V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner by this petition under section 482 prays for quashing the investigation in Crime No. 144/77 registered under sections 363, 366, 376 read with section 120. B I. P. C. against him at Police Station, Station Road Ratlam. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Law Graduate having passed the L. L. B. Examination in 1975 in first division with Xth position in the merit list of the University. Having practiced for some time, the petitioner joined judicial service as a Civil Judge Class-IT and was posted as a trainee Judge at Shajapur in August, 1978. ( 3 ) THE petitioners father who was also a lawyer had a tenant by name Bhagchand Vardhani who lived in a portion of the house where the petitioner had also his office. Bhagchand's daughter Gunvanti Sheela, was studying in (viiith) class and was to appear at the annual examination, the petitioner is alleged to have developed some intimacy with Sheela who eventually left her home on 21st of April, 1977 while the petitioner and his father, both lawyers had left for Gwalior on the preceding day i. e. on 20th April, 1977 by Dehradun Express, to attend to some revenue case before the Board of Revenue and returned to Ratlam on 24th April, 1977. As Sheela was missing, initially a missing report was lodged and thereafter Bhagchand lodged a F. I. R report at P. S. Station Road Ratlam on 22. 4. 77 suspecting the petitioner as having kidnapped his daughter. On this report Crime No. 144/77 was registered under sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B I. P. C. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence on 29th April, 1977 and was released on bail by the Sessions Judge Ratlam by his order dated 30th April, 1977. ( 4 ) IN the meanwhile Sheela was recovered from Neemuch and another accused Premchand was arrested. On Medical Examination Sheela was twice examined by the lady doctors once in Neemuch on 24. 4. 77 and later at Ratlam on 27th According to both the lady doctors, who examined Sheela, no definite positive opinion about rape could be given in her case. According to the Radiologist Sheela was about 16 years of age, the opinion based on Epiphysis of joints of radias and ulna. 4. 77 and later at Ratlam on 27th According to both the lady doctors, who examined Sheela, no definite positive opinion about rape could be given in her case. According to the Radiologist Sheela was about 16 years of age, the opinion based on Epiphysis of joints of radias and ulna. Sheela had studied in Government Sindhi Primary School Neemuch Cantt where her father was employed. According to the School Register her date of birth is 12th July, 1962. ( 5 ) THAT no charge-sheet was filed in respect of the aforesaid crime and a final report was submitted by the police, which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ratlam on 17. 8. 77. As Bhagchand the complainant, father of the prosecutrix Sheela, did not desire the matter to be pursued further, he immediately sent his daughter to his relation in Kathiawad in Gujarat and she was not available for statements before the Court, and it was stated that now she was happily married and leading a family life. It was in such circumstances, that no charge-sheet was filed in respect of the aforesaid crime and the final report was submitted by the police, which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam, on 17. 8. 1977. The petitioner has in his petition averred that while applying for the post of a Civil Judge, he had mentioned this fact in his application form and after verification, he was appointed as a Civil Judge, Class II, in August, 1978. ( 6 ) THE case was buried for all these years and possibly would not have been reopened after a lapse of almost 8 years, but for the fact that the petitioner, a Civil Judge, was eventually posted at Bhanpura in June, 1984, and was called upon to try few criminal cases, pending against one Subhash Kumar Sojatia. This fact is also admitted by the respondent-State in its reply. Two criminal cases are still pending against the sitting M. L. A. tin the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhanpura and some of his associates, facing criminal trials, were required to be summoned by warrant and one of them had to be reprimanded by the petitioner for misbehaviour in the Court. A few of his associates were in fact convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. A few of his associates were in fact convicted and sentenced to undergo 2 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in one criminal case No. 380/81, for offences under sections 148, 294, 332 and 506-B, I. P. C. The petitioner's contention is that Shri Sojatia had exercised his influence in getting the investigation of the crime reinvestigated. It may not be out of place to mention here that one Dinesh Kumar S/o Laxminarayan, applied for being added as an intervener in this petition and he was also heard as he claimed to be interested in fair administration of justice and also its prestige in the Society. The intervener in his petition under Section 482, has averred that Shri Subhash Sojatia had on 30th July. 1985, raised the question in the Vidhan Sabha as reciards the reoijenincj of investigation in the aforesaid case - a fact admitted by the respondent-State in its reply to the petition.- (See paragraph 14 ). Without dwelling at length as to how the reinvestigation has been directed and at whose instance, as they are not questions germane at this stage to the issues involved, nor necessary for being considered, the fact remains that reinvestigation in the case in which a final report had already been sent and accepted as back as on 17. 8. 1977, has now again been restarted. There is a letter No. 545/85, dated 14. 7. 