JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Both these petitions have been filed with the prayer that FIR No. 5/97 lodged at Police Station, Khajuwala, District, Bikaner be quashed. It is, therefore, proper that both the petitions should be disposed of by a common order. 3. According to the petitioners, Shri Vijay Singh, has lodged the FIR No. 5/97 at Police Station, Khajuwala, District, Bikaner. The allegations in the FIR No. 5/97 are to the effect that in Chak No. 18 Kyo, murraba nos. 117/37 and 117/45. Crop was standing in 13 Bighas and 12 biswas and 6 Birhas 8 Biswas land vacant. The above mentioned land was in possession of the Tehsildar, Revenue. The Tehsildar had taken possession in pursuance of the order no. 259/96. It was further stated in the FIR that by order dated 12.9.1996. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur directed that the status quo be maintained up to 30.10.1996. In compliance of this order, the crop standing in the field was looked after. On 5.11.1996, when the complainant went to the above mentioned field, he found that Baldev Singh alongwith Loona Ram Meghwal and Birsa Singh had damaged the crop standing in 3 bighas of land. They had removed the crop from the field and handed over the same to Shri Baldev Singh who promised to sell the same and give 1/4th of the price to them. It was also mentioned in the FIR that a site plan was prepared. A prayer was made in the report that action be taken for the offence of theft which had been committed. 4. On the basis of information given by Shri Vijay Singh the Officer Incharge of Police Station, Khajuwala registered the FIR No. 5/97 and started the investigation. 5. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that FIR No. 5/97 be quashed. According to the averments made in the petition, the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners in the year 1971 on temporary basis. Later on it was allotted to them on permanent basis in the year 1974. After permanent allotment of land, a complaint was made to the higher authorities for cancellation of the allotment. An appeal was also filed for cancellation of allotment but the same was rejected. Later on it was allotted to them on permanent basis in the year 1974. After permanent allotment of land, a complaint was made to the higher authorities for cancellation of the allotment. An appeal was also filed for cancellation of allotment but the same was rejected. Therefore, another appeal filed by one Kewal Chand and in that appeal, the order of allotment was cancelled. The petitioner Gopal Lal preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the order of cancellation of allotment. The appeal was decided against the petitioner Gopal Lal. Thereafter, Gopal Lal approached the State Government and also filed a writ petition in the High Court. The State Government allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner and also issued direction to the local authorities as well as to the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,000/- for the land. The petitioner Gopal Lal deposited Rs. 2,000/- as per directions of the State Government. His case is that he continues to be in possession of the land in dispute. The writ petition filed by Gopal Lal is alleged to pending before the High Court. Kewal Chand also filed a writ petition against the order passed by the State Government in the revision filed by Gopal Lal. In that writ petition, a stay order was granted and in pursuance of the stay order, the Tehsildar took possession of the land from the petitioner. When the petitioner, Gopal Lal came to know about it, he filed the reply of the stay application before the High Court and in the reply he alleged that he was in physical and continuous possession of the land in dispute and that the crop standing in the field belonged to him. The case of the petitioner Gopal Lal is that the High Court directed that status quo be maintained and this direction protest his possession. 6. On the basis of circumstances mentioned above, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner Gopal Lal that no offence of theft has been committed by him and, therefore, the FIR No. 5/97 deserves to be quashed. Baldev Singh, the petitioner in S.B, Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 271/97 is an employee of Gopal Lal. 7. 6. On the basis of circumstances mentioned above, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner Gopal Lal that no offence of theft has been committed by him and, therefore, the FIR No. 5/97 deserves to be quashed. Baldev Singh, the petitioner in S.B, Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 271/97 is an employee of Gopal Lal. 7. The only question is to be decided in both these petitions is whether the FIR No. 5/97 deserves to be quashed at this stage. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the land in dispute was in possession of the Tehsildar and crop had been removed from the land without his permission. Whether the Tehsildar took possession of the land rightly or wrongly does not arise for decision in these petitions. Prima facie the allegation made in the FIR show that the Tehsildar was in possession of the disputed land and crop had been removed without his permission. Whether the petitioner Gopal Lal removed the crop in bonafide exercise of his right believing himself to be entitled to remove the same cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It is for the Investigating Officer to collect all relevant facts and thereafter form opinion whether an offence under Section 379 IPC has been committed and if so committed then who are the culprits. An application for anticipatory bail appears to have been filed by the petitioner Gopal Lal in the Court of Sessions and on that application, the learned Sessions Judge has given a direction that the petitioner Gopal Lal shall not be arrested without the prior permission of the Court. 8. It is well established that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Station House Officer of a police station has statutory powers of registering a case and investigate into a cognizable offence. It is also well established that the functions of police and Court are not overlapping but complementary to each other as held by their Lordship of Privi Council in Najir Ahmad's Case ( AIR 1945 PC 18 ) . The public interest also requires that investigation into cognizable offences should be made by the police promptly so that the truth of allegations may be ascertained and guilty persons may be brought to trial without delay. The public interest also requires that investigation into cognizable offences should be made by the police promptly so that the truth of allegations may be ascertained and guilty persons may be brought to trial without delay. Under Section 157 Cr.P.C., the minimum ground necessary for commencing investigation into cognizable offences is the reasonable suspicion of the Station House Officer of the Police Station. In the instant case, the contents of the FIR No. 5/97 registered at Police Station, Khajuwala clearly show that there was sufficient ground for registering a case under Section 379 IPC and to commence the investigation under Sections 156 and 157 Cr.P.C. On the date of the alleged occurrence, the possession on the disputed land was allegedly that of Tehsildar who is a public servant and has no personal interest. Therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR is motivated with the desire to harrasse on the petitioners or to abuse the process of law. Suffice it to say that there is no sufficient ground for quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. I, therefore, do no find any force in these petitions. Both the petitions are dismissed. Nothing contained in this order shall come in the way of the Investigating Officer arriving at independent conclusion after the conclusion of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners wants to file certain documents during the investigation. No separate order in this behalf is necessary. The Investigating Officer conducting the investigation into cognizable offences is expected to collect all relevant evidence. If the persons against whom the FIR has been lodged wants to give an information to the officer conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer may collect such information from them.Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.Petition Dismissed. *******