Judgment : The above two petitions filed under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code are to call for the First Information Report and the records connected with Crime No.87 of 1992 on the file of the Inspector of Police, DCB/Salem and to quash the same. 2. Criminal O.P.No.4047 of 1993 is filed by three petitioners/accused, viz. (1) Srinivasan, (2) Mani and (3) Muthu. Crl.O.P.No.4048 of 1993 is filed by (1) Moorthi, (2) Jayaram Chettiar, (3) Irudayam and (4) Paari. 3. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.4048 of 1993 have stated as follows: "The petitioners submit that on 212. 1992 one T.V.A.Kumar residing at No.42, Narasimha Road, Shevapet, Salem-2 had lodged a private complaint against one J.Rajendraprasad at No.444, Shevapet Main Road, Salem-2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem on the allegation that the said Rajendraprasad had committed an offence under Secs.420, 477, 477-A and 461, I.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem had forwarded this private complaint to the Inspector of Police, DCB/Salem for investigation, under Sec.l56(3), I.P.C. on 212. 1992 itself. The same day the Inspector of Police, DCB/Salem had registered the F.I.R. against Mr.J.Rajendraprasad and also against one Gopi in Crime No.87 of 1992 and took up the investigation. The petitioners most respectfully submit that during the course of the investigation, the respondent police started harassing all the employees, relatives, workers of the business concerns of Mr.J.Rajendra Prasad. The petitioners submit that the said Rajendraprasad had obtained an anticipatory bail. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant T.V.A.Kumar and the said Mr.J.Rajendraprasad are having business enmity against each other and both of them are doing various businesses in their own capacity. In order to take revenge against Mr.J.Rajendraprasad this private complaint was filed with false contents and allegation. The Inspector of Police is unnecessarily creating problems to every one who has got connection with the business concern of Rajendraprasad and who are also known to him. The petitioners submit that either according to the private complaint of F.I.R. there is no overt acts, involvements, allegations against the petitioners in respect of the commission of the alleged offence. The petitioners names are not found in the F.I.R. or in any of the statements of witnesses recorded under Sec.161, Crl.P.C, the petitioners further submit that there is no material in the case to connect the petitioners’ as an accused. The petitioners names are not found in the F.I.R. or in any of the statements of witnesses recorded under Sec.161, Crl.P.C, the petitioners further submit that there is no material in the case to connect the petitioners’ as an accused. The petitioners submit that though the private complaint was filed against only one person now the investigating officer wanted to implicate the petitioners and others only in order to harass them. The petitioners submit that the allegation made in the private complaint is that the complainant T.V.A.Kumar had stored 450 bags of orid in Bhuvans Warehouse at Salem on the rental basis and the same was removed without the permission of the said T.V.A.Kumar by the orders of the J.Rajendraprasad who was described in the private complaint as the owner of the warehouse, that apart the complaint had also stated that Mr.J.Rajendraprasad must pay the balance of Rs.26 lakhs arrived out of various transactions and business dealings between the complaint T.V.A.Kumar and Mr.J.Rajendraprasad. The petitioners submit that the entire transaction is civil in nature and there is no prima facie of the offence made out. The petitioners submit that they have no direct dealing business correspondence bindings with either Mr.J.Rajendraprasad or the complainant T.V.A.Kumar. The petitioners are not even having remote involvements in the allegations of the complainant and therefore implicating the petitioners as accused in this case is abuse of process of law. 4. Similar averments are contained in the petition filed by the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.4047 of 1993. 5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein the said allegations are denied. 6. It is contended by the respective learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the First Information Report and there are no specific overt acts against the respective petitioners/accused in the First Information Report and that the Investigating Officer is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, Mr.S.Somasundaram, Government Advocate denies the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the investigation in the case is not yet over and as such, the First Information Report cannot be quashed and in support of his case, he has cited the ruling reported in Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary, 1993 Crl.L.J. 600, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “The inherent power conferred by Sec.482 should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of State, should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage”. 8. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that just because the names of the petitioners are not mentioned in the first information report and there are no specific overt acts against the petitioners the investigating officer has no power to investigate the matter and the entire first information report ought to be quashed. It is well-settled that first information report is not an encyclopaedia of facts and in the course of investigation, the investigating officer may come across certain evidence which will show that an offence has been committed by particular persons. Therefore, I reject the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. On the other hand, there is force and substance in the contention of Mr.Somasundaram, Government Advocate to the effect that the investigation should not be stifled. 9. In view of the above Crl.O.P.Nos.4047 and 4048 of 1993 are dismissed. 10. It is, however, observed that in the guise of investigation, the Investigating Officer should not unnecessarily harass the suspects and conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law.