MILAP CHANDRA, J.—This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Merta City dated May 25, 1989 by which he has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioner under Sections 376/109 & 511 and 342/34, I.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. 2. In F.I.R. No. 26/87 dated May 05, 1987, P. S. Thawla (Nagaur) under Section 302, I.P.C, accused Ramlal was arrested. While he was in judicial custody, he sent certain complaints against the police officers and constables. His statement was recorded on October 05, 1988 and on its basis, F.I.R. No. 152 dated 15. 10. 1988 was registered under Sections 347, 355, 509, 166, 294/114 I.P.C. in the Police Station, Merta City. After necessary investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner under Section 342 read with Section 34, I.P.C. against the aecused-petitioner and under Sections 342/34, 330 and 116, I.P.C. against the S.H.O. Yashpal Singh and others. The accused-petitioner moved an application stating that no offence is made out against him from the material on record and cognizance cannot be taken against him for any offence. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused-petitioner as said above. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that there is absolutely no material on record against the petitioner except the statement of the A.S.I. Jagdish Singh Shekhawat recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and in this statement he has simply disclosed that while the said accused Ramial was in lock-up of the Police Station Merta City the petitioner came there once or twice and the action was taken against the said Ramial and others within knowledge. He further contends that the complaints were sent by Ramial after about eleven months of the alleged occurrence and the name of the petitioner does not find mention in any one of them and also in his statement recorded on October 05, 1988 on the basis of which the said F.I.R. No. 152 of 1988 was registered. He also contends that no offence is made out from the said statement of A.S.I. Jagdish Singh. He lastly contends that it was a part of the duty of the petitioner as the Circle Officer of the Circle to visit the Police Station as and when it was necessary. 4. He also contends that no offence is made out from the said statement of A.S.I. Jagdish Singh. He lastly contends that it was a part of the duty of the petitioner as the Circle Officer of the Circle to visit the Police Station as and when it was necessary. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor tried his best to support the order under challenge. He is repeatedly requested to point out any other material against the accused-petitioner warranting the taking of cognizance of the said offences against the accused-petitioner. He points out the statement of the said A.S.I. Jagdish Singh only and fails to point out any other material in support of the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner Prem Nath was the Circle Officer of the Police Circle, Merta and the investigation in the said F.I.R. No. 26 dated May 05, 1987 relating to the double-murder was going on in November, 1987 under his supervision and the accused Ramial (complainant of the F.I.R. No. 126/88) was arrested by the petitioner at Makrana on November 8, 1987. Rule 6.17 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 runs as under: "6.17. Supervision by Circle Officers:— (1) In all important cases Circle Officers are required personally to super-wise the investigation so far as is possible and when necessary to visit the scene of the offence. (2) Every Circle Officer shall maintain a running note-book of offence (Crime Digest) in which he shall enter the salient points of the first information report and case diaries. The following are some of the points that should be entered in this note-book:— First Information Report. -(a) Police Station, village, section, date and time of offence. (b) Distance of village from police station and date and time of investigation opening. (c) Name and rank of investigation Officer, who should always be the senior officer available. Reasons for junior officer taking up cases should be most carefully checked; and (d) Salient features of the case. Case Diaries. -(a) Dates of the case diaries. (b) By whom written and where; and (c) Salient features. All unnecessary delays in the course of investigations in challening successful cases or in submitting final reports in untraced cases should be carefully observed and stopped. Case Diaries. -(a) Dates of the case diaries. (b) By whom written and where; and (c) Salient features. All unnecessary delays in the course of investigations in challening successful cases or in submitting final reports in untraced cases should be carefully observed and stopped. Deputy Inspectors General and District Superintendent of Police shall call for these note books at their inspections and insist on their being intelligently used for the purpose of efficient supervision of investigations. (3) Circle Officers shall interest themselves in the challans of cases in their charge as they come in and discuss them with the prosecuting inspector, and if possible with the officers who investigated them; and shall keep in touch with the proceedings in court. (4) Every Circle Officer should being to the notice of the District Magistrate through the proper channel, any unnecessary delays that occur in dealing with cases in courts, instances in which witnesses come up with challans and are sent back unheard, and delays in framing charges, hearing arguments or pronouncing judgments. (5) Circle Officers should follow closely the progress of cases in their charge through the courts and they should ascertain as soon as possible, the grounds for all discharges and acquittals if the grounds for discharges or acquittals appear to be unreasonable, they should at once bring the cases prominently to the notice of the District Magistrate through the Superintendent of Police." The relevant portion of the statement of the said A.S.I. Jagdish Singh recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. runs as under: ^^fMIVh lkgc esM+rk tc jkeyky Fkkus ij Fkk rc ,d nks ckj Fkkus ij vk, FksA lkjh dk;Zokgh lh- vks- lkgc dh tkudkjh esa ykdj dh tkrh FkhA In the statement, he does not say that the petitioner gave instructions to the S.H.O. Yashpal Singh or any other police officer or constable of the P. S. Merta City in his presence. He also does not say that Ramlal and members of his family were tortured by any police officer or constable what to say under the instructions or at the instance of the petitioner. He has also not specified the actions which took place in the knowledge of the petitioner. He means to say that every action which was being taken in connection with the investigation of the said double-murder case was within the knowledge of the petitioner. He has also not specified the actions which took place in the knowledge of the petitioner. He means to say that every action which was being taken in connection with the investigation of the said double-murder case was within the knowledge of the petitioner. It does not mean that offences, if any, committed by other police officers were committed in his knowledge. The learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Merta has observed in his order under challenge as under: ^^oLrqr% bl izdj.k esa Fkkuk Fkkaoyk ds mijksDr of.kZr eqdnes ds vUos"k.k Fkkuk vf/kdkjh Fkkaoyk ls o`Rrkf/kdkjh esM++rk izseukFk lksuh dj jgs Fks vkSj mUgksaus gh jkeyky dks fxjrkj fd;kA QnZ fxjrkjh ij muds gLrk{kj gS ,oa xokg txnhkflag us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd tc Fkkus esa jkeyky ls nfj;kr rrhk dh tk jgh Fkh] rc le; ij fMIVh lkgc Fkkus eas vkrs Fks vkSj lkjh tkWp fMIVh lkgc dh tkudkjh eas ykdj dh tkrh FkhA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g c[kwch Li"V gS fd vUos"k.k o`Rrkf/kdkjh esM+rk iszeukFk lksuh [kqn o vius funsZku esa djok jgs Fks] os ml vUos"k.k ds efLr"d Fks] muds v/khuLFk deZpkjh gkFk ds :i esa dk;Z dj jgs FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd dke djus esa vka[kksa dks gkFk gh fn[kkbZ nsrs gSa] efLr"d fn[kkbZ ugha nsrk gSA esjh jk; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izseukFk lksuh ds fo:) dksbZ lk{; gh ugha gks ;k vkxs dk;Zokgh pyus ;ksX; dksbZ vk/kkj gh ekStwn ugha gksA bl izdkj ;g dguk vuqi;qDr gksxk fd bl izdj.k eas izseukFk dk dksbZ ljksdkj ugha gksA The learned Magistrate has not referred to any material on record in support of his said observations. 6. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is clear that (there is no remote possibility of conviction of the accused-petitioner for the said offences and the trial would simply amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Consequently, the order dated May 25, 1989 of the learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Merta taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner is quashed.