1985, addressed to the Station Officer, Station Road Police Station Ratlam by the Superintendent of Police Ratlam directing him to complete investigation in Crime No. 144/77 and filing a charge-sheet in the Court. ( 7 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the submissions made by the learned Counsels, including that of the intervener, it would be: pertinent to refer to the reply filed by the respondent State. Certain admitted facts which emerge from this reply duly supported by an affidavit are enumerated hereunder (i) The petitioner had gone to Gwalior along with his father to attend to some revenue matter before the Board of Revenue. (ii) That no charge-sheet was filed and a final report sent by the Police was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ratlam on 17. 8. 77. (iii) That the petitioner while applying for the post of a Civil Judge, had not suppressed this case against him, and had stated about this case in his application form. (ii) That no charge-sheet was filed and a final report sent by the Police was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ratlam on 17. 8. 77. (iii) That the petitioner while applying for the post of a Civil Judge, had not suppressed this case against him, and had stated about this case in his application form. (iv) That the complainant Bhagchand Vardhani father of the prosecutrix Sheela, had addressed an application to the Town Inspector Police Station, Station Road Ratlam wherein he stated that his daughter Sheela is now happily married and leading a happy marital life. (v) It is also admitted by the respondent State that Bhagchand had been to the Police Station after re-opening of the case not because he was summoned for further interrogation but because he wanted to lodge a report against one of his partners with whom he had a quarrel and incidentally it was revealed that he was the same Bhagchand who had lodged a report on 21. 4. 77. (vi) While denying the political influence in re-opening the case, the respondent State has admitted that a question was raised in the Vidhan Sabha by Local M. L. A. of Bhanpura. In face of these admitted facts, the petitioner has vehemently contended that the re-investigation is the result of interference of the local M. L. A. who had raised a question in the assembly. ( 8 ) THE petitioner has alleged political influence having played a vital role in the reinvestigation while according to the respondent State. This order has already been referred to above as letter No. 545/85 dt. 14. 7. 85. Thus, it is evident that but for the raising of the question, the re-investigation of Crime No. 144/77 would not have been ordered on 14. 7. 85 more than 8 years after the acceptance of the final report submitted by the Police in the case. The minute observation of the case diary, was done only after raising of the question and not any time before that. Although, it is also clear from the admitted facts that there was an opportunity when there was police verification about the petitioners character as early as 1977-78 but no such re-investigation of the case was done, either done or felt necessary. Although, it is also clear from the admitted facts that there was an opportunity when there was police verification about the petitioners character as early as 1977-78 but no such re-investigation of the case was done, either done or felt necessary. ( 9 ) IT is also pertinent to note that the intervenor in this case was also facing a criminal trial, in the petitioners Court so also the local M. L. A. who had raised the question. ( 10 ) IT has been vehemently urged by the intervenor that sub-section 8 of section 173 used ample power to the Police to investigate and re-investigate the case as and when such collection of further evidence oral or documentary, becomes necessary. The other submission made that while accepting the final report on 17. 8. 77, the Chief Judicial Magistrate should have afforded an opportunity to be heard to the complainant in this case Bhagchand Vardhani. Reliance has been placed on Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. There can be no dispute with these propositions of law but the facts of this case are distinguishable. It was the complainant himself who did not desire to proceed further in the matter and for this reason, he had taken away his daughter to Kathiawad in Gujarat immediately after the incident and even now he has written to the Station Officer that as his daughter is already happily married, and leading a happy marital life he was not interested in proceeding with the case. In face of such an application, it does not lie in the mouth of a third person to contend that the complainant was not heard. True it is, that it is not the satisfaction of the complainant alone, that such matters are to be investigated. Such crimes when committed, they are crimes against the society, and the willingness or un-willingness of the complainant is hardly of any consequence. Sub-section 8 of section 173 certainly gives wide powers to the Police to re-investigate and collect evidence in a given case, but the very fact that such wide powers are conferred also enjoins that they should be exercised with due circumspection and consideration lest such power is likely to be abused. Sub-section 8 of section 173 certainly gives wide powers to the Police to re-investigate and collect evidence in a given case, but the very fact that such wide powers are conferred also enjoins that they should be exercised with due circumspection and consideration lest such power is likely to be abused. ( 11 ) IN this case as admitted by the respondent State but for the raising of the question in the Assembly the matter would not have been re-opened otherwise there was nothing to prevent the Investigating agency in further probing the matter for all these 9 years. ( 12 ) THERE is yet another angle from which the matter requires to be considered. In all these claims and contentions, the girl Sheela happily married and leading a happy marital life, should she again be exposed to the ignominy of having been a victim of rape thus necessarily inviting ruination of her matrimonial and family life. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the investigation. A fresh investigation of the case ordered after such a long lapse of time and in the circumstances indicated above. As a matter of rule Courts do not interfere in investigation of offences and the Supreme Court in its very recent pronouncement as reported in Eastern Spinning Mills v. Rajeev Poddar has observed that interference by High Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. is permissible only if non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. Now the question therefore, is should this Court at this stage interfere with the investigation? As back as in 1977 in State of Karnataka v. Muniswami. It was held that the weapon of inherent powers has been handed over to the High Court with a definite object to prevent gross abuse of process of the Court and to prevent judicial proceedings from de-generating into persecution. Now these two considerations, gross abuse of process of the Court and preventing judicial proceedings from degenerating into persecution, deserve consideration. The case of the prosecutrix has already been discussed above. Now these two considerations, gross abuse of process of the Court and preventing judicial proceedings from degenerating into persecution, deserve consideration. The case of the prosecutrix has already been discussed above. Considering the Case from the petitioners angle who will be called upon to face a criminal trial for such offences like kidnapping and rape and criminal conspiracy, is it really possible for anyone at this distance of time after a lapse of 9 years to remember what had in fact happened in April, 1977 with two of the accused person still at large, with the medical evidence, of a very shaky nature, to cross-examine the witnesses after such a long lapse of time, it is really difficult to believe how the witnesses could remember things which happened almost a decade ago and what is the net result of such evidence? The witnesses, whether for the prosecution or for the defence would speak so late in the day not to what they saw or heard but only to what they should pursuade themselves to believe that had seen or heard and this would be a total travesty of justice. No credibility could be attached to their testimony. In such circumstances, it is the accused who must be held to be seriously prejudiced in the defence and to be deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself on account of the in-ordinate, in-explicable delay. (See 1985 Cri. Law Journal 1614 ). It is a mere coincidence that the accused was eventually appointed a Judge and a Judge has got to be above board, as Ceaser's wife. But at the same time even a Magistrate as an accused is also entitled to be guarded against such delayed prosecutions and it is in this view of the matter, that the re-investigation after acceptance of the final report in the case as back as in 1977 deserves to be quashed. If at all their still remains anything to adversely reflect on his post, it is for the authorities to take a note of it. The petitioner has placed reliance on a large number of cases but all of them do not need to be discussed. Except State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar where an F. I. R. not disclosing commission of an cognizable offence was quashed. The petitioner has placed reliance on a large number of cases but all of them do not need to be discussed. Except State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar where an F. I. R. not disclosing commission of an cognizable offence was quashed. So far as the facts of this case, are concerned, it does not appear to have any applicability in the instant case, except to the extent that investigations can be quashed and the High Court has power to interfere in investigation, under its inherent powers. The other case relied upon by the petitioner is Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra. This case is an authority for the proposition that the Magistrate has no power to call upon Police to submit a charge-sheet under section 173, when the Police submits a report under section 169 Criminal Procedure Code, but this has also no application to the facts of the present case. ( 13 ) IT was contended on behalf of the State that there is no bar for further investigation by the Police and reliance was placed on Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration ). The proposition cannot be disputed as stated above, sub-section 8 of section 173 gives power to the Police to investigate a-fresh and collect fresh evidence and material, as and when necessary but in view of the peculiar facts of this case, although the Police has a statutory right, and when the exercise of such right is questioned on the grounds of gross abuse, the court has power to interfere. Ordinarily when a cognizable crime is reported to the Police, it will be a statutory duty and right of Police to investigate in the offence reported and Courts should be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of their duty. Although the courts have the inherent jurisdiction or power to interfere but such interference is in a very limited category of cases and with great care and circumspection. The present case is one such rare case, for its peculiar facts. The in-ordinate, in-explicable delay and the circumstances leading to the re-investigation warrant interference, as otherwise it would result in miscarriage of justice. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The present case is one such rare case, for its peculiar facts. The in-ordinate, in-explicable delay and the circumstances leading to the re-investigation warrant interference, as otherwise it would result in miscarriage of justice. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The circumstances in which the re-investigation has been ordered, do not justify the investigation afresh in Crime No. 144/77 registered at Police Station Road Ratlam under sections 363, 366, 376 read with section 120-8 Indian Penal Code and its continuation is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. Petition allowed.