ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. These are two petitions Under [SECTION], [ACT]. As both these petitions arise out of the same incident, they are being disposed of by this single order.
2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of these applications are that [ENTITY] is alleged to have been illegally detained from 14th June to 18 June, 1977 at the Police Station Gang, Ajmer by the SHO, Shri [ENTITY], It is said that Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] sent telegrams to the Gover-Bor, Chief Secretary and Home Commissioner [ENTITY] complaining about this illegal detention. A similar telegram is reported to have been sent to the Home Minister, Government of India, New Delhi. It is said that on Aug. 26, 1977, the police constable [ENTITY] went to the house of [ENTITY] and inquired about him. As [ENTITY] was not at his house, the Police Constable directed Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] to send [ENTITY] to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Ajmer the next day. In compliance of this direction [ENTITY] went to the office of the Superintendent of Police where he found Shri [ENTITY], Sub-inspector of Police Station Gang. It is said that Shri [ENTITY] told [ENTITY] that as [ENTITY]'s wife had made complaints against him, it would be better that the matter is compromised. It is further alleged that Shri [ENTITY] asked [ENTITY] to sign the application compromising the matter. This application was ready with him duly typed in Hindi. [ENTITY] did not know Hindi. He signed the application in good faith and bona tide taking the same to be a compromise. It is said that after sometime a police constable from the Police Station, Gang came to the house of [ENTITY] and told him that he was wanted by the SHO, Gang for signing the First Information Report in the roznamcha. It is said that [ENTITY] told the constable that he had made no complaint and that there was no question of signing the roznamcha. The police constable is reported to have said that you ([ENTITY]) had made a complaint against [ENTITY] for having cheated you to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-. On enquiry, [ENTITY] learnt that the alleged compromise on which he was made to sign by Shri [ENTITY] on 27th Aug. 1977 in the office of the Superintendent of Police was nothing but a complaint Under [SECTION], [ACT] against [ENTITY]. It is said that as the entire facts in the complaint are false, and as [ENTITY] has not paid any money to [ENTITY], the question of cheating does not arise. It was further contended that in the complaint, a mention has also been made regarding the payment of money by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. This allegation also, it was said, is patently false. It is now said that the SHO is pressing [ENTITY] to make a statement in conformity with the complaint which he had made.
3. [ENTITY] has also contended that the complaint filed against him is patently false and that the SHO Shri [ENTITY] has tried to kill two birds with one stone. It is contended that if [ENTITY] does not support the complaint lodged by him, then he is liable to be prosecuted Under [SECTION], [ACT] for having lodged a false report with the police. If [ENTITY] proceeds to give evidence, he cannot do as the complaint is totally false and vexatious and the alleged transaction mentioned in the complaint never took place. It is contended that Shri [ENTITY] hag done so with a view to create a defence for himself knowing about the probable inquiry that might be held against him on the basis of the telegrams which Smt. [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] had sent.
4. It was strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioners that the powers Under [SECTION], [ACT] are very wide and that this Court should prevent the abuse of the process which is sought to be perpetuated by the SHO Shri [ENTITY]. It was also contended that the investigating agency is expected to be straightforward, honest and impartial; but in the instant case, it is alleged that the investigating agency has grossly misused its powers by fabricating false documents and by trying to implicate innocent persons in false and vexatious cases. It was, therefore, contended that it is a fit case in which the FIR alleged to have been lodged by [ENTITY] should be quashed.
5. Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT] wherein it has been held that the High Court has power Under [SECTION], [ACT] in a proper case to stop investigation by the police which could never have been made under [ACT]
6. Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT] in which it was held that (at p. 690):
The expression "in the interest of justice" used in [SECTION], would call for the interference of the High Court in the interest of justice even at the stage where only an FIR is lodged with the police, if the FIR does not disclose any offence whatsoever. For, in a matter where the FIR does not disclose any offence cognizable or non-cognizable, then allowing the investigating agency to continue with the investigation and harass a citizen would certainly not be in the interest of justice. Against this kind of harassment of a citizen, the court must exercise its inherent power whenever its assistance is sought by a citizen.
7. Reliance was placed on Ganesha-ram v. State of [ENTITY] 1968 Cri LJ 1672 (Raj) wherein it was held that (at p. 1674):
[SECTION] does not confer any power on the High Court. It only saves such inherent power which the court possessed before the [ACT] was enacted. If such a power is not so included it can be exercised for the purposes mentioned In the section and it would be a matter for determination by the Court in each individual case whether the circumstances obtaining in that case make out that purpose and make it incumbent on the court to exercise such a power to achieve the objects mentioned in the section.
8. Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT] in which it was held that there is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents had dishonest or fraudulent in- tention at the time the appellant parted' with the money. There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay the money by deceiving him. As the money was entrusted with a view to start business, and no dishonest intention was shown, the mere fact that the respondent subsequently did not abide by the commitment would not be sufficient to fasten criminal liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating.
9. Reliance was placed cm [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held that (at pp. 1128, 1129 of Cri LJ):
The High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to contirrue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made, by the legislature. As to when the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in the very nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. Consideration justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing the ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by [SECTION] ought not to be encased within the straitjacket of a rigid formula.
10. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the investigation on the complaint should be allowed to proceed. If the facts alleged by the petitioner are correct, then there is no apprehension that the investigating agency will not act in an impartial and upright manner. It was also contended that the powers Under [SECTION], [ACT] should not be exercised at the investigation stage. The investigating agency should be given a free hand in the investigation of the offences. It was also contended that if the investigating agency does not act in an impartial and upright manner then the Court has ample powers to redress the wrong at the proper stage. Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT] , wherein it was held that (at pages 868-869) :
The inherent power of High Court Under [SECTION], [ACT] cannot be exercised in regard to matters specincally covered by the other provisions of the Code. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against the accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction.
Reliance was also placed on [PRECEDENT] , wherein it was held that interference with such investigation would be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with [ACT],
11. Reliance was also placed on [PRECEDENT] , wherein it was held that :
[SECTION] deals with information in eognisiable offences and [SECTION] with investigation into such offences and under these sections the police has the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of power Under [SECTION] or under the inherent power of the Court Under [SECTION], when there was no case pending at the time excepting that the person against whom the investigation has started had appeared before the Court, had surrendered and had been admitted to bail.
12. Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT] , wherein it was held that (at p. 804) t Where at the date of filing the petition Under [SECTION], no charge-sheet or a complaint has been laid down in Court and the matter is only at the stage of investigation by police, the Court cannot, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction Under [SECTION], interfere with the statutory powers of the Police to investigate into the alleged offence, and quash the proceedings.
13. Reliance was placed on [PRECEDENT], in which it was held that :
The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping" and that the "Court's function begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then." It was added that "it has sometimes been thought that [SECTION] has given increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so, the section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possesses shall be preserved.
14. The respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused.
15. [ENTITY] has contended that he never parted with the sum of Rs. 3,000/-as is alleged in the complaint. [ENTITY] has contended that he never received the said amount, and that there were no talks between him and [ENTITY] for starting a business. Both [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], therefore, contended that as there was no entrustment of money as [ENTITY] had never parted with the money, and consequently [ENTITY] did not receive any money in entrustment, the complaint is absolutely without any legal foundation, and has been obtained in the facts and circumstances narrated above. It was strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] that an attempt on the part of the SHO, Shri [ENTITY] to fabricate documents with a view to falsely implicate innocent persons in criminal proceedings is highiy undesirable and the matter assumes a serious magnitude when such an attempt is made by a person to whom the law gives statutory powers Under [SECTION], [ACT] to investigate offences; It was also strenuously argued that the jurisdiction of the Police Station Gang does not extend to Khari Baori where the alleged offence is alleged to have been committed according to the complaint. Smt, [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] had sent telegrams against the conduct of Shri [ENTITY], and it is a strange irony of circumstances that Shri [ENTITY] should be entrusted with the task of investigating an offence over which, it is alleged, he had no initial jurisdiction.
16. According to the facts which have been laid before this Court, it appears that, as yet, even the FIR in the Roznamcha has not been signed by [ENTITY]. The investigation is alleged to be based purely on the complaint so lodged by [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] has contended and has also filed an affidavit in support of the contention that he was made to sign a typed application in Hindi in the bona fide belief that it was nothing but a compromise regarding the complaints against Shri [ENTITY]. At this stage, the Court Icannot enter into the investigation of facts. The authority who investigates into a cognizable offence, has the statutory sanction as laid down in the [ACT]. Under the inherent powers the Court will not interfere in the investigation of a cognizable offence by the police.
17. It may, however, be said in no uncertain terms that the Court possesses adequate powers to see that no vexatious or false criminal proceedings are launched against any individual. The Court, under such circumstances, shall not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers if such facts are brought to the notice of the Court at a proper stage. Persecution of an individual cannot be [permitted in false and vexatious cases, |and especially at the instance of the persons who are entrusted with the task of investigation under the statute.
18. For the reasons stated above, the application Under [SECTION], [ACT] filed by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are premature and incompetent. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] would be at liberty to move this Court at a proper stage if they feel that the investigation has not been upright and impartial.
19. A copy of this order be placed on the file of each case.