of personal liberty is largely the history of insistence on observance of procedure. Observance of procedure has been the bastion against wanton assaults on personal liberty over the years. Under our Constitution the only guarantee of personal liberty for a person, is that he shall not be deprived of it except in accordance with the procedure established by law.‘ For these reasons, which frankly, are no different from those given by my learned brother A.N. Sen, J., I am of the opinion that the investigation which has been commenced upon the first information report is without jurisdiction and must, therefore, be quashed. I do accordingly and direct that no further investigation shall take place in pursuance or on basis of the first information report, dated 13th December, 1980, lodged by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation, with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Madan Street, Calcutta ." 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case in the reply affidavit that has been sworn to by Munuswamy, son of Perumal Udayar, i.e., the petitioner herein, which is presented in Court to day, the copy of which has been served on the learned Government Advocate No. 3 it is inter alia stated that Vasantha Bai never stated in the complaint that she is owner of the land and she is in possession of the land and that it is not correct to state that he was not able to establish his right in the land during his interrogation by the police. Further, it is stated that he had also orally complained against Vasantha Bai and others that they are attempting to trespass his land and to harvest the standing Crops. 6. Further, it is stated that he had also orally complained against Vasantha Bai and others that they are attempting to trespass his land and to harvest the standing Crops. 6. This petition has been filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows: “Saving of inherent powers of High Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, reads that the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised only under certain circumstances. In the instant case, it is investigation that is required to be obstructed by an order of this Court. In other words a direction is sought for under this provision of the procedural law of the land, namely section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to restrain the investigating machinery from proceeding further. It is this extreme step that is required to be the subject-matter of an order emanating out of the ingredients available under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, and the procedural law of the land governing the Criminal Procedure Code. It is with respect to this aspect, the above decision of the Supreme Court has been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate No. 3 has referred to the decision in R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab1‘, State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak2;Jehan, Singh v. Delhi Administration3; State of Karnataka v. L. Munuswami4 Kurukshetra University v. State of Harynana5; and V.K. Murugan v. State6and submitted that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner themselves support the view that there should not be any interference without proper basis for an enquiry which is being conducted during the stage of investigation of any matter that has been entrusted with the Competent, police officer on the basis of the complaint that has been made by a citizen of this great country. 8. 8. In the instant case, it is inter alia stated in the affidavit sworn to by Baskaran who is the brother-in-law of Munuswani, the petitioner 1st accused in Crime No. 103 of 1982 of Peralam Police Station, Nannilam Taluk, East Thanjavur District that the petitioner 1st accused Munuswami and 15 others were indicted for committing an offence punishable under section 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code, alleging that on 24th March, 1982 at about 5 a.m. he criminally trespassed in the suit lands lying in Kottur village, Peralam, Nannilam Circle, East Thanjavur District which is now the subject-matter of the second appeal pending in this Court, alleged to be in the possession of one Vasantha Bai. Vasantha Bai, the wife of Perumal Udayar, Govindaserry, lodged a complaint in this connection with the respondent, namely, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam Police Station on 4tb March, 1982 at 8 a.m. On this complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, the respondent herein, registered a case under sections 477 and 379, Indian Penal Code, in Crime No. 103 of 1982 and caused the arrest of the petitioner-Munuswami. On 24th March, 1982, itself the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Mayavaram, granted bail to the petitioner and imposed a condition that he should reside at Mayuram and he should appear and sign in the Court twice a day until further orders. It is further stated in the affidavit sworn to by Bhaskaran son of Arumugha Odayar and who is related as the brother-in-law of the petitioner Munuswami, that the respondent Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam, East Thanjavur District, had not investigated the matter and failed to take action in a bona fide manner. The circumstances described in the affidavit, according to the deponent, would clearly show that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant. This is averred so in paragraph 6 of the affidavit accompanying the petition. 9. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is a civil litigation between Munuswamy, the petitioner herein and Mrs. Vasantha Bai the complainant and it is pending. Vasantha Bai filed a suit in O.S. No. 188 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif Mayuram, for recovery of possession of the suit land and costs against the petitioner Munuswamy, The petitioner Munuswamy aggrieved against the orders passed in O.S.No. 188 of 1979, preferred A.S.No. 8 of 1981. Vasantha Bai the complainant and it is pending. Vasantha Bai filed a suit in O.S. No. 188 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif Mayuram, for recovery of possession of the suit land and costs against the petitioner Munuswamy, The petitioner Munuswamy aggrieved against the orders passed in O.S.No. 188 of 1979, preferred A.S.No. 8 of 1981. Against the decision in A.S.No. 8 of 1981, S.A. No. 1707 of 1981 on the file of the High Court was also instituted. A stay was obtained with respect to further proceedings in C.M.P. No. 11285 of 1981 on 21st October, 1981. On the next day, i.e., on 22nd October, 1981, the petitioner Munuswami harvested his standing crops on the suit lands. But, Vasantha Bai and her men came with the respondent and caused seizure of the harvested paddy of 30 bags by the respondent. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam Police Station failed to take action according to law so far as this seizure of 30 bags of paddy is concerned. The petitioner herein, Munuswamy, lodged a complaint before the District Superintendent of Police at Nagapattinam against the respondent herein relating to this matter. A week prior to the date of swearing in of the affidavit which accompanies this petition, i.e., in the month of October, 1981, according to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, this Court made an order vacating the stay that was granted in C.M.P.No. 11285 of 1981 in favour of Vasantha Bai on the representation therein that delivery of the suit property was effected in E.P.No. 385 of 1981 in O.S.No. 188 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif of Mayuram, though no delivery was actually effected. In other words, no actual delivery was effected by the Amin in favour of Vasantha Bai and hence the first accused the petitioner herein filed on 31st October, 1981, an application under section 47, Civil Procedure Code, namely, E.A.No. 1291 of 1981 before the Court of the learned District Munsif, Mayuram, praying to reject the Amin’s representation to dismiss the execution petition. In paragraph 9 it is further stated that the learned District Munsif, Mayuram, admitted the said petition and that the other side also filed the counter and the enquiry is still pending. 10. In paragraph 9 it is further stated that the learned District Munsif, Mayuram, admitted the said petition and that the other side also filed the counter and the enquiry is still pending. 10. It is further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner had been possessing the suit property continuously and in fact had raised paddy crops, I.R. 20 and T.K.M. 9 in “thaladi” in this fasli and that they were ripe for harvest even on 24th March, 1982. Apprehending violent and forcible attempt and arrangement made by the complainant Vasantha Bai with respect to the crops raised by the petitioner in the suit lands as they have done in Kuruvai, on 18th March, 1982. the petitioner herein filed an application in E.A.No. 385 of 1982 in E.P. 385of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram, for appointment of a Commissioner to conduct the harvest and deposit the same into Court. The said Vasantha Bai also filed her counter and enquiry in the said application is pending. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the enquiry with respect to the applications are still pending before the learned District Munsif, Mayuram. During the pendency of the applications before the learned District Munsif, Mayuram, the said Vasantha Bai attempted to cut and carry away the crops raised by the first accused petitioner herein on 24th March, 1982. The petitioner approached the Sub-Inspector of Police Peralam, East Thanjavur District, and reported about the same. But the said Police Officer did not take any action on his complaint, but advised him that he is not able to help him because the dispute is one of civil nature and that he could not take any action against the said Vasantha Bai. It is further submitted in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the affidavit as follows: ‘Because of the biased nature and acts of the respondent, the petitioner commenced harvest of his crops in the suit lands on 24th March, 1982. But this time the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam, surprisingly came to his land at 12 a.m., and took the petitioner and his labourers into custody and registered a case against the petitioner and others (on the complaint of Mrs. Vasantha Bai) under sections 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code. But this time the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam, surprisingly came to his land at 12 a.m., and took the petitioner and his labourers into custody and registered a case against the petitioner and others (on the complaint of Mrs. Vasantha Bai) under sections 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner herein produced before Magistrate Court, Mayuram, on the same day and he was released on condition bail as stated above. I also pray that the bail condition imposed on the petitioner may be relaxed. I state that on 25th March, 1982, the petitioner herein filed another application in E.A. No. 434 of 1982 in E.P. No. No. 385 of 1982 in the lower Court for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct the Kandumudal of the harvested crops which were lying on the floor and to deposit the value after defraying the harvesting expenses in the Court of the District Munsif, Mayuram. The Lower Court on that application, passed an order on 25th March, 1982 appointing Shri Sankaran, advocate Mayuram Bar, as the Commissioner and directed him to take possession of the harvested paddy and do the necessary things as prayed by the petitioner." 11. It is also stated in the affidavit that the complaint made by Vasantha Bai on 24th March, 1982 to the effect that criminal trespass was committed by the first accused-petitioner herein on the suit lands and that theft was committed by the petitioner herein by removing the harvested crops from the field are false and they are not correct and true. In the meanwhile, E.A. No.437 of 1982 in O.S.No. 188 of 1979 was moved before the learned District Munsif, Mayuram, and that in pursuance of the same, an Advocate was appointed as Commissioner for looking after the harvest and to have the harvested paddy sold and proceeds deposited in the Court. 12. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is inter alia contended that on 24th March, 1982 at about 8 a.m. one Vasantha Bai, wife of Perumal Udayar of Govindachery village came to the police station and gave a report stating that the was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos. 12. