Honble SINGH, J.–This petition has been fild with a prayer that the first information report No.48 of 1996 relating to offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 1203 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, be quashed. (2). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prose- cutor and perused the case-diary relating to investigation started on the basis of F.I.R. No. 48/96 of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. (3). In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the above- mentioned F.I.R. No. 48 of 1996 of P.S. Hanumangarh Junction be quashed. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be summarised as below. (4). On 23.01.96, a report sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh was received by the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. In that report, it was alleged that a complaint was received againt Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand (minors), sons of Jagar Ram, b/c Nayak, that they had obtained a certificate showing that they were bona fide residents of village Jakharawali (Tehsil Pilibanga) from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction, without being entitled thereto, and on inquiry the complaint was found to be correct. The Station House Officer of the Police Station was asked to take appropriate action in the matter. (5). On the basis of the above mentioned report of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the police registered a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. (6). The petitioners case is that he is a Patwari and he was asked to give a report regarding the residence of Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand, sons of Jagar Ram, and he gave a report showing that Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand were residents of Jakharawali (Tehsil Pilibanga) and the petitioner while giving his report bona fide believed that the above named persons viz., Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand, sons of Jagar Ram, were in fact the bona fide residents of village Jakharawali (Tehsil Pilibanga) and, therefore, he has not committed any offence in this case and the police wants to arrest him and, therefore, the first information report may be quashed so far as he is concerned. (7). (7). The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition and submitted that investigation has been conducted and some progress has been made and a factual report has already been prepared by the Station House Officer and several persons were involved in the commission of the alleged offences and, therefore, quashing of the first information report would not be justified according to law. (8). I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not disputed that Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand, sons of Jagar Ram, obtained the certificate of being bona fide residents of village Jakharawali (Tehsil Pilibanga). It is not disputed that the above-mentioned certificates were issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh Junction after obtaining the reports in order to satisfy himself whether the applicants were in fact the residents of village Jakharwali (Tehsil Pilibanga). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the allegation made in the report sent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the Police Station was false or it was malicious. Prima facie an offence of cheating appears to have been committed by making a false representation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand were bona fide residents of village Jakharawali and that they were entitled to certificates of being bona fide residents of the above- named village. In these circumstances, the prayer for quashing the first information report cannot be accepted. (9). The apprehension of the petitioner that during investigation the police might arrest him for making the report to the effect that Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand sons of Jagar Ram were bona fide residents of Jakharawali and that if he is arrested by the police then being a public servant he may be automatically suspended and he may be subjected to much harassment, is not sufficient to justify the quashing of the first information report. The statutory power of the police to investigate cognizable offences cannot be taken away or curtailed unnecessarily merely because some persons who were involved in the alleged action/omission apprehend that they may be arrested during the investigation. It is the function of the police to investigate a case in a diligent manner with a view to ascertaining the truth and exercise the power to vested in them in accordance with law for serving the ultimate ends of justice. It is the function of the police to investigate a case in a diligent manner with a view to ascertaining the truth and exercise the power to vested in them in accordance with law for serving the ultimate ends of justice. The power to make arrest is available to the investigating officer under the Criminal Procedure Code but this power is required to be exercised in accordance with law and in a just manner. Merely because the power is there, it does not justify the arrest of any person. There must be a legal justification for the purpose of exercising the power make arrest. Section 438, Cr.P.C. empowers this Court and the Court of Sessions to direct the release of persons who apprehend their arrest in connection with non-bailable offence in the event of their being arrested provided the Court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for giving such a direction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner while acting as Patwari of the Halka was required to give a report about rhe residence of Bhura Ram and Dharam Chand and he gave his report in their favour. He does not appear to have forged any document himself or used any forged document himself. Whether the petitioner had reason to believe that the report which he was making was correct or he knowingly made a false report is a matter which can be considered only after collecting all relevant evidence. At this Stage it cannot be decided finally. In the circumstances of the case, it would be proper to give a direction to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction that so far as the petitioner is concerned the guidelines given by the Honble Supreme Court in Jogendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. (1) should be strictly complied with. It has been pointed out by the Honble Supreme Court in that case that mere power to make arrest does not justify the arrest. There should be a legal justification for making the arrest. It is, therefore, directed that the accused-petitioner shall not be arrested unless legal justification for making his arrest in accordance with the guidelines given by the Honble Supreme Court appears to exist in view of the evidence collected during the investigation. (10). There should be a legal justification for making the arrest. It is, therefore, directed that the accused-petitioner shall not be arrested unless legal justification for making his arrest in accordance with the guidelines given by the Honble Supreme Court appears to exist in view of the evidence collected during the investigation. (10). With the above observation, the petition is dismissed so far as the prayer for quashing the first information report is concerned.