Judgment P. K. Sinha, J. 1. This application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code in short) is for quashing order dated 10.5.2002 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai took cognizance of offence against the petitioner, on submissions of the charge-sheet, under Sec.409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The only ground that was pressed into service was that the FIR in the case, vide Annexure-1, was lodged against the petitioner as well against Binod Kumar Sinha, both Nazirs at Bhagwanpur Block, for criminal breach of trust for various amounts. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Binod Kumar Sinha, who also faced departmental proceeding, when he deposited the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him, the District Magistrate, Begusarai issued order communicated by the Deputy Collector (Establishment) (Annexure-8), recorded on an application filed by Binod Kumar Sinha, that since he had deposited the money and since his suspension was also withdrawn and departmental proceeding was going-on, there was no justification of continuing investigation on the basis of FIR against him, directing to drop further investigation against him, and the Superintendent of Police, acting on that had ordered for filing of final report against him in the case. The only grievance of the petitioner was that this petitioner who also was similarly situated had also deposited the amount said to have been defalcated by him but the police submitted charge-sheet against him. Learned counsel argued that when after depositing amount Binod Kumar Sinha could be exonerated on that ground alone by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, there was no reason for this petitioner to have been treated differently. 3. Obviously order was issued from the office of the District Magistrate, at Annexure-8, while the investigation was continuing. In the final report, at Annexure-2 it has been mentioned that after investigation the case against both the accused was found true under Sec.409 of the Penal Code with sufficient evidence against them but in the light of the notes issued by the Sub-divisional Police Officer, the charge-sheet was being submitted against the petitioner who was in custody, but further investigation was to continue against Binod Kumar Sinha (who had not even surrendered in the Court ). 4. 4. In the counter-affidavit the State has admitted in paragraphs 14 and 15 that final report against Binod Kumar Sinha was submitted on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate, Begusarai but no such report (read order) was received from the District. Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit is the same as Annexure-8 to the petition. Annexure-E is the report issued by the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai stating therein that the case under Sec.409 of the Penal Code was found true against both the accused and that charge-sheet against the petitioner was submitted but so far Binod Kumar Sinha was concerned, memo was received from the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Begusarai stating that for the same allegations there was no justification in running the departmental and criminal proceedings side by side, hence Binod Kumar Sinha should be exonerated from the criminal proceeding. In the light of the aforesaid direction, as per this annexure, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer had recommended to close the investigation against him showing Binod Kumar Sinha to be innocent which recommendation was acceded to by the Superintendent of Police who ordered for filing final report against him. 5. Now I will discuss as to whether in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, legally similar benefit can be given to this petitioner. 6. Section 156 of the Code empowers Officer-in-charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case without order of Magistrate. Sec.157 of the Code prescribes the procedure of such investigation. Sec.173 of the Code deals with submission of the report of the Police Officer on completion of the investigation. The Code does not prescribe for any interference into an investigation by police, and it is the police alone which can formulate an opinion on the basis of the materials accumulated in course of investigation as to whether or not there was sufficient material to file a report, for taking cognizance against an accused, before the competent Court. Even the Courts are not empowered to interfere into an investigation by police. A decision to that effect may be seen in the case of Emperors V/s. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18, which view has been followed in various decisions coming thereafter. 7. Even the Courts are not empowered to interfere into an investigation by police. A decision to that effect may be seen in the case of Emperors V/s. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18, which view has been followed in various decisions coming thereafter. 7. Therefore, it would appear that legally in the case of Binod Kumar Sinha the District Magistrate, Begusarai was not authorised to give any direction to the police as to how it should conclude its investigation. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is not of the opinion that since the police had submitted final report against Binod Kumar Sinha, though there were evidences against him for the alleged offence, at the interference of the District Magistrate, this petitioner who also had deposited the amount alleged to have been defalcated, should be given the same treatment under law. Two wrongs do not make one right. This petition, therefore, is dismissed. 9. I make it clear that whatever observations have been made in this order relating to Binod Kumar Sinha have been made solely for finding out as to whether the petitioner could also be granted the same privilege under law. Since Binod Kumar Sinha is not a party to this petition, none of the observations made in his regard would affect the decisions taken in his case.