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is inter alia contended that on 24th March, 1982 at about 8 a.m. one Vasantha Bai, wife of Perumal Udayar of Govindachery village came to the police station and gave a report stating that the was the owner of the lands in Survey Nos. 39/1, 39/3 and 64/1 measuring about 5 acres and 65 cents and possession of those properties were delivered to her by the Amin, as per the order passed by the learned District Munsif in E.P. No. 385 of 1981 in O.S.No. 188 of 1979, as confirmed in A.S.No. 8 of 1981 and that was in the month of October, 1981. From then onwards, she was in possession of the lands and has raised thaladi crops and that while the crops were ripe for harvest, the accused persons on 24th March, 1982 at about 5 a.m. armed with weapons led by the petitioner, Munuswami, trespassed into her lands and had been harvesting the crops and requesting action on that. This report was registered in Crime No. 103 of 1982 under sections 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code, and he went to the scene along with his party and found the petitioner, Munuswami, was harvesting the crops. When the petitioner was interrogated, he was not able to establish his right in the lands, he was arrested and produced before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Mayuram and thereafter he was released on bail. 13. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that had been filed or behalf of the State in this petition that the investigation had revealed that possession of the properties was handed over by the Amin on 15th October, 1981 in pursuance of the order passed in E.P.No. 385 of 1981 in O.S.No. 188 of 1979 as confirmed in A.S.No. 8 of 1981 and thereafter the petitioner filed a second appeal in S.A.No. 1707 of 1981 and in that the petitioner obtained stay of execution of the decree in O.S.No. 188 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram on 21st October, 1981. It is further contended that the complainant, Vasantha Bai filed an application on 29th October, 1981 by producing the certified copy of the delivery account in this Court and requested for vacating the stay. It is further contended that the complainant, Vasantha Bai filed an application on 29th October, 1981 by producing the certified copy of the delivery account in this Court and requested for vacating the stay. On the basis of this, this Court vacated the stay granted in C.M.P. No. 1285 of 1981 in S.A. 1707 of 1981 on 29th October, 1981. The Amin, Revenue Inspector and the neighbours have given statements to the effect that delivery of the property was effected by the Amin and thereafter thaladi crops were raised by the complainant. The case is still under investigation and the charge-sheet has to be filed only after a thorough ascertainment of the truth or otherwise of the statements of the witnesses and at this stage, the petitioner 1st accused in Crime No. 103 of 1982 of the Peralem Police Station cannot ask for quashing the investigation itself. 14. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the first information report is a document given by some persons to the police-station to set the law in motion which alone would enable the police officers to lay their hands for collecting the materials during the course of investigation to establish the offence committed by the accused persons. A thorough reading of the first information report and the statements given by the witnesses in this case would certainly show that prima facie offences are made out under sections 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code. It is further contended on behalf of the State that if the petitioner has got any other documents to show that the allegations are false, they can very well approach the investigating agency and convince by producing the other documents, if any, and if the investigating agency is satisfied with the fact that this is a civil dispute, they can as well refer the matter as civil dispute. But, at this stage, the petitioner cannot request this Court for quashing the first information report which would amount to interference in the investigation by the police. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate No. 3 that any order that will be passed at this stage, would certainly amount to interference in the investigation by the police and cannot be granted under the provisions of section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 15. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate No. 3 that any order that will be passed at this stage, would certainly amount to interference in the investigation by the police and cannot be granted under the provisions of section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 15. It is relevant to note that section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, dealing with the saving of inherent powers of High Court, has to be exercised only within the framework of the said section which also clearly demarcates the sphere within which the said discretion contemplated under this section can be exercised. Nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code, shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The investigation is now being conducted by the police under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, is the submission made on behalf of the first accused-petitioner herein. The fact remains that the investigation is still pending. Even to this date, i.e., the date on which this order is being pronounced in open Court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate No. 3, that the investigation is still pending. Under these circumstances, whether the discretion vested with this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, can be exercised in favour of the petitioner herein is the only question that confronts this Court. The answer even at the outset should and must be in the negative. 