Honble KHAN, J.–The notice was given to P.P. and learned counsel for the parties were heard. (2). The petitioner had a licence issued under the provision of Rajasthan Foodgrain and Essential Commodities Articles (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1976 promulgated under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act). His business premises were inspected during the period between 8.7.96 to 22.7.96. He was allegedly found to have committed violation of certain conditions of the licence issued to him. It appears that Assistant Supply Officer, who had inspected his business premises, recommended for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. Such licence appears to have been cancelled by the appropriate authority. The petitioner approached the appropriate authority and succeeded in getting interim relief in that behalf. (3). On the basis of the inspection made between 18.7.96 to 22.7.97 by Mr. Subhash Kumawat. A.D.S.O. Headquarter Rajasthan, Jaipur, an FIR No. 561/97 was registered at Police Station Sanganer (Jaipur). For cancellation of that FIR the peti- tioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (4). The main contention of Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Shri Subhash Kumawat, A.D.S.O. (Head quarter) was not competent to conduct search and, therefore, the basis of initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was bad in law. (5). In the case of State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh & Ors. (1), it was ruled by the Supreme Court that evidence collected during investigation in violation of statutory provision does not become inadmissible and the trial on the basis thereof does not get vitiated. Therefore, if the evidence has been collected in respect of the breach of subject conditions for the licence in the present case in violation of some executive arrangements, the evidence so collected may still be used against the petitioner at his trial, if any, if before filing the F.I.R. the Supply Department feels satisfied on material collected against the petitioner through any of its officer, the investigation initiated on such F.I.R. can not be held as being without jurisdiction. (6). The FIR lodged against the petitioner prima-facie discloses commission of certain economic offences and, therefore, it can not be said that the investigation is bad in law. In this respect the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand & Anr. (2), may be referred to. (6). The FIR lodged against the petitioner prima-facie discloses commission of certain economic offences and, therefore, it can not be said that the investigation is bad in law. In this respect the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand & Anr. (2), may be referred to. Their Lordships observed that the accused involved in an economic offence destabilises the economy and causes grave incursion on the economic planning of the State, when the legislature entrust the power to the police officer to prevent organised commission of the offence or offences involving moral turpitude or crimes of grave nature and are entrusted with the power to investigate into the crime in intractable terrains and secretive manner in concert, greater circumspection and care and caution should be borne in mind by the High Court when it exercises its inherent power. Otherwise, the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and to grave risk. The accused will have field day in destablising the economy of the State regulated under the relevant provisions. (7). In the case of A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr. (3), it was ruled by the Apex Court that the doctrine of locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence and since a crime committed by a person is in fact a crime committed against the people at large, any person, aggrieved by such offence may put the machinery of law into motion, if not provided otherwise by the relevant law enact- ing such offence. If an act or omission amounts to a cognizable offence under the relevant law and such law does not provide for a particular mode of putting the machinery of law into motion and does not restrict the power of police u/s. 154/157 Cr.P.C. to investigate such offence, a police officer, competent to investigate such offence, would be well within his powers to investigate that offence. The functions of the police and the courts are in fact supplementary to each others and not over-lapping and if the police is, without violating any provision of the relevant law, investigating a crime, the Court should not interfere with the discharge of statutory duty by the police. The functions of the police and the courts are in fact supplementary to each others and not over-lapping and if the police is, without violating any provision of the relevant law, investigating a crime, the Court should not interfere with the discharge of statutory duty by the police. In the present case, since the F.I.R. lodged by the Supply Department against the petitioner prima-facie disclosed the commission of certain economic offences not only against the economy of the State but also people at large and an officer legally competent to investigate such offence is investigating the same, there is absolutely no ground to quash the F.I.R. and the investigation being carried-on the basis of such F.I.R. (8). In the result this petition has no merits as there is absolutely no case for exercising the exceptional powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the benefit of the petitioner. (9). The petition is dismissed.