ORDER : The petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.12/2017 arising out of C.C.No.478/2012 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur and also sought for quashing of the entire proceedings against the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records. 3. The respondent Chikkaballapura Police have laid a charge–sheet against this petitioner and 3 others registering a case for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The allegations of the Chickaballapur Police is that, on 27.12.2011 at about 4.05 p.m., they received credible information that near Kaiwara Cross some people are cheating the public at large by saying that they will provide Rice Pulling Tumblers at cheap rates. On such information, the Petitioner, who was the PSI, went to that particular spot and caught hold those persons and recovered a sum of Rs.4,65,000/- and registered a case accordingly. Thereafter, by the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chikkaballapura, the Assistant Superintendent of Police enquired the matter and found that the petitioner has misused Rs.9,75,000/-, out of the amount seized in that case. 3. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the charge-sheet, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 17.10.2016. On the basis of such committal, the Sessions Judge has also proceeded with by initiating the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.12/2017. 4. Learned counsel raised two important grounds before this Court. Firstly, investigation done by the Police is without jurisdiction as they have not registered a case though the information disclosed cognizable offence and partly investigated the matter and thereafter registered the case and filed the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Secondly, learned counsel submitted that both the offences under Sections 201 and 420 of IPC are triable by the Magistrate, who, without looking into the provisions of IPC and corresponding provisions in Cr.P.C. has ignorantly committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge also without looking into the matter ordered to register a sessions case and proceeded with the matter. 5. On careful perusal of the first information report, the credible information is that some people are selling some Rice Pulling Machines in order to cheat the people at large. The Sessions Judge also without looking into the matter ordered to register a sessions case and proceeded with the matter. 5. On careful perusal of the first information report, the credible information is that some people are selling some Rice Pulling Machines in order to cheat the people at large. But there is no complete information given to the Police as to who are the persons involved in the particular act, in what manner the said cheating has been done, etc. Therefore, in order to ascertain whether any cognizable offence has been committed or not the Police went to that particular spot and there they found that three persons were involved in doing such an activity. 6. Therefore, in my opinion when there is doubtful circumstance to the Police with regard to the commission of cognizable offence, they can do some preliminary inquiry and thereafter register a case. That is what exactly the guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of LALITAKUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2014 SC 187 wherein the Apex Court has observed that (i) registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 7. In this particular case, it is further argued that on 29.12.2011, the Superintendent of Police, Chickaballapur, on receiving the records of this particular case, perused the amount seized by the petitioner who was the PSI who raided the spot and it is alleged that actually an amount of Rs.9,75,000/- has been seized but the said amount was kept by the PSI in some other Police Station and on receiving such information, in order to ascertain whether such an act has been committed, the Assistant Superintendent of Police had been to the Kaiwara Outpost Police Station and recorded the statement of the witnesses and on enquiry he came to know that an amount of Rs.9,75,000/- was being kept there by the petitioner for the purpose of misusing the same for his personal benefit. Here also he received the information that the petitioner has kept that money somewhere. Here also he received the information that the petitioner has kept that money somewhere. To ascertain as to the information received is genuine or not, the Assistant Superintendent of Police has visited the spot and found that the said amount was there and it was kept for the purpose of misusing, by the petitioner. Only after going to that particular spot, he came to know that this petitioner has committed alleged cognizable offence. Therefore, a case has been registered independently against this petitioner on 05.01.2012 in Crime No.4/2012, which is challenged before this Court. 8. Looking to the above-said facts and circumstances, so far as this aspect is also, in my opinion, Lalithakumari’s case is aptly applicable. Therefore, the said grounds raised by the learned counsel so far as this aspect is concerned, is not tenable. 9. The second ground urged before this Court, in my opinion, has got some legal sanctity. The learned Magistrate has committed the case though the offences are punishable under Sections 420 and 201 IPC mainly on the ground that the offences under 201 is triable by the Court of Sessions. Section 201 IPC prescribes various punishments depending upon the punishment prescribed to the main offence. Section 201 reads as follows: “Section 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believe to be false; if a capital offence.- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. if punishable with imprisonment for life. - and if offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which my extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment. if punishable with imprisonment for life. - and if offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which my extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment. - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one forth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.” 10. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC which is the main offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, it comes within the III category as mentioned in Section 201, that is, offence is, punishable to the extent of 1/4th part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the main offence, or with fine, or with both. Therefore 1/4th of 7 years maximum punishment is to be reckoned for the purpose of Section 201 of Cr.P.C. Now, if we see the Schedule 1 appended to Cr.P.C. the classification of offences and also the punishment prescribed and the court which has got jurisdiction to try the offences, Section 420 is triable by the Court of Magistrate. The schedule relating to Section 201 IPC reads as follows: -Offence Punishment Cognizable or Non-cognizable Bailable or Non-bailable By what court triable Causing disappearance of evidence an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, if a capital offence Imprisonment for 7 years and fine According as the offence in relation to which disappearance of evidence is caused is cognizable or non-cognizable Bailable Court of session If punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years Imprisonment for 3 years and fine Non-cognizable Bailable Magistrate of the first class If punishable with less than 10 years’ imprisonment Imprisonment for a quarter of the longest term provided for the offence, or fine, or both Non-cognizable Bailable Court by which the offence is triable 11. On reading of these provisions, if the imprisonment for less than 10 years the court by which the offence is triable is the court to try the offence under Section 201 also. Therefore, it goes without saying that when the offence under Section 420 IPC is triable by the Court of Magistrate, and the punishment prescribed is less than 10 years for the said offence, then, this offence under Section 201 IPC also triable by the same Magistrate. Without looking into these provisions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which is not proper. Therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside and consequently a direction should be issued to the Court of Sessions to remit the matter to the jurisdictional Magistrate for hearing on framing of charges under Sections 420 and 201 of IPC and then to proceed in accordance with law. 12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER The petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in committing the case to the Court of Sessions for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 201 IPC dated 17.10.2016 in C.C.No.478/2012 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the proceedings before the Sessions Court in S.C.No.12/2017 are also illegal. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura is hereby directed to retransmit the records to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chintamani to proceed with C.C.No.478/2012 in accordance with law.