Ram Krishna Misra vs District Cane Officer and Others

J.C. Gupta and V.K. Chaturvedi, JJ.—We have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

By means of this writ petition quashing of F.I.R. has been sought on the basis of which Case Crime No. 112 of 1999 u/s 409, I.P.C. has been registered at police station Ghosi, district Mau and is being investigated by the police. Since thev F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence, the police has a right to investigate the same under the provisions of Sections 154 to 156, Code of Criminal Procedure It is also well-established law that in respect of cognizable offence, the police has a right to investigate into the facts and circumstances without requiring any order from the judicial authorities. The function of the judiciary and the police are complementary and not overlapping. In the case of cognizable offence, the Court�s functions begin when a charge is preferred before it by the police and not until then. The police is also vested with the right to cause the arrest of the accused as the same is also a part of investigation. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes interference only in very exceptional cases where it is found that F.I.R. does not disclose commission of cognizable offence or the proceedings have been initiated malafidely or that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are so absurd and inherently improbable that no reasonable person on earth could ever take them to be true. The present case does not fall within the category of any of those cases. The question whether in fact the Petitioner has embezzled the amount alleged, is to be investigated by the police on the basis of the F.I.R.

We, therefore, do not feel inclined to interfere with the investigation which is being done by the police on the basis of F.I.R. disclosing cognizable offence.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.