ORDER Crl. M.P. No.12058 of 1986 is a petition filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in, Crime No.145 of 1986 on the file of Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Crl. M.P. No. 12063 of 1986 is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 293 of 1986 on the file of Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District. 2. The complaint in Crime No. 145 of 1986 was given by one Dr. Charles, Director of the International Cancer Centre, Neyyoor in Kanyakumari District. The allegation in the complaint is that on 9th June, 1986 at about 10 a.m., the petitioners and thrity others entered the Cancer Centre, abused the persons in the Centre in vulgar language and obstructed the day to day work of the hospital. 3. The petitioners state that the said complaint was given by Dr. Charles who was aggrieved at certain proceedings in. Civil Court taken by the Diocese of the Church of South india, Kanyakumari which has obtained an order of injunction restraining Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Charles from entering into the premises of the International Cancer Centre, Neyyoor. The averments in the petition are to the effect that Dr. Charles who was the Director of the International Cancer Centre at Neyyoor, along with one Dr. Jenkins of the London Committee which was set up in London by the Medical Board of the Kanyakumari Diocese for raising funds in European countries for development of the Cancer Centre at Neyyoor, was attempting to take away the administration of the Cancer Centre from the Diocese of the Church of South India, Kanyakumari. It was also alleged that Dr. Charles has misappropriated large funds. The petitioners’ case is that the complaint given by Dr. Charles is false and therefore the criminal proceedings in Crime No.145 of 1986 may be quashed. 4. Criminal M.P. No.‘2063 of 1986 is by the petitioners therein to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. in Crime No.293 of 1986 on the file of Eraniel Police Station. The complaint in that case was given by Dr. (Mrs.) Charles, who is also an Acting Director of the international Cancer Centre at Neyyoor. She alleges that an 28 the October, 1986 at about 3 p.m. when she was working in the office, Dr. Vijayan, the first petitioner in Crl. The complaint in that case was given by Dr. (Mrs.) Charles, who is also an Acting Director of the international Cancer Centre at Neyyoor. She alleges that an 28 the October, 1986 at about 3 p.m. when she was working in the office, Dr. Vijayan, the first petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 12063 of 1986 (along with three other petitioners) came into the International Cancer Centre armed with deadly weapons and broke open the locks of almyrah and office and tampered with the records and files and prevented her from carrying out her duties. She also states that the occurrence was witnessed by Kumaresan, watchman, and by Rengile, Natarajan and also by nurses, Mercy and Metilda. The petitioners in their petitions to quash the proceedings make the same allegations as they made against her husband in Criminal M.P. No.12058 of 1986 and make reference to the civil suit filed by Charles and State that Dr. (Mrs.) Charles has given the complaint to coerce them to withdraw the suit filed against her husband. Dr. Charles, and that the complaint was given on the very next day when the ad hoc committee wanted to suspend her and that therefore the complaint given by Dr. (Mrs.) Vimala Charles, wife of Dr. Charles, which is only to coerce the petitioners to withdraw the suit filed against Dr. Charles, has to be quashed. 5. The petitioners in Criminal M.P. No.12058 of 1986 are six in number while in Crl. M.P.12063 of 1986 they are four. One Ayyadurai, Sathiyadoss and Dr. Vijay an figure as petitioners in both the petitions. In addition to these three persons, Johnson, Arumai, and Gnanasigamony are three others petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 12058 of 1986 while Kuttykan is one of the petitioners in Crl.M.P. 12063 of 1986 along with Dr. Vijayan, Ayyadurai and Sathiyadoss. 6. Both the petitions show that the petitioners and Dr. Charles and Dr. (Mrs.) Charles are connected with the administration of the International Cancer Centre. Dr. Charles was the Director of the International Cancer Centre while Dr. (Mrs.) Charles was the Acting Director of the said Centre. Both Dr. Charles and Mrs. Charles allege that the petitioners in the respective petitions have committed rioting and obstructed the smooth functioning of the institute, but on different dates. Dr. Charles was the Director of the International Cancer Centre while Dr. (Mrs.) Charles was the Acting Director of the said Centre. Both Dr. Charles and Mrs. Charles allege that the petitioners in the respective petitions have committed rioting and obstructed the smooth functioning of the institute, but on different dates. The instance in Crime No. 145 of 1986 is alleged to have taken place on 9.6.1986 at about 10-00 a.m. The petitioners have entered the Centre and are alleged to have used abusive words against the inmates of the Centre and have obstructed functioning of the Hospital which has caused great inconvenience to the patients. The instance in respect of which Crime No. 293 of 1986 is registered, is said to have taken place on 29.10.1986 around 3.00 p.m. when the petitioners in the said petition, Crl.M.P.12063 of 1986 entered the Cancer Centre armed with deadly weapons, trespassed and broke open the lock of almyrah and office and tampered with the records and prevented them from carrying out their duties. These are two different instances. In both the complaints, the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. While the petitioners in Crl.MP.No.12058 of 1986 say that the complaint by Dr. Charles is false, the petitioners in Criminal M.P. No.12063 of 1986 do not even say that the complaint given by Dr. (Mrs.) Charles is false. But, they say it was given in order to coerce the petitioners to with draw the suit filed by them. No doubt, some civil proceedings are pending between the parties. But during the pendency of the civil proceedings, if one party acts in such manner which amounts to a criminal offence, a criminal complaint has to be filed. The averments in the complaint prima facie show that the petitioners have committed cognizable offences. It should further be noted that the petitioners have committed cognizable offences. It should further be noted that the petitioners want to quash the F.I.R. even before the police have completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet. A first information report which prima facie discloses a cognizable offence cannot be quashed. In Hazari Lal v. RameshwarPrasad (1972) MLJ. (Crl) 401: (1972) 1 MLJ. (S.C.) 97: (1972) I An. W.R. (S.C.) 97: (1972) 1 S.C.J. 633: 1972 MLJ. A first information report which prima facie discloses a cognizable offence cannot be quashed. In Hazari Lal v. RameshwarPrasad (1972) MLJ. (Crl) 401: (1972) 1 MLJ. (S.C.) 97: (1972) I An. W.R. (S.C.) 97: (1972) 1 S.C.J. 633: 1972 MLJ. 1972 L.W. (Crl.) (S.C.) 33 (S.N.): A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 484, the Supreme Court while dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court under S.482, Crl.P.C. (Old S. 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure) referred to the case in Kapur v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, and also to State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 447: (1963) MLJ. (Crl.) 615, and observed- “In exercising jurisdiction under S. 561 - A of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court can quash proceedings if there is not legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution of continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily enquire as to whether the evidence is ‘reliable or not’ Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be impeding investigation and jurisdictions of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. In State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 949, the Supreme Court also pointed out that a first information report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision or prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of lawful investigation and an investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the F.I.R. 7. In both the petitions as I pointed out the complaints prima facie disclose cognizable offences. Offences concerned in Crime No. 145 of 1986 are cognizable. All the offences, except the offences under section 506 , (Part II) and 427, Indian Penal Code concerned in Crime No. 143 of 1986 are cognizable offences. When the complaints disclose prima facie cognizable offences, this Court, will not exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R. more particularly before the police have started investigation. When the complaints disclose prima facie cognizable offences, this Court, will not exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R. more particularly before the police have started investigation. If authority is needed for that proposition, it is to be found in Kurushetra University v. State of Haryana A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2229, for the reasons stated above these petitions are dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.