GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants accused persons by this application u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. seek quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1119/88, pending before Shri R. K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Sagar alleging that they are frivolous and vexatious and amount to abuse of the process of the said Court. ( 2 ) FACTS appearing in case diary show that the applicants are alleged to have committed house trespass into the house bearing No. 258/3, Gujarati Bazar, Sagas and have thus committed the offence punishable u/s. 448/34, I. P. C. It also appears that one Rajendra Kumar Dubey claiming to be the owner of the said house, lodged a report at the City Kotwali, Sagar on the basis of which the F. I. R. was recorded. Statement of applicant Jugal Kishor was also recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The applicant Jugal Kishor told the Investigating Officer that he was tenant of the house in question since last about 48 years and was at the present paying rent of Rs. 12 per month to the Income-tax Department. He also stated that the house had been attached by the Income-tax Department in 1984 where he was directed to pay the rent to the said Department. He also stated that he was paying rent of the house to the Income-tax Department since then. The Investigating Officer did not follow the clue and did not verify the correctness of the said information from the Income-tax Department. The Investigating Officer; relying on the statement of witnesses of the complainant, filed the challan before the Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance of the same and issued process to the applicants. The applicants requested the learned Magistrate to discharge them as they could not, even prima facie, be treated to be trespassers. They filed documents showing attachment of the house by Income-tax Department and receipts of rent paid by them. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the defence of the applicants could not be consider at this stage. The matter was thereafter taken to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar by filing a revision. According to the learned Judge, allegations against the applicants were supported by the F. I. R. and hence proceedings could not be quashed. That is how the matter is before this Court in this application u/s. 482, Cr. The matter was thereafter taken to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar by filing a revision. According to the learned Judge, allegations against the applicants were supported by the F. I. R. and hence proceedings could not be quashed. That is how the matter is before this Court in this application u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court of Judicial Magistrate. ( 3 ) PERUSAL of the case diary leads this Court to hold that investigation of the case by the Investigating Officer was neither fair nor honest. Indeed it was one sided. It is, in the opinion of this Court, possible to hold that the Investigating Officer was influenced by the complainant and has therefore failed to carry out his legal duties and obligations. Section 136, Cr. P. C. confers authority on the Officer-in-charge of a Police Station to investigate a cognizable case either himself of by a subordinate Officer. Section 157, Cr. P. C. requires him to first consider whether there are sufficient grounds to undertake such investigation. Sections 160 and 161, Cr. P. C. give the Investigating Officer the authority to require attendance of witnesses and record their statement. Sections 169 and 170, Cr. P. C. establish that the Investigating Officer is required to evaluate evidence to ascertain whether it was sufficient or deficient. It is, therefore, plain that investigation of allegations made against a person is a serious and solemn exercise undertaken by the Police Officer as on the result of this investigation hanges the fate of 'personal liberty' of the person which is constitutionally guaranteed. A dishonest, unfair or one-sided investigation would therefore, violate the constitutional guarantee and justify interference by a court of law. Now, if the Investigating Officer was honest and impartial, he would have carried on the investigation with the Income-tax Department to ascertain whether the applicant Jugal Kishor was depositing rent as asserted by him and whether the house was under attachment. It requires no discussion to hold that if assertions of applicant Jugal Kishore were true, there would be no case, even prima facie of house trespass the applicants. No tenant can be prosecuted for the offence of house trespass on the allegation of entering into the tenanted premises. There is no explanation why the truth of the defence of applicant Jugal Kishor was not verified. No tenant can be prosecuted for the offence of house trespass on the allegation of entering into the tenanted premises. There is no explanation why the truth of the defence of applicant Jugal Kishor was not verified. In the absence of any explanation, there are sufficient reasons to doubt the honesty and bona fides of the Investigating Officer. Such officers and such one-sided investigations, in the opinion of this Court, not only miscarriage of justice but also hearing the police and their department into disrepute. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to be of the opinion that F. I. R. , by itself, is sufficient to frame charge against the applicants and put them on trial. He also feels that the defence of the applicants cannot be considered at this stage. While his view about defence may be sustainable, it is difficult to agree with his view that F. I. R. , by itself, is sufficient to frame charge and put the applicants on trial. This report cannot be used as substantive or primary evidence of the truth of its contents and is, therefore, never treated as a substitute for evidence given on oath. It is also well settled that where there is no other evidence of facts mentioned in the F. I. R. , the accused person cannot be convicted. Then Ss. 190 and 2044, Cr. P. C. which authorise the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, require consideration of facts constituting the alleged offence. The use of the words 'may take cognizance' in S. 190 gives judicial discretion to the Magistrate in the matter. It is not always necessary for him to take cognizance and in the exercise of this power, he can even direct fresh investigations before deciding whether the facts placed before him disclose any cognizable offence. (A. C. Agrawal v. Kali Prasad, AIR 1968 SC 1 and State of Assam v. Abdul Noor, AIR 1970 SC 1365 . similarly S. 204, Cr. P. C. requires the Magistrate to discover 'sufficient grounds' for proceeding further and for this purpose, be guided by his opinion. It is, therefore, obvious that though the results of investigation are of considerable importance, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the report in all cases and start proceeding against the accused person. similarly S. 204, Cr. P. C. requires the Magistrate to discover 'sufficient grounds' for proceeding further and for this purpose, be guided by his opinion. It is, therefore, obvious that though the results of investigation are of considerable importance, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the report in all cases and start proceeding against the accused person. There would be no justification, in the considered opinion of this Court, to exercise these powers in cases where there is only the FIR but no other evidence to prove facts stated therein. If the grievance of the applicants had been considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this legal perspective, he may not have found any difficulty in exercising his revisional powers in their favour. Since unfair and one-sided investigation is likely to result in false and vexatious trial, the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the same and issuing process to the applicants could have been quashed. Revisional powers have always been exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and avoid mis-carriage of justice. The learned Additional Judge does not seem to be informed of these duties and obligations under law and seems to have adopted a short cut to dismiss the applicant's prayer. This Court expected the senior judicial officers like the Additional Sessions Judge to be little more serious in the discharge of this duties and little more committed to the cause of justice. ( 5 ) TO put an accused person to a long lasting trial on an incomplete and one-sided investigation and promise to consider full facts only when they are brought before the Court at the defence stage amounts to ignoring default of the investigating Officer and clothe him with the authority to harass such a person. It may even amount to judicial sanction of substitution of 'rule of law' by the police Raj and subversion of our constitutional ideals. These consequences deserved notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while interpreting his own authority and jurisdiction in the matter. Even if he had Applied the widely used 'golden rule of Statutory Interpretation. ', he would have avoided these consequences which have the effect of defeating the object and purpose of S. 397, Cr. These consequences deserved notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while interpreting his own authority and jurisdiction in the matter. Even if he had Applied the widely used 'golden rule of Statutory Interpretation. ', he would have avoided these consequences which have the effect of defeating the object and purpose of S. 397, Cr. P. C. That this rule is applied even to statutes dealing with Criminal matters should be clear from the Supreme Court decisions in State of U. P. v. C. Tobit, AIR 1958 SC 414 at p. 416 and Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2386 . ( 6 ) WHATEVER might be the constraints of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this Court does not suffer from any such constraint, Section 482, Cr. P. C. , which is in fact invoked by the applicants, casts an obligation on this Court and otherwise secure the ends of justice. Starting proceedings which are wanting in bona fides and are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive is, without doubt, abuse of the process of the court of the Judicial Magistrate. Simply because the Investigating Officer does not conduct full, fair and independent investigation, the applicants cannot be required to go through the formality of trial and get acquitted by putting the entire material on record by way of defence. Similarly the ends of justice require that this Court consider for itself, whether there is a prima facie case against the applicants to justify their trial. Contents of the documents filed before the revisional court prima facie show that the applicant Judgal Kishor was the tenant of the disputed premises and was paying rent to the Income-tax Department iii obedience of the order issued in that behalf. There is nothing on record to explain these circumstances. These circumstances sufficiently indicate that there is bound to be denial of justice to the applicant, if they are required to undergo the full trial and these circumstances are considered only by way of defence. This Court is, therefore, under a legal obligation to use these extraordinary powers, quash proceeding before the trial Magistrate and save the applicants from the harassment inherent in the trial, which apparently is frivolous and vexatious. ( 7 ) AS a result of discussion aforesaid this application succeeds and is allowed. This Court is, therefore, under a legal obligation to use these extraordinary powers, quash proceeding before the trial Magistrate and save the applicants from the harassment inherent in the trial, which apparently is frivolous and vexatious. ( 7 ) AS a result of discussion aforesaid this application succeeds and is allowed. Proceeding in Criminal Case No. 1119/86 pending before Shri R. K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Sagar are hereby quashed and applicants discharged. Petition allowed. .