16. The saving of inherent powers of High Court contemplated in section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are clearly dealt with by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Krishnamurthy Iyer v. State of Madras1, T.H. Hussain v. M.P. Mondkar,2 and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab3The ratio decedent of the case reported in R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab3, has been incorporated even at the earlier portion of the judgment. Now let this Court proceed to in corporate the ratio decidendi of the other Supreme Court decision that had been referred to by either side with respect to this aspect. Now let this Court proceed to in corporate the ratio decidendi of the other Supreme Court decision that had been referred to by either side with respect to this aspect. In the case reported in Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration1, it was held that where at the date of filing the petition under section 561 -A (section 482 of the old Code), no charge-sheet has been laid and the matter is only at the stage of investigation by police, the Court cannot, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A 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 first information report are correct and constitute an offence so as to remove the legal bar to institute proceedings the Court cannot at that stage appraise the evidence collected by the police in their investigation. So any petition under section 561-A at such a stage is premature and incompetent. The cases reported in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad2and State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak3were relied on for arriving at the above decision. 17. In the case reported in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar4it was held that where the allegations set out in the com. plaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. 18. In the case reported in Kurukshetra University and another v. State of Haryana and another5. It was held that the 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 the rare case. Thus the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot quash a first information report, more so when the police had not even commenced the investigation and no proceeding at all is pending in pursuance of the said First information report. 19. In the case reported in State of Bihar and another v. J.A.C. Saldana another6it was held that there is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. 19. In the case reported in State of Bihar and another v. J.A.C. Saldana another6it was held that there is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed, it is duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Code, its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed. 20. In the case reported in V.K. Murugan v. State7, Paul, J., observed as follows: "This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code contains a very curious prayer that I should quash, by invoking section 482,Criminal Procedure Code, the first information report which has been registered by the respondent who is the inspector of Police, Virudhunagar. The decision in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana5will apply to the facts of the case now before me. In the case now before me only an first information report has been lodged. It is for the police to investigate into it. At this stage the petitioner cannot ask for the First Information Report to be quashed. This petition is therefore dismissed." 21. In the case reported in Durai Raj v. State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Policel Suryamurthi, J., observed as follows: "The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot quash the first information report more so when the police had not even commenced the investigation and no proceeding at all is pending in pursuance of the said first information report." 22. The case reported in Kurukshetra University and another v. State of Haryana and another2was relied on for coming to the above conclusion. 23. The case reported in Kurukshetra University and another v. State of Haryana and another2was relied on for coming to the above conclusion. 23. In the instant case it is clearly stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the investigation revealed that the offence was committed actually under sections 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code, and at that stage it is now stated on behalf of the petitioner that this Court should exercise the discretionary powers vested with it under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. The facts set out in the affidavit that had been sworn to on behalf of the petitioner herein as well as the counter filed on behalf of the respondent herein, viz., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peralam Police Station, East Thanjavur District, show that it is with respect to the cultivation of the said land, that harvest Crop had been cultivated in the said land and that civil proceedings were pending before the competent civil court, viz., the Court of the learned District Munsif, Mayuram. Out of the said proceedings the aggrieved parties came to this Court by way of second appeal also after having agitated the matter in the first appeal before the learned District Judge, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam in A.S. No. 8 of 1980 on the file of Court of the learned District Judge, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam. 24. A careful reading of the provisions under section 482 of the procedural law of the land viz., the Criminal Procedure Code, would clearly slow that the discretion vested with this Court should rot be exercised for the purpose of obstructing the clear flow of investigation by the competent investigating machinery. It is also laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in State of Bihar and another v. J.A.C. Saldana and another3, that the adjudicatory functions of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed commences only on a cognizance of the offence being taken by the Court. Now at this stage to exercise the powers vested with this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be resorted to especially when the matter is being actual investigated into and that is also the case of the respondent that a prima facie case has been made out with respect to the petitioner herein. Now at this stage to exercise the powers vested with this Court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be resorted to especially when the matter is being actual investigated into and that is also the case of the respondent that a prima facie case has been made out with respect to the petitioner herein. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decisions that had been referred to by either side there is absolutely to merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Consequently Criminal M.P.No. 1474 of 1982 is also dismissed.